Console CryEngine 2 will be shown at GDC; console Crysis still not confirmed
by Alexander Sliwinski 
{ Jan 29th 2008 at 12:00PM }
Although the implication of this news is that Crysis is making its way to consoles after a less-than-stellar PC performance, the latest rumors talk about a Crysis 1.5 for PS3. This would be very similar to what Crytek already did when its first game Far Cry was altered for consoles.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Deck @ Jan 29th 2008 12:07PM
I hope that this is a sign that Crysis is coming to the 360 and PS3. I really want to play the game.. just can't run it on my rig!
Hopefully they actually confirm that it is or confirm that it isn't, and not just give us a 3d model example of what it'll be like on the 360 and PS3. (The engine that is)
xFenixKnightx @ Jan 29th 2008 12:23PM
Wow, heres hoping it IS Crysis =)running on them.
I just want to see them port this game and say
"we squeezed all the juice out of the PS3 and 360", and this is what we came up with.
C'mon EA you bastards dont you like $$$?!!!
(Rhetorical question Farley)
na2ru1 @ Jan 31st 2008 9:23AM
The HDD requirement on PC is 12 GB as far as i remember.
They gna seriouly hav to dumb it down if they wanna fit on disc without having HDD as mandatory for a particular console.
(i wud hav not hated if that console was on par in terms of storage cache and optical storage capacity....im sure we cud hav got along with HDDVD and BLuray for console sakes. N64 got along nicely with cartridges)
BananaBoat @ Jan 29th 2008 12:09PM
Hopefully they'll skip right past porting Crysis, and make a good game for the consoles. Crysis looks AMAZING, but it's not innovative in the least, unless you count semi-accurate tree damage.
It's a shame noone bought it though. Could make some pretty amazing mods on the included editor. Guess that ship sailed.
Mr.ESC @ Jan 29th 2008 12:29PM
Is just me or Force Unleashed looks more impressive than Crysis?
In my point of view Crysis looked a bit generic except for the totally awesome graphics and damage models.
Basically is a game to show off your new computer.
Ted @ Jan 29th 2008 12:34PM
People keep saying that it's not innovative and I keep disagreeing. Sure there are bits that aren't innovative, but the jungle bits in the first third or so of the game are incredible and extremely replayable. If the whole game had been linear but without the polish of CoD4 then I would have complained, but as it is I find it pushes the enveloppe.
BananaBoat @ Jan 29th 2008 12:41PM
It would be innovative, if it weren't almost exactly the same as Farcry, but on a new (incredible) engine.
I think Crysis is out Crysis'd by Crackdown. Why do I have a nano-suit if it only makes me jump slightly higher, or run slightly faster? What is the point? Give me a game on the new engine, but in an urban environment, and give me the ability to leap tall buildings in a single bound ala superman, or run super fast like the flash. Don't give me very slightly altered human abilities. I get those from EVERY other FPS where I can take 20 bullet hits and survive.
Ted @ Jan 29th 2008 1:30PM
Good point about the super powers. That would indeed be cool. I have not tried Crackdown. I still stand by Crysis though, the nano suit adds a lot to the Far Cry formula as it increases the tactical possibilities hugely. I have been replaying Crysis a lot more than I ever replayed Far Cry. In that sense it's adding more and it's innovating the Far Cry 'subgenre' as it were, and at the same time introducing moving the FPS genre forward. I think the boundaries of what was achieved in Far Cry have been pushed, and few FPS's have even matched Far Cry in the first place.
FYI I have responded to your reply to my comment below.
Sagan @ Jan 29th 2008 2:26PM
Why is it that people are starting to dislike THIS game? People who haven't even played it. According to Metacritic the lowest review for this game was 8/10 and even that claimed that it was "mostly amazing" (1up). Even Yahtzee recommends this game. So this is most certainly an amazing game.
So what could possibly be the reason, that people are starting to dislike this game, even though they haven't played it?
Ted @ Jan 29th 2008 3:58PM
imo I think it's just become the 'cool' thing to bash this game. I think it's a response to a perceived elitism from Crysis because of the high PC requirements and the PC exclusivity. People start off negatively disposed towards it.
Another problem is that when you play a game at low framerates its a lot less fun.
Remember when Oblivion came out? No computers could play it at high res, full graphics settings. It also got high reviews, and it also got bashed a lot in forums. I think that is the key issue why the popular thing to do is to criticize it. I think critics spend a lot more time analysing their feelings about a game and seperating the superficial factors from their judgement.
na2ru1 @ Jan 31st 2008 12:07PM
@BananaBoat
But ppl continue to praise Halo. Wots innovative about it again?
Crysis has sandbox environment. U hav several ways of aproaching enemies. U can ACTUALLY RUN lol unlike 1 particle NEXT GEN GAME. Destructability adds to the innovation in terms of how to appoach enemies. Walking thru trees now alert enemies. Grab enemies.
I really want this game to be possible in consoles but i doubt it
Scotto @ Jan 29th 2008 12:20PM
My Intel Core2Duo E6750 with 3GB of RAM, and a GeFore 8800 GTS could barely run the demo in mostly Medium settings. And at mostly Medium settings, it really didn't look any better than any other PC game - in fact, it looked a little worse.
Crytek/EA deserve the lack of sales with that game. It's FarCry + Nanosuit, designed for a computer setup that very few people own.
And if you decide to appeal to a very small hobby demographic, you get very small hobby demographic sales.
Nonetheless, I may be willing to take a look at a console version of the game, provided it's well done - not like the FarCry console games.
- Scott
Arnob @ Jan 29th 2008 12:40PM
sorry, i've gotta call bs on that one or something
i have a laptop with a 8600m gt 256mb, 2 gig of ram, core2duo t7300...and i was able to run it at medium at a decent resolution.
I'm not saying its not a demanding game or that its very good at scaling back for lower end users (the low/medium settings look like doodoo for how much computing is required)but you should still be able to run it at that setting with your specs...maybe the drivers need to be updated?
sstanleyosborne @ Jan 29th 2008 12:58PM
You have an equipment problem. I'm playing on High with
my E6600,2GB,ATI 3780 w/512k.
Scotto @ Jan 29th 2008 12:55PM
In fairness, I should have specified that my monitor's native resolution is 1680x1050. Anything else, and you get blurry pixel-stretching goodness.
But yes, I actually run the latest beta nVidia Forceware drivers.
Team Fortress 2 is more graphically impressive to me, than Crysis on medium settings. And it runs at a far better clip with everything on high settings, too.
capt_carl @ Jan 29th 2008 12:54PM
I have to call bull on this too.
I have a E6750 Conroe core 2.66, two 8800GTS 640s in SLI, and two gigs of high performance Corsair XMS2 series memory, and I run on High without AA on at 1680x1050, running Vista. It hiccups every now and then, but otherwise it's playable. I've been meaning to try 1280x720 (aka 720p) in a window to see if performance is better, but I've been lazy.
The game should scale back for older PCs, but CryEngine2 will be the benchmark engine for several years to come. CryEngine2 is going to make the hardware manufacturers TRY to build something better, faster, and smaller in order to run the game well. A perfect example of the industry working to better themselves is Apple and Intel with the new MacBook Air. A Core 2 Duo that's 60% smaller is a massive engineering feat, but Intel pulled it off because Apple pushed them. Core 2's are small as they are, but one that's the size of a dime and the thickness of a nickel is just amazing.
To quote one of my favorite movies, if you build it, they will come. It's just a matter of time.
Scotto @ Jan 29th 2008 12:57PM
capt_carl: You're running two 640MB 8800 GTS cards in SLI. I'm running one 320MB 8800GTS.
- Scott
capt_carl @ Jan 29th 2008 1:30PM
Scott: Before I upgraded to Vista I was using one 8800GTS 640 and running on High. Performance wasn't anywhere as good as it could've been, so I bumped it to Medium. Now that I got two cards and Vista I'm running High and it runs well.
On Team Fortress 2: compared to other Source games, TF2 really isn't that graphic-intensive with an exception of gibs flying. Does HL2:ep2 run as well at maxed settings? Doubtful because HL2:ep2 has much more detailed environments.
jynxycat @ Jan 29th 2008 2:07PM
It's because the 8800GTS 640/320mb card is complete garbage.
The new 512 model is built on the G92 core, with the 8800GT, and both being completely worth it.
Jeff @ Jan 29th 2008 2:08PM
Was that a GTS 320MB? My GTS 640 can run the game on high at 30 FPS constantly, and 60 FPS in multiplayer... and my processor is a $100 AMD Athlon, and I only have 2 gigs of RAM....
Jeff @ Jan 29th 2008 2:11PM
Ouch, so it is a GTS 320. Why'd you bother to post your other specs? Obviously your garbage card is going to hold back your amazing processor.
Mr.ESC @ Jan 29th 2008 12:27PM
I would totally buy the PS3 port even if it is a bit crappy compared to the PC version.
If there is a XB360 version I wouldn't dare to run it but I would be interested.
xFenixKnightx @ Jan 29th 2008 12:34PM
"If there is a XB360 version I wouldn't dare to run it"
Thems fightin' words boa!! Your askin for a whoopin'
aint cha?
LUL!
KushielsScion007 @ Jan 29th 2008 12:44PM
Sorry but I'm as big a 360 fanboy as any other and I'd be scared to death to pop in a 360 version of Crysis disc on my 360 Elite. The sounds of agony and distress coming from the loading times alone would probably drive me crazy....
Although I could be wrong. Hell I hope I am cuz I love my 360 to death and so far its been behaving pretty good despite the one incident with Bioshock.
CB17 @ Jan 29th 2008 1:40PM
Actually it would probably run way better considering the 360's graphics card is WAY BETTER...
Ted @ Jan 29th 2008 12:38PM
If a quad core, SLi 8800GTX, 2GB RAM computer can't play this at full graphics settings in 1080p, I don't see how the 7000 series equipped PS3 could possibly handle it... They'll presumably have to make serious compromises and make it 720p *sigh*
BananaBoat @ Jan 29th 2008 12:49PM
The resolution you play this game at doesn't make one bit of difference. The game looks great at 720p, if you have it on High/Very High. I couldn't tell the difference between when I had it on 720p, and 1080p, except for the MASSIVE framerate hit.
Crysis also doesn't need any AS or AA enabled. I didn't enable either, and I didn't notice a single jaggy.
Above you talk about the "Polish of COD4", so either you didn't hear about how it's not even 720p (and thus you are still deluded into thinking that games need to be 1080p to look good) or you just forgot.
xFenixKnightx @ Jan 29th 2008 12:53PM
PWNAGE!!!
Ted @ Jan 29th 2008 1:22PM
The polish I was referring to in CoD4 was regarding the gameplay... It has a very polished single player campaign which is why I don't mind the fact that it's linear as much. So the fact that I said that is irrelevant.
Anyway, even if I were referring to the graphics as polished, I don't have CoD4 on PS3, I play it on the PC at 1920x1200 resolution. I haven't compared 720p CoD4 on a TV to 1920x1200 CoD4 on a monitor so I wouldn't be able to pass judgement on that.
Still, I disagree with you. 1080p makes a BIG difference.
Maybe your monitor is lower than 1920x1200.In that case, scaling doesn't come into it and it would look fine. But if your monitor were 1920x1200 then the game starts to look pretty crappy at lower resolutions. I would MUCH rather tweak the details and keep the res at the max than lower the res and put it on 'very high'.
I'm just taking that same logic and applying it to a TV. My TV is 1080p and although I haven't seen any PS3 games that are 1080p natively yet, I've definitely noticed that games like Ratchet and Clank and Assassin's Creed look significantly less crisp in the graphics department than my PC games do at my monitor's native res.
Oh, and @ xFenixKnightx... No, NOT pwnage, sorry. ;)
Jeff @ Jan 29th 2008 2:09PM
Crysis, like every other demanding PC game in history, requires people to lower the resolution a bit.
And as for anti-aliasing... the Cryengine has built-in edgeAA that comes into effect on high and very high shader level at a vastly reduced performance hit compared to regular AA.
Ted @ Jan 29th 2008 4:06PM
"I couldn't tell the difference between when I had it on 720p, and 1080p"
Actually, my bad, it looks like you do in fact have a 1920x1200 PC monitor, or you've connected up your PC to a 1920x1080 TV.
Seriously though? Do you not get the pixel stretching, blurry mess that I get when I play with lower than native res? I have friends who are completely non-gamers and even they can see the difference when I show them Crysis @ 1920x1200 on 'Very High' to impress them with the graphics (even though I only get like 5 fps lol)
BananaBoat @ Jan 29th 2008 6:11PM
I didn't play it on a monitor, I played it on a 1080p TV with a built in scaler. While alot of monitors might have terrible scalers (and the same is true for TV's) the particular scaler used by my TV is able to upscale things from 720p to 1080p without the horrible stretching effect that has plagued LCD monitors for so long.
Really, that is one of the things people should think about when they buy a monitor. Sure you can get the 24 incher at 1080p (or 1200p, etc) but that only means you'll need to upscale games, video, etc. I don't have the hard numbers, but COD4 surely isn't natively 1080p, so your computer is scaling it from whatever that native resolution happens to be, to 1080p (the same thing that happens with the game on the Xbox/PS3). The result is a game that looks almost the same whether you play it on the PC, or the 360, or the PS3.
Well, whatever. If Crysis honestly looks bad on your monitor at 720p/Very High, then your monitor isn't doing effective scaling, or your graphics card isn't.
GRANTED @ Jan 29th 2008 12:54PM
graphics are cool and all but what made crysis intriguing to me were the destructible environments: nature, houses, etc. 720p is fine for my purposes (even 600p looks pretty damn good)-- i want a game that mimics reality more, rather than makes me a superhero (done it, not impressed). in that sense, force unleashed looks like a monster game, and hopefully more devs will look at it and try blending physics and motion engines to create a visually and strategically unique game.
Cyro @ Jan 29th 2008 1:03PM
"Crytek will also show off "how well the fully optimized" engine runs on a PC costing around $600."
LMAO! This is what I call magic stunt!
Probably have a $8,000.00 PC hidden under the desk running it.
Mr.ESC @ Jan 29th 2008 1:13PM
It sounds possible,they just have to show Far cry :P
Jeff @ Jan 29th 2008 1:14PM
"The CryEngine 2 is best known for making PCs across the planet chug in pain attempting to run Crysis at high settings"
This site is so ridiculously bad at journalism. None of you guys even own a gaming rig, and clearly no PC gaming manufacture will sponsor this site for obvious reasons. "High" settings, in DX9, are as easy to run as just about any other PC game.
"Crytek will also show off "how well the fully optimized" engine runs on a PC costing around $600."
Damn right.
xFenixKnightx @ Jan 29th 2008 1:29PM
Jeff
I was actually thinking of getting a "gaming rig" just this morning, but now if they actually DO port this over to consoles what other games are there on PC or that are coming soon to PC that would be good enough to make me actually order that gaming rig?
Cyro @ Jan 29th 2008 1:51PM
Jeff get back to your torrents so you can download the next game you are going to play in your "personalized Sky" net computer.
Jeff @ Jan 29th 2008 1:56PM
Well, personally I would only recommend buying a computer for gaming if you were already planning on buying a computer anyway. Otherwise... it's expensive as hell. If you were gonna get a computer either way... it's cheap as hell. Go pickup a $600 Dell, Compaq... whatever at a brick-and-mortar. Then buy an 8800 GT, and you're absolutely golden for every game in existence. Crysis will only run at 30 FPS completely maxed out (and around 60 FPS in multiplayer), but a console gamer certainly won't complain about that. Every other game in existence you can run in true-HD resolutions at 60 FPS or better with massive AA, better textures, and all that crap.
Personally, I think the Valve games all play best on PC. Nothing like Team Fortress with no lag and 32 players... everything in the Orange Box well above 60 FPS at 1080p.
I'm excited for Starcraft II, although legend has it that it might get ported to consoles.
Honestly, PC gaming isn't really necessary if you already console-game. Most of the best games on PC will also come out for consoles-- it's not a platform big on "exclusives". In my opinion, and many others, its just the platform where you get the best version of many games. Obviously graphically it beats consoles by a longshot. The other aspects are a little more subtle: online gaming typically has much less lag; you have your choice of any input device (I have keyboard and mouse, a 360 controller, and a ps3 controller that I can use with any game), and it just offers you much more freedom.
Not necessary for everyone. It's certainly a niche market.
Jeff @ Jan 29th 2008 1:58PM
I have never pirated a game, and I'm actually in favor of including much more anti-piracy on PC games... so that this market can become more profitable.
My computer is actually pretty modest, also. Not really sure what the point of your post was except to be a douche.
jynxycat @ Jan 29th 2008 2:11PM
I download anything and everything, and while I'd love to have PC games crack down on piracy to help profits, it's just not possible. The platform is just too open, and unless it requires a client/server interaction, it's not doable.
Even then, Steam has been worked around, CoD4 can be played on "modified" servers without a key, etc.
It's the nature of the beast. We get free online, updates, mods, SDKs, etc. for a reason. The platform the games are on is completely open.
BugGuy @ Jan 29th 2008 2:39PM
You know the deal Jeff. I've been building my own PC's
and gaming for longer than I can remmember and I've never run into a problem running a game at playable framerates. I have yet to come across a game that I felt
needed to run a 90FPS to be enjoyable. I ran the Crysis
demo smoothly on my AMD 64x2 3800 with everything on med. I guess it's not the gear,it's how well you get the gear to work.
Pete @ Jan 29th 2008 1:17PM
"This would be very similar to what Crytek already did when its first game Far Cry was altered for consoles."
Crytek didn't really develop Far Cry Instincts...Ubisoft Montreal did. It was a spin off that was almost nothing like the real Far Cry aside from the environment, which looked terrible by comparison.
SeriousKriss @ Jan 29th 2008 1:36PM
Oh what a big surprise, Joystiq STILL beleives that Crysis was only sold in the US for 2 weeks and therefore concludes that it didn't sell well. Nevermind the fact it was in the top 5 PC games in Europe (you know, the main market for PC games?) for weeks. Hey Xbox 360 sells like crap in Japan, it must be a flop too right?
Thanks to Jeff and Pete for their relevant comments.
SeriousKriss @ Jan 29th 2008 1:38PM
... and that post wasn't really supposed to be in reply to anyone in particular, woops.
ThornedVenom @ Jan 29th 2008 1:19PM
I think it's a good thing that they're actually managing to optimize their engine for inferior hardware (not making a statement between PC and consoles, but about Crysis standards versus everything).
Today 360 and PS3, TOMORROW WII. xD
jynxycat @ Jan 29th 2008 2:13PM
It'll be interesting on how this $600 machine is constructed, if it's refurbished parts or whatnot. How the game is run, just a time demo, or the actual game. What resolution, what settings they deem acceptable, etc.
Obviously clearing the aire around this title that you need to spend $5000 to play it needs to be dispelled, and it's awesome that Crytek is approaching the issue.
jynxycat @ Jan 29th 2008 2:14PM
If the title using CE2 were Crysis, I think they would of already announced it.
My money is on either an adjusted port of Crysis, like the console abomination of FarCry (which like earlier stated, contains different levels, story, enemies, etc.), or more likely a whole new game. They aren't working on FarCry 2, so they have their hands free at the moment.
Jeff @ Jan 29th 2008 2:17PM
As said by others... Crytek didn't make the Far Cry ports. They were shitty cash-ins by Ubisoft and probably part of the reason Crytek jumped ship. Any Crysis port would be made by them, and imho they're among the best coders in the industry.
Martez @ Jan 29th 2008 2:26PM
Do not care much about Crysis itself. A console version of the engine is great, though!