CryENGINE 3 ready for PC, PS3 and Xbox 360

At low res you should add....
On that system(ONLY if it's a C2D @3.5 +) you would get 12-25 on high, and for it to be playable you gotta do medium, but it would still look better than any console game though(As res will be higher). And thats at 1280*1024. Crysis is too much of a resource hog, my system
q6600 @ 3.6GHz
48501GB OC to 650Mhz
4GB 1066MHz Ram
Vista 32-Bit(I know, I know, But it's all I had at the time I built it and I can't upgrade w/out losing all my stuff!)
Gets 20-50 at 1280*1024. So I'll be upgrading to a GTX 260 soon, but IDK if my 450w can handle it...

But keep in mind that most 360/PS3 games also run at 1280x720 or below.

@ Foetoid

exactly! I have the same system you mentioned, (more low end C2D, 4850, 4GB DDR2) and crysis runs like butter on 1920x1200 on High (~40-50 FPS, ~30 in Heavy Combat). People are just bitching around and don't know how to run their systems properly!

Well, I hope you're wrong. And I think both xbox and ps3 (especially) are capable of amazing graphics, developers just need to find a way to extract all that power. Hopefully that's what their new engine is going to do.

Your on to something, I'll let you know whats really going on, CryEngine 2 is just plain inefficient, and they don't want to admit to it. To fix this they are making CryEngine 3. Now what I'm wondering is if they made it this way on purpose (You can optimize Crysis yourself by editing config files to make it look AND run better, they could have easily just set them up to be efficient to begin with themselves) as part of some weird business plan (possibly even a deal with GPU companies!) that backfired. Or maybe its even more complicated than that and it HASN'T backfired!

Conspiracy theories?

wow, duh. I was screwing around more and more by the end of the post and not paying much attention to what I was typing.

TIMECRYSIS 1/2 THE MIX-UP!

:) always makes me happy when i see the boognish.
Ween is the greatest.

Anyballs.timesplitters 2 was decent on GC, but i hope cryengine 3 runs better than crysis.

Oh god...must resist. Please...someone fill in for me, this one's too easy

*pats john on the head*

Wii could run that tree in Crysis... you know? The one that you break down... yeah, that's it.

I'd love to see a hacker get Crysis running on the Wii, it would be interesting to see what happens.

I know, this is going to sound like I'm a 360 and PS3 fanboy... but the Wii just doesn't have the horsepower to run the games CryTech is going to make. Heck, the PS3 and 360 wouldn't even be able to run CryEngine 2 on highest settings. I personally think the main reason the Wii doesn't get all of the "official" games like the PS3 and 360 do, could just be because they're more of the "hardcore" game consoles, whereas the Wii is more of a friends and family console. It could also be because Nintendo doesn't have as many relationships with developers as Sony and Microsoft. Just mere speculation.

sorry bro you picked the wrong platform if want upcoming games like doom 4 or something from Crytek.The wii is not meant for hardcore games It will have some fun games but nothing from the hardcore developers.

You could argue all day that the 360 has equal graphical capabilities as the PS3, but there is NO WAY that the 360 has greater capabilities then the PS3.

So I don't think that they're will be any noticeably better looking game this gen, on any platform(excluding PC). Maybe equally good looking , but I don't think it'll get better to the point where people actually notice. (I'm sure the numbers will sound nicer though.)

So I call BS on Mircosoft having something better looking.

Maybe if they were both pushed to the max of their capabilities but Killzone 2 definitely does not epidomize the very best the PS3 could do. Yes obviously MS has something better lined up considering they are still trying to push the limits of the 360, but I believe your wrong because both the PS3 & 360 can have better graphics in the way of software not hardware (games, not console.)

As I said in another post, Killzone 2 looks nice but it doesn't maintain a steady framerate and it frankly doesn't touch PC games from almost two years ago. I'd say it's getting close to pushing the limits of the PlayStation 3, and I doubt we'll see Xbox 360 games that look much better than Gears of War 2, but they're still fairly dated in terms of visuals no matter how you look at it.

"As I said in another post, Killzone 2 looks nice but it doesn't maintain a steady framerate and it frankly doesn't touch PC games from almost two years ago."

Have you played the game? I had it dip noticeably below 30FPS once on me so far. I don't know what you're talking about; KZ2 looks damn fine. Then again, you're the guy who said UT3 looked better.

Yeah I agree that both of them are pretty much equal in terms of their visual prowess. It just depends which one your eye likes better. I would also put Metal Gear 4 in that discussion. The great thing is all three of those games have damn near perfect frame rates. MGS 4 had some specific parts that looked perfectly fluid.

Looking ahead this year I see games that can possibly surpass these visuals as being either Heavy Rain or Halo ODST. Just my opinion.

The story says NOW and for the next gen.

I guess they have code for now, and algorithms for whatever powers the next platforms...

lol, no.

Optimaximal,

Their first engine was pretty advanced when for the time (and was among the first to support HDR lighting) and not a single engine currently available on the market rivals what their second is capable of doing. I'd say they've got a pretty good track record when it comes to pushing the technical envelope a generation farther than what "currently" available hardware allows

Neither console is a processing power house, and you're delusional to think they've got some sort of technological advantage over an equivalently priced PC. You go on about how great CELL and Xenon are, but you're completely ignoring that they're both in-order execution processors and that their IPC (instructions per clock) is simply pitiful compared to a contemporary Intel or AMD processor (even their offerings in 2005 were faster); both are clocked as high as they are to somewhat overcome their notable limitations. Hell, Xenon isn't all that much faster in single threaded performance than the mutant Coppermine found in the original XBOX (the same applies to CELL). The ONLY thing those two processors have going for them is multithreading (In CELL's case, using an SPE in place of a hardware thread because CELL actually lacks threads) and, even then, they claim no performance crown.

You point out the frequencies both consoles' memory run at as if it's something mind blowing when it isn't in the least. DDR3 @ 700 MHZ! Who cares what frequency it's running at when you've got relatively high latencies and shitty timings to contend with? It'd be like you saying DDR2 667 is better than DDR 400 just because it has a higher clockspeed even though nearly all real world tests would show the DDR 400 kit is the better option in everything but bandwidth. Speaking of bandiwidth, 23 GB/s total system bandwidth is NOTHING when you consider a contemporary videocard has, by itself, several times that amount (my HD 4870's bandwidth alone is 140 GB/s). Hell, we had more bandwidth available in our systems before either of those consoles sold their first unit. So, what was your point?

Finally, no one said the Xbox 360 and PS3 couldn't run the Cryengine2 (and by association, the third Crytek engine). Before Crytek announced Cryengine3, they showed their engine running on both system behind closed doors. All we've said is that no contemporary console is powerful enough to run Crysis anywhere near High fidelity even at a sub-720p resolution and Crytek themselves have confirmed as much. When the company actually responsible for developing both the middleware and the game says, "No, they aren't good enough to run this title with these image quality settings for the following technical reasons", do you honestly think you've got any room to argue with them? No, of course you don't. If an HD 4870, a videocard with almost 10 times the shader power of Xenos or the RSX, can't run the game at Very High settings above 1280x1024 (mind you, that's still a higher resolution than what 97% of all console games natively run at) without becoming a slideshow, your Xbox 360 or PS3 would burst into flames trying to attempt the same feat. If Crysis ever does wind up on the Xbox 360 or PS3 in the future, it's guaranteed the console port will look nowhere near as good as what we've been playing for almost 2 years now.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/30843645@N04/3082217604/sizes/o/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/30843645@N04/3343395445/sizes/l/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/30843645@N04/3343396583/sizes/l/

Take a long, good look at those screenshots because you'll never seen anything coming from any of your systems that rivals them in any capacity.