Consoles might get enhanced version of Crysis and Crysis Warhead in 2009.

It's still a rumour, but the story is, that only PC game out in the market which graphics are better than currently released console games will get enhanced visuals and is coming to Playstation 3 and Xbox 360 in 2008/2009.

Basically - Xbox360 what uses 2005 hardware (which is rather weak by todays standard) will get current Crysis.
And Playstation 3 which is using 8-core cpu but a mediocre gpu will get visually improved with smarter AI's and such.

Isn't this nice if this turns out to be true? You need a high end gpu and good cpu to maximize Crysis, but consoles..what are inferior to PC's will also get it, and Playstation 3 will get even IMPROVED version. In your face PC-fanboys.

Our source explains that Crytek is focusing on each system's threading core, and that the team is taking their time with the PS3 version, learning to utilize the Cell processor as effectively as possible in order to push higher quality textures, improved A.I., and more.

http://www.psu.com/Rumor--Crysis-coming-to-PS3-in-Q2-2009--a0004631-p0.php

 

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the cell processor can wipe the floor with most mainstream and performance PC processors. And I don't even own a console. It's the PC's video card that makes the difference.

 

Enhanced visuals over what? I already have enhanced visuals in my Crysis and no console will never come near that level of graphics quality not to speak about resolution. Nor will it run Crysis at the same framrate either. Since both consoles have low ram I think this will be a Crysis Instincts. Just like Far Cry Instincts which basically was a corridor shooter and nowhere near the original Far Cry in open ended world.

Those that think Crysis will look better on a console than a high end rig is only dreaming.

Now what does an console fanboy do on these forums in the first place? Akuma! You still think the PS3 and Xbox 360 is some kind of god hardware that beats a PC, get real. I think you should hang out on the gamespot forums instead where you can debate with other consolites that think their consoles is something special.

In your face PC-fanboys, sounds to me you like to start another flame war. When they post real news not any rumour, there has been numerous rumors about Crysis for consoles, come back then Akuma.

Wasn´t it this site that had a confidential before about Crysis console would be shown at E3? What happened to that?

 

Thanks my 360 is now crying in the corner thinking about running a ported crysis.

 

So instead of running around in a beautifully detailed linear wide map from objective to objective for a couple hours with the same enemies every time, on the consoles you'll have a couple extra blades of grass or enemies who shoot a little more accurately. I really don't get it. Sorry, Crysis wasn't what it was hyped up to be. I felt very underwhelmed after playing it. Pretty visuals and only 2 decent missions. Don't get me wrong, it's not a terrible game, but I just can't see why it's so important to care about something like this. As you can probably imagine, I have no intention of pre-ordering Warhead or even touching it until it hits the bargain bin. There were so many wasted opportunities (I want zip lines, cliff-wall climbing, remote mines, and other fun stuff to bring more variety).

EA and Gamestop still owe me an amphibious APC.....

 

Well your 360 will RROD when you have started up the game Mine too I actually have a 360, though mostly collecting dust.

 

Far Cry (1) is only on PC
Far Cry 2 will be multiplatform, get your facts right.
If the rumour is true..then. But the game isn't even out yet, while you blabla about framerates already, haha.

If the rumour states that PS3 version will get improvements, visuals and smarter AI's, then where am I dreaming? It's you who is dreaming that your PC can do it all better.

Where have I mentioned "godly" console hardware? It's the other way around, I alerady stated how WEAK consoles are compared to todays high-end PC's, again you tried to flame me kiddo.

Actually there have been only ONE before and that was right after CryTek said they are now working only with consoles..and it does seem that it's pointing on the right direction, eh?

 

Far Cry instincts I said, you know the 360 version. Ah well I shoulnd´t be too harsh. I will lay off all my bad attitude towards your posts Akuma

Anyway if the consoles do get Crysis it would be great for the console people. They could maybe pull it off though not look as nice as the PC version.

But rumours are rumours. When a real fact and a real statement from Crytek comes up, then I believe it. I never believe in rumours. And with screens showing it looks better than my tweaked Crysis, then I promise I will sell my laptop

 

If there is a way to partially software render with ps3's cell processor then people might get Crysis looking like PC's High settings with stable frame rates.

But the last time I heard, dual cores cant even software render half life 1 effectively. It'll be nice to see Crytek pull something out of a hat on that one.

 

The Xbox and Playstation graphics aren't very different from one another..

If you haven't noticed the only major difference is blu-ray.

If anything the Xbox gets better graphics because it's processor isn't a ridiculous chump for DEV's to work with.

If Crytek didn't optimize Crysis well for PC, wh osays they are going to take the time to make like 8 data streams for a single version of a console version.

They are going to take the same game and put it to both, it's hardly a good idez to take so much more time to differ them.

And for example. Soul Calibur 4 has nice graphics, but guess what?

The 360 version is played at a higher resolution which decreases jaggies. Where the PS3 version is at a lower resolution. Both capped at the same FPS.

Where is your god now?

 

It's a known fact that multiplatform games, where X360 is the lead platform will have a slight edge on X360.
But if we're talking about exclusive games..hehe, just take a look at Uncharted, Ninja Gaiden Sigma, MGS4 and such. Also Soul Calibur has quite the last-gen visuals.

Playstation 3 was harder to work with if it were to be a leadplatform at the beginning, but since 2007 Q3 most of the developers have choosen PS3 to be leadplatform, a good game what is coming out to PC/PS3/X360 is Mirror's Edge - and PS3 is leadplatform on that.

But what the hell, why did you even bring up PS3 and X360 diffrence? Troll.
And I'm guilty of feeding the troll, **** it. =.=

As for your question, god = exclusive games in gaming. Most of the multiplatform games will find a way to PC. Take a look at Devil May Cry 4 or Burnout Paradise.

 

lol xbox vs ps3 in a pc gaming room...almost as bad as my posts

The ps3 can handle alot..infact they want to build a supercomputer(o think its allready made) outta the same processor technology...becuase its that amazing

 

well they sure as hell arnt utilizing that technology, I have a PS3, and think they could make games better looking etc, if they took advantage of the CELL and took some pressure off the slightly mediocre GPU.

 

Actually I think this is more concern to those with a little E-Peen. Personally I always buy high end rigs and always have high end rigs. I see a console as a poor mans PC and the level of graphics never comes near when I run the same game on my PC

Who wants to play Crysis with a controller *shrugs*

Crysis on a console that´s bound to disaster. If GTA IV couldn´t be run at 720p on a PS3 and barely runs good at all on the 360, imagine then Crysis on a console. You will have some major FPS dips. Just take a look at some Far Cry 2 videos running on a 360, you see FPS dips all the time. This might not be seen to an untrained eye, but sure as good to an trained PC gamers eye.

Maybe I should have started with console instead, then I would never have noticed any major slowdowns as bad as I to today and I can´t stand a console game to have major FPS drops either since there is nothing you can do about it, you can´t change any graphical settings, nor lower resolutions to compensate for that.

Actually a 8600m GT GDDR3 is more than enough to have games run better and with better graphics than any console out there. If a 8600m GT runs the same game at 720p that laptop runs that game with higher AF and with higher framerates while looking better than it´s console counterpart.

Those multiplats that are on both they all look better on PC, as I said before my go 7800GTX which actually is equivalent to the PS3´s GPU and my single core CPU runs multiplats better than my 360 Yes so that mighty Cell in the PS3 doesn´t even run games better than my single core PentiumM 2.13 GHz and I run Windows XP in the background too, the consoles run nothing in the background, only a small operative system

 

the qosmio g55 has a cell processor.

 

No way in hell. It may be more "powerful" on a purely technical scale, but computers are also doing a hell of a lot more in the background than consoles are, and more importantly software for PCs is significantly less optimized since so many different possible hardware configurations need to be accounted for. An Xbox 360 might be less powerful than a rig with an 8600 GT in it, but games will typically utilize the power of the 360 far, far more efficiently than they will the 8600 GT. PC devs all too frequently rely on the "throw more power at it" mentality, when proper optimization could achieve the same results for a larger audience.

This is the basic folly with comparing PC power to console power. It's open system versus closed system, and that makes a huge difference.

Also, don't use GTAIV for any type of comparison... Rockstar's games are fun, but they're programmed by monkeys. You know those extremely ambitious eastern-European PC games that always seem to run worse than they should? Rockstar makes the console equivalents. With STALKER you accept that you'll crash every hour or so, some effects will be random white squares once in a while just because, and that the thing will chug inexplicably on hardware that runs Crysis without a hitch. With GTAIV you accept that the textures are muddy as hell, the lighting throws a hissy fit now and then, and the framerate dances all over the place.

Finally, console gaming isn't just the poor man's PC gaming because you're ignoring the rather large differences in popular genres and what they're used for. As much as I love PC gaming, consoles absolutely wipe the floor with it when it comes to local multiplayer of any sort. The last PC games with local multiplayer worth a **** were Worms Armageddon and You Don't Know Jack: The Ride. And local multiplayer is a huge part of the console experience.

 

your other points were good. however, i disagree with you about the 360 using its power "far, far more efficiently" than the PC. I mean, sure, there is some overhead with the operating system. windows xp takes maybe a few hundred MB for itself. but that still leaves a few GB for the game itself. the xbox 360 has 512 MB total for the gpu and the system. i have 256 onboard on the gpu and 3GB (in windows xp) for the system. the operating system isn't a huge process hog either. its basically just chilling there, and most of the resources are dedicated to the application. and the xbox is running an operating system as well. it has some overhead too. not as much as windows xp, but it doesn't have as much room for overhead, either. anyway, my 8600m gt handles CoD4 better than either console. granted, its the gddr3 version and its somewhat overclocked, but the point still remains that console software isn't "way" more efficient than pc software.

 

I think people have somehow gotten the idea in their head that consoles would run crysis that looks as good or better than a pc at very high settings, which just isn't going to happen. Its much more likely it would be a combination between medium-high settings. Most likely taking a hit in the shadows and textures and come out looking more around the COD4 graphics.
As others mentioned their is also a problem with the lack of ram in consoles, so its probably safe to assume there will be a texture loading problem. Consoles also can't put out the higher resolution's like a pc can, again ram would be a big factor here also.
Comparing consoles, if a game is built around the cell processor it could definitely help when compared to the xbox 360. Compare something like UT3 for the pc, you can easily tell that it helps. Since the consoles would run the game at a lower resolution and if they fully utilize the processor, having 8 cores running a game should really help.

 

I'd like to see an 8600 GT run Call of Duty 4 on all high settings at 1080p with a constant 60 frames per second. It certainly runs the game more than acceptably, but not that well. You need to jump up to an 8800 series for that. CoD4 is one of the best-optimized games on modern consoles, though.

And it's more than overhead, I'm talking about developers knowing exactly what hardware they're dealing with. Because every 360 is exactly the same, developers know exactly what they're programming for and as such can get into some extremely low-level tweaks. PC devs, by comparison, can't do this as readily because they don't know what you're running. If there's a specific tweak they can do to make the game run much faster on newer nVidia cards but it screws up ATi cards, then they can't do it. Meanwhile, tricks like that are performed all the time on consoles because they know exactly what their game will be running on. It's just an inherent benefit of having direct access to a single set of hardware rather than trying to accommodate dozens upon dozens of possible configurations.

 

Consoles can run games at 1920x1080. This is most certainly an acceptable resolution even by PC gaming standards. That said, there are plenty that max out at 720p, which is unfortunate.

I also have no doubt that a console Crysis could look as good as the PC game, partially due to the sheer power required (the thing was more of a video card advertisement than a game worth playing, but that's another topic), but mostly because Crytek are terrible at optimization.

 

COD4 is not 1080P, its 1080i which is half the res flashed, so its doing a ton less work.

You have very valid points and I would liek to agree with you. You must realize the limits of these consoles. I think if they optimized out off their a$$es they could get Crysis runnning on the "PS3" at high settings because of its processor. I would love my PS3 to be able to do things at 1080P, etc, but its just not up to snuff against modern gaming desktops and laptops. My laptop for example, crushes it with sheer power.

If they really took their time to optimize a game they could acheive great results, but its all about the money these days. The PS3 is techinally the *poor mans pc*, but it can rival systems that our double its cost.

 

GTA IV programmed by monkeys? Is this your defence for hardware that can´t process as much data that is required by GTA IV. You know GTA IV has some efficient AI that takes a huge toll on CPU alone. Graphics wise the GPU´s in either console can´t cope with rendering a large City with lots of textures and objects as it is in GTA IV.

No Crysis will not look like the PC Crysis if you believe that, doesn´t matter if it is a "closed environment"

Crytek has coded a very advanced graphics engine, no wonder no rigs can play the game maxed yet with a single card out of the box. But with tweaks you can, if you know how to tweak the game yourself. Like I have done and I run Crysis on my XPS M1730 now 1920x1200 "Real and above 1080p" at 40 fps average tweaked to look like Very High.

Some smart tweaking and Crysis runs like a dream.

I have nothing against consoles I own a 360 myself. But to just think Crysis would look any better on a console than the PC is just ridiculous. There is only so much you can do with the amount of hardware that is in these consoles. That Cell O overhyped CPU shouldn´t that magically superior CPU show itself in real person by now.

People mention Uncharted for example, yes it looks good but could as well have been done on 360 and besides it is only a corridor shooter, just like COD 4. Crysis is an open ended shooter, not as open ended as Far Cry 2 will be though.

Sure they can probably pull of some kind of Crysis but not a PC Crysis.

When the original Xbox and PS2 came I never heard any "This console beats the PC hands down" But this gen consolites think that by having HD i.e the PC have had for ages and console HD "Measly 720p aka 1280x720 and actually below since all games do not even run at 1280x720p" that they magically have some kind of hardware that by optimizing runs game better than a PC. A 8600m GT GDDR3 at 1280x800 is more than enough to run games at smoother framerates than any console.

 

Umm..Uncharted isn't a corridor shooter. It's an adventure game in jungles and caves and such.

 

Hmm, this rumour has existed for quite a while now. At one point I think it was a X360 exclusive, then a PS3 exclusive. Not saying it won't happen, but I would bet on a 're-imagined' Crysis similar to the debacle that was Far Cry Instincts. You can't argue that Far Cry not only looked better (even without HDR-AA fix) but played way better on the pc. I couldn't even be bothered to finish the console version. Waste of a good $20.00.

As for the larger console vs pc battle, how can you compare the 2? The pc - high-end of course - is running on tech that is generations ahead of console tech. Wasn't the X360 architecture based on a 7600 or so GPU? We have the GTX2xx, heck even my 8800gts mops the floor with a 7600. And as for the PS3, let me see what the Cell can do. Sony talked a big game with their last engine, Euphoria was it? And games always looked better on the Xbox than on the PS2. Sure optimization is important, but let's be real - my unoptimized Crysis looks far better than anything I've seen on consoles and I can't even run it on very high. I enjoy console gaming, but it's really no contest with high end hardware.

 

where does it say over the PC version? When I read that I walk away with them meaning they are utilizing the PS3 to impove graphics and AI over current PS3 games currently on the market.

IMO, Its a very open ended rumor, where each person who reads it can see it meaning different things, all I ask is "improved over what?"

 

Improved graphically over the PC version is only a console fanboy´s wet dream that will never come true.

 

nope, wont happen, If it was to even get ported I would expect med-high, and like I said if they optimized the crap out of it high, but it will not and never will look better then the PC verison.

 

Even with proper optimizations, the console versions wouldn't look any better than the game running on medium graphics settings, not to mention would be limited at 720p max. The PS3 version if made I do think has better potential simply because the Cell can leverage alot of extra pre-processing for the RSX, while still running all the physics, AI, and orchestration necessary. The real problem for the consoles is total available RAM. That's the real factor making a console version very hard to implement.