Why is Crysis only made for PC?

Why isn't Crysis made for PS3? So people like me won't be so sad about not being able to play it on my computer>

 

Because it's horribly optimised and would destroy a PS3.

 

You think crisis can be loaded into 256mb of ram(even if it is going at ungodly speed) and 256mb of vram, happily? Much less off a fairly low end SATA laptop hdd? Pfffft. Right.

Good luck with that one. Im still trying to figure out why sony got it in their heads a laptop HDD was a good idea. Or 256mb of ram. Or both really.

Okay, yes, they could have done it... but at what costs.

 

From what I read on the forums a while ago

Both the x360 and ps3 doesn't support the CryEngine right now. You'll have to wait for some years for devs to be able to produce this kind of graphics on the consoles.

EDIT: @Rogue. Microsoft sells their 20GB HDD for $100... The last-gen consoles has like 32MB of RAM so...

Also, the RAM used in the PS3 is XDR. It's a way ammount faster and has a VERY low CAS latency. So 256MB of it can work as fast, if not more than 1GB of DDR2 1066 (and you have to know that you don't have any OS there)

 

I often wonder why the PS3 has all that potential power, but so little memory...

Maybe I just don't don't understand.

And further to my original point, the game requires quick aiming and skills that are really best employed over a mouse imo.

 

same reason why most console games are exclusive to consoles. some companies don't have time/resources needed to make quality ports unless you're EA and can pump out cheap ports for all platform. crysis may end up on consoles just like HL2, they just need to hire some 3rd party company to do so.

 

Resources and development yes but they would have to make huge cuts in terms of visual quality. Also although the ram may be faster it still does not make up for the amount of ram needed to support that huge view distance and environment.

 

I really don't know of many people playing on "Very High" anyway. Most people can't afford a desktop with dual 88 Ultras.

Even if they cut the graphics down to medium-high, it'll still be an enjoyable game. Superb graphics is not the reason why Crysis isn't on the consoles. It has to do with what BHD said - they have to find the money and time to port it.

 

In the end Crysis was released horribly unpolished.

They focused far too much on the graphics and did not focus enough on the game play, optimization and performance.

Crysis is really nothing innovating other than the graphics.

 

Like I said, XDR memory is octo-data rate. XDR 400 (PS3) is as effective, if not better as DDR2 3200 would be. It's like comparing a Core 2 Duo underclocked to a Pentium 3.

 

Maybe I'm wrong but didn't the developers say they had no plans to make games for consoles and were going to develop exclusively for the PC as the main platform? Maybe that had something to do with the port decision.

I agree with the others though, current console hardware might struggle a bit with the game as it is.

 

Oh I agree with you. I have been saying from way back that they are trying to push the envelope in terms of visual quality too much instead of focusing on gameplay.

What I said was sorta straight from the horses's mouth. Crytek was touting about how they didn't want to port if would require downgrading the visuals and such. It might be a cover up for another one of aforementioned reasons, who knows.

 

quantity over quality is the general rule for ram.

 

Well, technically the PS3 has more than 256MB of VRAM available. All this talk of XDR in association with the GPU isn't exactly correct either. The RSX has 256MB of dedicated GDDR3 clocked at 700MHz just like the XBox360. The RSX also has access to the 256MB of XDR main memory if needed and has a dedicated read link of 15GB/s and a dedicated write link of 20GB/s. So the PS3 can use more than 256MB of graphics memory if needed just like the XBox360. And I don't think there is really much of a bandwidth impediment going to main memory either since the link between the RSX and Cell/XDR is are dual unidirectional links for concurrent transactions, while I'm pretty sure the link from the RSX to GDDR3 and XBox360 to main memory is a single bidirectional link that can either just read or just write at one time.

 

Crytek isn't that big of a company, so really, they don't have the manpower nor resources to develop for 2 or 3 platforms simultaneously.

 

Because they will make more money this way. Not a single companies cares for their users if it doesn't affect them in some way.

 

Who knows, it might. Afterall Farcry made it to the 360 if I'm not mistaken.

And to the people who believe that the current consoles could not handle the game, I'm pretty sure they could. If Sony handed Crytek a dumptruck full of cash and said make this work on the PS3, I gaurantee that they would get Crysis running on a PS3.

 

If PS3 only has about 1/4GB of VRAM and RAM, then why would people bother spending $500-$600 on a PS3 when they can use that money to get better PC-equivalent upgrades?
There must be some advantages to using a Console even when its specs is less than a PC's.

 

i have been noticing that single player missions gameplay have been getting smaller and smaller this is really bugging me specifically Battlefront 2 good game but so little missions and the mission itself where small and half of them where from Battlefront 1.

 

That's because a good single player game no longer means that much to the gamers. Most are just going to pirate it if all the game have to offer is single player.

 

+1
True that.

They even pirated World of Warcraft and made it playable on non-Blizzard servers
I'm not saying WoW is a good game or anything, I'm not a WoW fan in the first place...

 

Hey, it's about time the PC had some exclusive priviledge; we're always hearing about the "great" console games that we never get to play, like Halo 3, but once the PC gets its own game that gets great reviews all the console players start whining! Wtf, let's not be hypocritical.

 

A lot of you are saying that Crytek focused too much on creating the graphics and less so on gameplay, which is indeed unfortunate. But I think that maybe they decided to allot so much of their resources on making an engine because crytek primarily makes engines. Sure, epic released ut3 and gears of war, both of which ROCK and look awesome (and in my opinion have an overall look that is stronger artistically than crysis) and combined that with good gameplay, but I think crytek literally just wanted to focus on making their engine.

The game is basically just Far Cry again anyway...

imo they just wanted to make an engine and sell the right to use it to other game companies...

 

Because a PS3/Xbox360/WII couldn't handle Crysis

 

I heard from a friend of mine in Germany/France that if Crysis sells well enough and demand for porting goes up they will port it and make sure future games such as Crysis FarCry etc... will be released on Consoles...

They also said they could MAYBE create an engine for consoles...

I am just saying what he read in a german gaming magazine and he even heard it from some interview with EA... since EA released Crysis... right?

It sounds plausible and possible...

I would LOVE! to see Crysis on consoles... maybe it will beat HALO's """Editor""" which is the worst thing I have ever seen in my entire life...

 

[/quote]
As far as I know its latency isn't all that amazing.
Nevertheless, it's pure nonsense to compare it to 1GB RAM. It's not a question of speed, but of capacity. 1GB RAM can, no matter how fast or slow, store 1GB of data. 256MB can't, no matter how magically fast. A game that requires 1 GB of RAM will not run with 256MB, and that's all there is to it. Speed is completely irrelevant for that.

Of course. One is that developers know exactly what they're targetting so they can optimize their games specifically for that, and get better utilization of the hardware than they can on PC. That's the performance part of it. The other part is that on consoles, you have Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo actively seeking out developers to make games for them. Which means you're guaranteed a steady stream of quality games, where PC is much more flaky. Sometimes a lot of developers may choose to make PC versions of their games, sometimes they might not bother.

 

Crysis is a very demanding game, much like farcry was when it first came out. In time it will run at max settings very smoothly but we have 1-2 generations of graphics hardware to wait before that happens. Consoles probably have the capacity but it would look lame due to cutting down on content and it would require a huge amount of resources to port it over to one.

 

because the console has no keyboard and mouse,,,terrible feeling of playing fps by pad,,hehe

 

I had a vostro 1500, crysis ran fine medium/med-high under dx9

 

Maybe it's because I didn't know how to switch between DX9 and DX10?
I don't know which version I was on, but the game was unbelievably slow with everything on lowest, and it froze like a minute into the game

 

Add -dx9 to target.

 

Thats a bummer, are you running vista? If you are, go "Start", find "Games" on the right side of the start menu. Right click Crysis and "Run in DX9 Mode" or something close to that.

 

Or what lifeflayer said, but that might not be clear enough for him

 

Crysis doesn't run on the PS3 and 360 simply because they don't got the balls to run it. End of story.. lol

 

Yes, we all know your PC has balls.

 

Haha?

 

One of the main reasons that I bought Crysis was that they are making a mechwarrior mod for it. I'm that much of a battletech freak.

 

I find it hard to believe that with the right resources Crysis wouldn't be able to run on the PS3/360.

People should stop directly comparing the technology in consoles to PC technology as we have seen time and time again that it has no relevance in performance.

And has no one seen any of the Uncharted commercials? Everyt cutscene they show is ingame.

 

ps3 and 360 run a variation of 7950gtx which would not be able to provide sufficient eye candy thus will not fare well in sales. and yes i think they do have relevance in performance...generally PCs will almost always perform better than consoles. I played oblivion on both consoles (360 won by a landslide by the way) and in neither consoles are the settings at max everything. Lag is so horrible on ps3, i sold it.

 

Consoles don't need mind blowing specs like a PC does. Consoles run the game, nothing else in the background. PC's though, have the OS along with everything else going on to manage at the same time as the game.

Considering the PS2 can play games that are ported from the PC, meanwhile it only has a 333mhz CPU, and the PC counterpart requires 1000mhz, my logic simply proves itself.

The consoles have the power to run the Unreal 3 engine, just not Crysis. Because Crytek simply cannot code and optimize games (engines) properly. Even Farcry when it came out had so many problems on the PC.. The company sucks period. Their just good at developing resource hogging eye candy. < My opinion, so suck it. lol

And lifeflayer, yes balls.... I like balls... (lmao, watched Team America to many times.)

 

Because the game is only developed to brag about the graphics while the game it self suck.

 

Sigh..

Thank you.. You had the balls to speak the truth..When will everyone else realize it? Only good thing about it is weapon modifications. (please god COD5 have that feature..)

 

Crysis would be just like Far Cry insticts is on the 360. No large open levels, just very small levels. Crysis would be essentially Crysis Instincts. It seems like people here think the PS3 and 360 is some kind of super computer that can compete with high end PC´s. All the 360 and PS3 are is the poor mans PC with inferior hardware which by the way is very old by now

Well the RSX is basically a 7800GTX which in my opinion is old by now.

I own a 360 myself, maybe I´m poor then On the other hand I have a gaming desktop and gaming laptop too, so maybe not so poor

And talking about lag, I played Gears of War on my 360 that game lagged, Oblivion lagged horribly, i.e stuttering on the 360, sometimes the game froze for 20 seconds even if I clear the cache. What about FPS drops? Bioshock on the 360 has problems with the framerate in some areas, that must mean the game is horribly optimized right? No what it means is that the console can´t run the game fluidly in some areas because it is not powerful enough.

 

Let's be honest...

The majority of games not ported to console are not done out of spite or because the console cannot do it... (they can make an engine that can if enough money were on the table)

The reason why Crysis will not be ported to console is because it isn't profitable to sell to the general console market.

Most PC games are just WAY too detailed and require much longer attention spans than the average console user can invest.

The PC gamer and console gamer markets do have some overlap, but not enough to bother to port it.


Much like anything else in this world, the gaming industry is usually motivated by money and not much else.