I actually wonder if you would really want Crysis to be released on the PS3 or XBox 360 ...

The main thing Crysis has going for it is that it is amazingly pretty which is almost entirely because its minimum system requirements are so far beyond a console (or what most people have as gaming PCs)

No, from a graphical standpoint you could play it on minimum on a console.  Actually, you could play it on medium on a console (though you would be pushing them and framerate drops would be comon).  You couldn't play it on high or very high, or even close.  

The actual concern isn't the graphics but the open world.  Even GTA loads everything as you enter the area.  Basically the way GTA works is you have a little "bubble" that moves with you where activity takes place and loads.  Crysis has no such bubble.  Activity is constnatly happening in the world.   The AI behind you doesn't stop interacting and making decisions just because you are no longer in the same "area."  The PS3 and 360 probably won't be able to handle that. 

The funny thing is that Far Cry 2 makes even Crysis look out of date.  Guess we'll need another 5 years to play that when it comes out... 

 Surely the 'non-bubble'  that Crysis has could be adapted to a more bubble like form or you could simply install stuff on the hard drive. They would be able to make Crysis on consoles easily, even if it not at its best graphical potential. How much better than Uncharted does it really look

Well you could, but it would defeat the purpose of the game.  How much better than Uncharted does it really look on what setting?  On Medium it's about the same.  Maybe a little better.  On very high you might as well ask how much better Uncharted looks than Tomb Raider on the PS2.  

Well that sure as hell sucks for Crytek.

UTIII also doesn't have decent numbers, but they still have the consoles to fall back on.

You could addapt the AI routines outside of the "bubble", and scale them down to work well on a PS3/X360.

Radiant AI in Oblivion did the exact same thing in 2006. Bethsada stated in multiple developer interviews that they scaled RAI in such a way that AI routines were constantly going on throughout the progression of a given game at all places in the world. However, the routines were pretty basic when they were outisde of a given area, and more complex as you got there - to save CPU power on both the consoles, as well as the X360.

Crysis can do the same thing.


I think the main issue is that when you have games that have ultra-advanced games, sales will be horrible, because no one can afford the technology for the games. I remember Falcon 4.0 back in 1998. It was a game that "recommended" a 400mhz processor, when everyone barely had 200mhz's. I don't think it sold very well back then, but the mod community continued to help the game, and make it better well after Atari dumped the game.

Eventually, Atari sold the source code to some smart entrepreneur for $50,000. Guess what he did? Took all the mod packs (upto SP3), and intergrated them into 1 huge box set just a few years ago, since Falcon 4.0 was able to run perfectly on the systems by then (04 or 05).

Guess what happened? Falcon 4.0 sold out on Amazon, and Wal-Mart, and everywhere else that had it. The guy made millions. Crysis could be the same way. However, when you have devs put that much money into proprietary game design, you can lose alot of cash. Hopefully the Crysis ports to X360/PS3 (when they happen) will keep it afloat until proper sales come Crysis/UT3's ways.

But I think it's also proof of where the PC market is headed: primarily to MMOs and others. Consoles have vastly caught up to PCs in terms of capability, expecially thanks to Microsoft, and now guys like me rarely buy PC games (whereas I have 200 games from 1995-2001) because my X360 can support the games without the requirements.

even if UT3 flops it wont effect Epic.. they have enough people buying the Unreal Engine to supply the next unreal tournament game.

I think you are a little bit blinded if you think consoles are close to current PC capabilities.  Granted, they stalled the PCs for a bit, and have kept up in graphics for about 2 years (far longer than any previous generation), but there are PC games now doing things far beyond the capabilities of consoles.  

I also think you are jumping the gun to say that shooters won't be successful on PCs anymore. The ones that are within reasonable system capabilities are still successful.  The problem is a lot of recent shooters have been on Games for Windows which a large portion of the PC community boycotts.

Well summed up.  I'm Pretty sure MS wants to kill PC gaming by introducing crap like Live for Windows.

God bless Valve (read:  Steam and Orange Box)

 but Crysis and UT3 arent Games for Windows.The issue is that Intel is screwing people up with their integrated garbage video cards promising DX10 support when its not possible to run DX10 with a card that cant match an FX5500.