Crysis ONE coming to PS360!

[lestatdark]

brendude13 said:

lestatdark said:

brendude13 said:

demonfox13 said:
Heh, if you all have a PC with semi decent specs you should get Crysis and Crysis Warhead on PC. Kb/M combo crushes pad all day, plus the graphics just blow anything away on consoles. Plus I guarantee it's cheaper than the console counterparts with higher quality.

I would say that Crysis on High in 720p would be almost identical to the console versions. To acheive a constant 30fps you would need a HD 5770 combined with a powerful Core 2 Duo or an Intel i3 at least.

That PC would cost you £400 at least, twice as much as a PS3 160gb and three times as much as an XBOX 360 slim.

PC fanboys...easily the worst on the internet.

Consoles won't be able to run Crysis on High even on 720p, if they use CryEngine 2 for it. Crysis on Medium can use up to 1.5 GB of RAM at the most intensive areas, so unless they cut back on enemies, foliage and explosions, it isn't feasible. 

If they update Crysis to CryEngine 3, then there's a chance that it will be able to run on consoles, though Crysis 2 on consoles is barely the Gamer setting on PC, which is two levels below the current best mode, Ultra. 

It's not a matter of being a fanboy or not (I game on PC's as much as I do on consoles or handhelds), it's a matter of knowing the arquitecture of a game and seeing that in it's current form isn't feasible. My laptop can run Crysis on Very High at 25 - 30 FPS and it has a ATI HD 6770 and an i7 Core. A Core 2 Duo won't run you Crysis on High, an i3 even worse. You'll need at least an i5 for it. 

CryEngine 2 is an unoptimised joke, I was talking about them using CryEngine 3. And I think Crysis on High is similar to Crysis 2 on consoles, just look at the tech demos. Not only that, but I think that foliage looks a lot better than a building.

And yes, it is a matter of being a fanboy. I get so agitated by people whining on about how PC's have the best graphics and how you can make a PC which looks better than a console for only a fraction of the price, the latter point being a load of bullshit. And then they whine on about keyboard and mouse being the best thing since sliced bread, they are just so ignorant and annoying.

HD 5770 and Core 2 Duo is my PC right now, and I normally have an FPS higher than 30fps when I play on "Very High" settings. The point you just made makes PC's look even more expensive, your laptop must have cost you about £700.

I disagree when you say that Crysis foliage look a lot better than a building. Crysis foliage isn't that impressive, outside the physics behind it, as there has been better foliage (Risen for example). Heck, even the low grass physics were exactly like the physics in the grass of Oblivion with pretty much similar textures. 

I've seen Crysis 2 on consoles, and I don't see it coming close to Crysis on high, there's just too many differences, especially on the post-processing effects field and mainly on textures. Crysis 2 on consoles has some pretty ugly textures and a massive amount of texture pop up as well. Maybe lightning is close to Crysis high, but in most of the fields I would say that it comes close to Crysis medium.

I agree with the majority of your second paragraph, but you also have the same modus operandi with console supporters claiming that consoles are the much better alternative. Both camps can be annoying and obnoxious, because both PC's and consoles have their own strengths and weaknesses. 

I wasn't trying to make any point, because I distinctly said that I had a laptop to run Crysis. A laptop with similar specs that you posted would only be able to run Crysis on medium with playable FPS. I had a laptop with the fastest Core 2 Duo for laptops and an overclocked GT 9650M 1 GB which performed the same as a GTX 9800M and only got 10 fps on High.