good point, but are you saying its impossible to get the console version to look even close to the PC one?? and was the PC version only able to run on super PC setups?? im not being difficult, im asking because i honestly dont know

Well, my 900 Eur laptop, which has a i7 running at 2.0 ghz and a ATI HD 6770M can run crysis on very high at an average of 25-30 fps, dropping as low as 15 fps during the last stages of the game, due to the massive number of enemies on screen. 

The original Crysis was very resource-demanding on PC's, not only because of the graphical intensity but also because it was a piss-poor job in terms of optimization. Crysis 2 Ultra mode (the recent patch) can run on my PC on an average of 30-35 fps, even during intense firefights and lot's of action on the screen, because the CryEngine 3 is much better optimized, not only for consoles but for PC as well. 

If they do release Crysis on consoles, then I bet they'll be using the CryEngine 3 for it, not the shoddy CryEngine 2. I just don't see Crysis in it's PC format running on consoles at all (even on Medium settings, Crysis is a RAM monster, as it can go as high as 1.5 GB RAM consumption on Medium, and I've seen it go as high as 3.5 GB on Very High in the final moments of the game). 

And yes, I do agree with Vlad and DaColdFlash. Crysis as a game is mediocre at best, since it's gameplay is nothing to be amazed at and it's supposed "Open-World" feeling is pretty empty, as you'll end up doing the same things over and over again and taking the same linear path, even during the opening jungle stages. It's AI is pretty shoddy as well, miles from the likes of good AI such as from Half-Life or F.E.A.R and it's story is meh at best. 

So really, Crysis is only worthy as a graphical showpiece.

ok that makes sense, i'll probably skip it, too much good FPS games out there and coming

Back when it released it knocked PC's down left and right... these days, a $400 build will eat it up.

it wasn't that good of a game, i only bought it because i heard it looked pretty, no doubt it did look pretty. But it had alot of gameplay flaws such as no enough power was given to really use it, you will have armor on majority of the time, and when not you will be stealth running from bush to bush. Strength and Speed are useless. Another flaw was the fact that if you are spotted everything enemy in a 10 mile radius has zoned onto your exact position and helicopters were zoning in.

Tho it wasn't that bad. Yet to play number 2, have no intentions at the moment.

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.

All my PC gamers will laugh at the low resolution of Crysis 1 on console. Ever wonder why they decided to make Crysis 2 a city based game? Blocky buildings are much easier to render then a million plants.

Even now only SLI/Crossfire or $700 Gpus can run crysis maxed 60fps at 1080p, The game is a freakin hog. If they bring it to consoles their going to have to optimize the living hell out of it.

Actually, the main problem about the rendering of Crysis is the CryEngine 2. The CryEngine 3 streamlined the wireframe and polygon rendering much faster than CryEngine 2 and the textures aren't that much RAM consuming as in CryEngine 2, even with the new Ultra mode which includes Tesselation, SSDO and a lot other DX11 upgrades. 

Plus, the great majority of the plantlife in Crysis didn't had that much textures to it. What made it stand out from other games was the physics applied to it, though normal low grass physics had already been implemented on games such as Oblivion (which was the main RAM and graphic hog of the game, that's why the Grass distance on consoles is almost set to minimum). 

In my personal opinion, Crysis 2 looks as good (and better in some departments) on Ultra as Crysis 1&Crysis Warhead did on Very High.

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.

User has been moderated for this post.