By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Crysis ONE coming to PS360!

oniyide on 02 July 2011
pezus said:
Xen said:
pezus said:
Xen said:
oniyide said:
DaColdFlash said:
vlad321 said:
DaColdFlash said:
Releasing a 4year old PC benchmark on consoles. Yes that's what we needed.


Except that the consoles will still not be able to play the game with as good graphics, and eventhough the gameplay itself was very mediocre it is about on par with console games. Basically, what's your point?

OT:

I have always said Crysis was mediocre, PC exclusive or not, so I am curious how HD console gamers will react to it now.

 

Crysis is senseless on consoles. The game was all and pretty much only about graphics, trying to exhaust even the best hardware. The whole game was a whole benchmark and it was mostly used for dick comparison hardware wise. Now the game itself is as you stated pretty mediocre which makes the only good thing about it it's technology. Let's just cut straight to the point:

Consoles = Not so good graphics

Crysis = All about graphics

What's left? Gameplay

How's the gameplay? Mediocre

Where's the sense in releasing a 4year old mediocre shooter? Nowhere

That was pretty much my point.

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

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

I'm not so sure about that. They will run it, sure, but not "eat it up"

An SB Pentium+Good GPU+4GB of RAM are likely to handle it very well w/high settings (not max naturally). I think that it's very possible.

Sure, but then computers must be very cheap were you live ^_^. You can't buy shit for the equivalent of $400 over here (electronics).


This is why i stick to consoles, nothing against PC but it is more expensive and you have to do more research, but i am in the market for a new laptop, maybe i will get one that can run recent games better than the abused Acer i currently have



Around the Network
Chroniczaaa on 02 July 2011
demonfox13 said:
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.

First flaw in your post comes from calling me a PC fanboy when in fact I am a Sony one but we'll leave that alone. Second, the kb/m combo is proven time and again to be more accurate because you control exactly where you aim as opposed to velocity/stop in a pad. Finally, yes my gripe is them taking this long to bring Crysis 1 to consoles instead of much earlier. To me it looks like they will make the same mistake as EA when bringing ME2 to the PS3 at full price (despite DLC) over a year later. My gaming rig including the monitor cost me 650 including shipping. Lets say without monitor and shipping (to bring on even ground with ps3 and 360 launch) it would be roughly $480ish. I have another thread with full specs when I asked Disolitude for advice, but in summary I have an Sapphire Radeon HD 5830 1gb gddr5 256-bit, AMD Phenom II X4, etc. I play Crysis 1 at max and it easily blows anything away on consoles atm and Crysis 1 is only at about $20 on D2D and Steam. With that being said optimization on consoles has been done well which is why we have beauties such as Uncharted 2, KZ2-3, Alan Wake, Heavy Rain, etc. You simply have to understand that my rant is based on Crysis 1 coming out this late on consoles with most likely  a full 60$ price tag when you can get it for cheaper on a PC and get better performance out of it. In order for it to be worth it, they would have to release Crysis 1 and Warhead at 30-40$ (getting both bundled on PC is $30 on steam) and I honestly do not see them doing that.


Crysis on max at 800x600 resolution is hardly an accomplishment.



"Defeating a sandwich, only makes it tastier." - Virginia

demonfox13 on 02 July 2011
Chroniczaaa said:
demonfox13 said:
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.

First flaw in your post comes from calling me a PC fanboy when in fact I am a Sony one but we'll leave that alone. Second, the kb/m combo is proven time and again to be more accurate because you control exactly where you aim as opposed to velocity/stop in a pad. Finally, yes my gripe is them taking this long to bring Crysis 1 to consoles instead of much earlier. To me it looks like they will make the same mistake as EA when bringing ME2 to the PS3 at full price (despite DLC) over a year later. My gaming rig including the monitor cost me 650 including shipping. Lets say without monitor and shipping (to bring on even ground with ps3 and 360 launch) it would be roughly $480ish. I have another thread with full specs when I asked Disolitude for advice, but in summary I have an Sapphire Radeon HD 5830 1gb gddr5 256-bit, AMD Phenom II X4, etc. I play Crysis 1 at max and it easily blows anything away on consoles atm and Crysis 1 is only at about $20 on D2D and Steam. With that being said optimization on consoles has been done well which is why we have beauties such as Uncharted 2, KZ2-3, Alan Wake, Heavy Rain, etc. You simply have to understand that my rant is based on Crysis 1 coming out this late on consoles with most likely  a full 60$ price tag when you can get it for cheaper on a PC and get better performance out of it. In order for it to be worth it, they would have to release Crysis 1 and Warhead at 30-40$ (getting both bundled on PC is $30 on steam) and I honestly do not see them doing that.


Crysis on max at 800x600 resolution is hardly an accomplishment.

Trying to figure out if this is attempt at trolling because if it is, then you failed hard, if not then I apologize. I have Crysis at 1360x768, but I will test it at even higher settings if you'd like.



Make games, not war (that goes for ridiculous fanboys)

I may be the next Maelstorm or not, you be the judge http://videogamesgrow.blogspot.com/  hopefully I can be more of an asset than a fanboy to VGC hehe.

Chroniczaaa on 02 July 2011
demonfox13 said:
Chroniczaaa said:
demonfox13 said:
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.

First flaw in your post comes from calling me a PC fanboy when in fact I am a Sony one but we'll leave that alone. Second, the kb/m combo is proven time and again to be more accurate because you control exactly where you aim as opposed to velocity/stop in a pad. Finally, yes my gripe is them taking this long to bring Crysis 1 to consoles instead of much earlier. To me it looks like they will make the same mistake as EA when bringing ME2 to the PS3 at full price (despite DLC) over a year later. My gaming rig including the monitor cost me 650 including shipping. Lets say without monitor and shipping (to bring on even ground with ps3 and 360 launch) it would be roughly $480ish. I have another thread with full specs when I asked Disolitude for advice, but in summary I have an Sapphire Radeon HD 5830 1gb gddr5 256-bit, AMD Phenom II X4, etc. I play Crysis 1 at max and it easily blows anything away on consoles atm and Crysis 1 is only at about $20 on D2D and Steam. With that being said optimization on consoles has been done well which is why we have beauties such as Uncharted 2, KZ2-3, Alan Wake, Heavy Rain, etc. You simply have to understand that my rant is based on Crysis 1 coming out this late on consoles with most likely  a full 60$ price tag when you can get it for cheaper on a PC and get better performance out of it. In order for it to be worth it, they would have to release Crysis 1 and Warhead at 30-40$ (getting both bundled on PC is $30 on steam) and I honestly do not see them doing that.


Crysis on max at 800x600 resolution is hardly an accomplishment.

Trying to figure out if this is attempt at trolling because if it is, then you failed hard, if not then I apologize. I have Crysis at 1360x768, but I will test it at even higher settings if you'd like.

I wasn't trolling... my opinion is just skewed since at 1080p the game is a massive hog and even anything less makes me doubt it.



"Defeating a sandwich, only makes it tastier." - Virginia

demonfox13 on 02 July 2011
Chroniczaaa said:
demonfox13 said:
Chroniczaaa said:
demonfox13 said:
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.

First flaw in your post comes from calling me a PC fanboy when in fact I am a Sony one but we'll leave that alone. Second, the kb/m combo is proven time and again to be more accurate because you control exactly where you aim as opposed to velocity/stop in a pad. Finally, yes my gripe is them taking this long to bring Crysis 1 to consoles instead of much earlier. To me it looks like they will make the same mistake as EA when bringing ME2 to the PS3 at full price (despite DLC) over a year later. My gaming rig including the monitor cost me 650 including shipping. Lets say without monitor and shipping (to bring on even ground with ps3 and 360 launch) it would be roughly $480ish. I have another thread with full specs when I asked Disolitude for advice, but in summary I have an Sapphire Radeon HD 5830 1gb gddr5 256-bit, AMD Phenom II X4, etc. I play Crysis 1 at max and it easily blows anything away on consoles atm and Crysis 1 is only at about $20 on D2D and Steam. With that being said optimization on consoles has been done well which is why we have beauties such as Uncharted 2, KZ2-3, Alan Wake, Heavy Rain, etc. You simply have to understand that my rant is based on Crysis 1 coming out this late on consoles with most likely  a full 60$ price tag when you can get it for cheaper on a PC and get better performance out of it. In order for it to be worth it, they would have to release Crysis 1 and Warhead at 30-40$ (getting both bundled on PC is $30 on steam) and I honestly do not see them doing that.


Crysis on max at 800x600 resolution is hardly an accomplishment.

Trying to figure out if this is attempt at trolling because if it is, then you failed hard, if not then I apologize. I have Crysis at 1360x768, but I will test it at even higher settings if you'd like.

I wasn't trolling... my opinion is just skewed since at 1080p the game is a massive hog and even anything less makes me doubt it.


Ewww no man, I don't play ANY PC game on less than 1300ish resolution. BTW if you have a semi decent PC, try out one of Steam's free FPS called Alliance of Valiant Arms, I ended up making a thread about it cuz it's THAT fun.



Make games, not war (that goes for ridiculous fanboys)

I may be the next Maelstorm or not, you be the judge http://videogamesgrow.blogspot.com/  hopefully I can be more of an asset than a fanboy to VGC hehe.

Around the Network
Chroniczaaa on 02 July 2011
demonfox13 said:
Chroniczaaa said:
demonfox13 said:
Chroniczaaa said:
demonfox13 said:
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.

First flaw in your post comes from calling me a PC fanboy when in fact I am a Sony one but we'll leave that alone. Second, the kb/m combo is proven time and again to be more accurate because you control exactly where you aim as opposed to velocity/stop in a pad. Finally, yes my gripe is them taking this long to bring Crysis 1 to consoles instead of much earlier. To me it looks like they will make the same mistake as EA when bringing ME2 to the PS3 at full price (despite DLC) over a year later. My gaming rig including the monitor cost me 650 including shipping. Lets say without monitor and shipping (to bring on even ground with ps3 and 360 launch) it would be roughly $480ish. I have another thread with full specs when I asked Disolitude for advice, but in summary I have an Sapphire Radeon HD 5830 1gb gddr5 256-bit, AMD Phenom II X4, etc. I play Crysis 1 at max and it easily blows anything away on consoles atm and Crysis 1 is only at about $20 on D2D and Steam. With that being said optimization on consoles has been done well which is why we have beauties such as Uncharted 2, KZ2-3, Alan Wake, Heavy Rain, etc. You simply have to understand that my rant is based on Crysis 1 coming out this late on consoles with most likely  a full 60$ price tag when you can get it for cheaper on a PC and get better performance out of it. In order for it to be worth it, they would have to release Crysis 1 and Warhead at 30-40$ (getting both bundled on PC is $30 on steam) and I honestly do not see them doing that.


Crysis on max at 800x600 resolution is hardly an accomplishment.

Trying to figure out if this is attempt at trolling because if it is, then you failed hard, if not then I apologize. I have Crysis at 1360x768, but I will test it at even higher settings if you'd like.

I wasn't trolling... my opinion is just skewed since at 1080p the game is a massive hog and even anything less makes me doubt it.


Ewww no man, I don't play ANY PC game on less than 1300ish resolution. BTW if you have a semi decent PC, try out one of Steam's free FPS called Alliance of Valiant Arms, I ended up making a thread about it cuz it's THAT fun.


What I meant by 1080p was 1920x1080 pixels and the goal of trying to get 60 fps.



"Defeating a sandwich, only makes it tastier." - Virginia