I can make it to high if I'm willing to accept 20-30FPS framerates.  My PC as well is more powerful than a PS3 (particularly in the graphics card).  And yeah, there are 2 full graphic settings above that.  High is really closer to medium when compared to the full range of options.

I'll have to check to see what medium settings look like and then run it at a lower 1280x720, not that it has any bearing on what solid coders could do with a CBE optimized build. Memory constraints are the real bottleneck before processing power with the PS3.

I'd compare something like MGS4 as a better gauge for hardware capability, but will still have to wait a couple weeks for that. Is the 1920x1080 @ 60fps fact or fiction?

I suspect it wont actually be the crysis on pc. more likely a game on the ps3 (and possibly 360) which runs on a console tweaked version of the cryengine 2

The console shooter market is already overcrowded, I doubt it would have a massive impact unless they really got it working great

Even if Crysis is coming or not, Crytek still said that they are building console versions of the CryEngine2, so that it can be licensed out, and used for console games.

I really hope Crytek will make another PS3 effort rather than port this slugfest. I could sum up Crysis fairly easily; boring.

Ah, was it really that bad?

On the other hand, I just played it on medium settings at 1280x720, and if that's how it looked on the PS3 (not as good as Uncharted) I really don't see how any PS3 owner could get excited over that, even if it ran over 60fps, virtually glitch free.

I suppose it depends upon how well they could optimize Crysis to play on the console. If it was "the best looking game yet" on the platform, sure it could sell.

I meant more of they use the same engine(or close?) so I can't see how a Crysis port could look much better than the Farcry 2 port.

Are you serious. Crysis on low looks better than uncharted.