At least not Crysis as it plays on PC. It's not the CPU (Cell or Xenon) for physics calculations and not even the rendering capabilities of the GPUs, but the current glass ceiling of consoles: basic RAM.

Apparently even console optimization will not allow the real time rendering and monitoring that makes Crysis the resource hog we all know and love.

It could be done, but only through breaking the maps up into segments like Far Cry 2. The persistent, open world environment of Crysis just isn't feasible with 512MB of total RAM.

So while Crytek makes no promises about the basic assumption most gamers had regarding the CE3 engine, it seems pretty implausible that they won't develop and release some form of their hottest IP on consoles.

http://www.poland.us/strona,33,3816,0.html

ONE MAJOR Misconception that must be cleared up:

Cryengine 3 as a multi-platform engine =/= a Crysis port for Consoles.

It's irritating but expected that the console community took the footage of jungles and nanosuit soldiers as proof that Crytek was bringing Crysis onto consoles. While we may be seeing assets that were brought over from previous games, this in no way guarantees a port of Crysis. Quite simply, Crytek used existing assets both to save time in getting the demo together and to protect the status of whatever games they have in development from being revealed.

So, why can't Crysis work on consoles?

Simple. It isn't the processor (either the 360's tri-core or PS3's cell can handle enough of the physics calculations) or the graphics unit that is holding the two most powerful consoles back: it's the RAM. Memory is a big part of what makes Crysis what it is. When you render enormous levels that are inhabited by hundreds of physics objects and are being patrolled by always-active AI, you need somewhere for all that "stuff" to be easily accessed in real-time. 1 gigabyte is the bare minimum that Crysis needs for most of its levels, and even then the game will be choppy on rigs that have the latest Intel Core i7 processor and NVIDIA GTX 295 graphics cards. 2 GB is the least that you need for the game to run at a smooth clip, almost regardless of the graphics settings that you are using.

I don't get the whole appeal of crysis on a console. Ignoring the graphics, it was a very generic game. Why would you want to play a graphically downgraded version of Crysis?

Agreed, the only thing that makes crysis great is the graphics and animation... other then that gameplay is meh-ish..

Huh?! Gameplay was the best part of Crysis, far better than any FPS put out on consoles. The editor, physics, environment destruction, animations, graphics are also top notch.

Omg not you... v.v

I'm not going to make an argument here as I never played Crysis, but does that mean you're ready to call Crysis' gameplay better than that of Half-Life 2 and its episodes?

Crisys' gameplay was good, but not more. I liked it, though I like almost every FPS ever released, so that doesn't mean much.

The graphics are great and the physics fun.

Oh and the frog bug is just hilarious:

The game engine was arguably the most impressive thing about Crysis. The fact that it was released Nov 2007 and still really hasn't been unanimously surpassed speaks volumes.

As a shooter itself, it wasn't particularly overwhelming although the nanosuit play mechanics did allow for a great deal of diversity without being unbalanced.

But it seems that one of the most impressive aspects of the engine was the use of a persistent open world environment that enabled the player to effect something from a great distance, explore other areas and return up close to see that the effect was still unchanged.

What it was NOT, however, was the best in physics, ragdoll or otherwise. Destructible environments seemed largely restricted to sheet metal shacks and break away trees, less impressive than Dice's Frostbite engine. Ragdoll physics for KZ2 were far more dynamic and visceral.

And the character animations themselves were not what I'd consider to be among Crysis' greater strengths either.

Honestly, let them make a new game. No need to get all worked up wondering about if Crysis is going to come to the PC.

I'm going to have to disagree with you on that point. Although Crysis didn't have material destruction or anything like DMM featured in SW:TFU, the level of physics in the destructible environments was far beyond Dice's Frostbite engine (or at least the implementation in BF:BC). In BF:BC everything that could be destroyed broke the exact same way every single time and only had to be triggered. In Crysis, although the individual parts of the building stayed in tact (ie. the metal sheets and wooden planks), the way they reacted to explosions changed based on actual physics calculations. So if you throw a grenade to one side of a building, it'll break differently than throwing a grenade inside, or on the other side of that building. I will agree though, there are better ragdolls out there, but the animations of characters when they're alive and moving around is still pretty remarkable, with their bodies adjusting to different types of terrain and slopes and what not. 2 years ago, it was the best by far.

As for the shooting mechanics, I found them quite enjoyable. The nano suit and gun mods make for some innovative approaches to to different battles in the game. I've played through it 3 times and each time I tried a different style and different guns with different mods. It does have the replay value if you like it, but I guess not many people got that "spark" with this game.

The modding community has also done a great deal to make the game better, everything from creating new assets, optimizing config files to making it look/run better and "Crysis on Crack".

@ OP

I don't think Crysis itself will come to consoles because, as you said, they were using older assets just to show the tech running on consoles and minimizing the time put into making the demo. I mean, one could just as easily say "OMGZ!! I saw an old roman style building!!! Gears of War in CryEngine CONF!RM3D?!?!1!?!one2!!1?