Comments with -10 or lower "thumbs" are removed from display.

• 
  0 thumbs!

  Steel Magnolia | March 02, 2008
  That is no doubt great news, I can't wait. But why are they bothering to release Crysis 1.5? Why not either port the first game or wait until the second one?
  • 
    0 thumbs!

    jmac353 | March 02, 2008
    Crytek is just that kind of company. They like to bring out more new content rather than simply port things. They have a clear passion in what they do.
• 
  0 thumbs!

  Red 9 | March 03, 2008
  Hmm, this seems interesting. Cool, too. I might rent this when it eventually comes out (which'll be likely near the end of 08 or into 09).
  
  But any reason why it's not on 360? Not to take anything away from the PS3, but usually these things end up being multiplatformed.
  • 
    -4 thumbs!

    Existenz | March 03, 2008
    The 360 couldn't run it, Crysis struggles to run nice on quad core PC's the 360 only has a 3 core processor.
    • 
      1 thumbs!

      VeGiTAX2 | March 03, 2008
      lol.
      
      Please try to understand technology before you post. If you knew about multi-core processing you'd know that many developers favor a factor of 3 because of the speed that instructions can pass and compile. You might as well start quoting old thought from the GHz races.
      
      In fact it's so bad you might as well say, "MY 3.2GHZ PENTIUM 4 PWNS YOUR 2.66GHZ CORE 2 DUO!!!11" when in reality the difference between the two is beyond huge, the 2.66GHz Core 2 has so many more advancements over the dinosaur P4 that it's not even amusing.
      
      To slam things down further, you're comparing PPE technology that the Xenon is based on to x86 architecture, something that in terms of actual performance is laughable to compare as x86 falls far behind it in optimized code. Given that, the processor is a 3 core 2-way multi-threaded chip running on a short stage pipeline to ensure that instructions are sent and built at rapid speed.
      
      So yeah, your analysis is awful.
      • 
        0 thumbs!

        Red 9 | March 03, 2008
        So would the 360 be able to handle it?
      • 
        0 thumbs!

        iLLmatic | March 03, 2008
        Most of what you're saying is true (and obvious to someone who knows the architecture of a computer), but just because a developer may favor a 3 core processor does not always make it the best CPU for the task(s) in question.
      • 
        3 thumbs!

        VeGiTAX2 | March 03, 2008
        Actually the efficiency of the processing makes the 3 better than the 4. The fact that the processor hangs on the 4th core to complete the cycle gives the 3 a faster compile rate leaving it ahead of 4 core parts.
        
        I'll rephrase that, experienced developers/software engineers/programmers/designers/etc prefer it, it's the design of the actual processor allowing for faster compile rates. Unless you dump 3 quad cores into a 12 core array it's not really going to change that. Trying to use the logic of "4 > 3 so 4 must be better regardless" is pretty much for those grasping at straws to hold some attempt at steady ground.
      • 
        1 thumbs!

        jmac353 | March 03, 2008
        *bleep* that, everyone knows it's all about Socket 754.
      • 
        0 thumbs!

        Red 9 | March 03, 2008
        All I want to know is whether or not the 360 has the power to run Crysis at a respectable quality level, not all these processor analogies.
      • 
        0 thumbs!

        VeGiTAX2 | March 04, 2008
        Given the difference in ability of the PPE structure it should have no real reason as to why it can't do it. Of course the game is going to be reduced to some level on either system because of texture overhead being so huge in game. It should still look quite nice though given that the 360 is using programmable shader units such as we see in DX10 titles.
        
        With enough invested time there's no reason that if they're serious that it couldn't be ported properly to both systems.
      • 
        0 thumbs!

        Red 9 | March 05, 2008
        It's just that I find it weird how the Cell is supposed to allow greater detail and such, but it always seems like the 360 can do whatever te Cell can, sometimes more.
    • 
      -1 thumbs!

      Sort | March 03, 2008
      Fanboy rant didn't work this time did it Existenz? ROFL. Pwnt by Vegitax.
      • 
        0 thumbs!

        Existenz | March 04, 2008
        Me a fanboy? Haha no i was just stated what i thought was right, so *bleep*.
      • 
        0 thumbs!

        Donnelly | March 04, 2008
        Yeah sort, you idiot. She's a fangirl
• 
  2 thumbs!

  Donnelly | March 03, 2008
  I heard this game was pretty average.
  
  I'll probably still rent it at some point or another.
  • 
    0 thumbs!

    Storm | March 03, 2008
    I played it and imo, it is average. Nothing really makes it stand out, I'd rather have been playing CoD4, but that's just me. It's graphics are amazing, but the gameplay isn't something to brag about. It's a good game, surely, but I guess I expected more than a pretty face.
• 
  0 thumbs!

  random_gamer | March 03, 2008
  I really hope this proves true, because I cried on the inside when I tried to play the Crysis demo on my computer. I could count the frames per second on one hand with everything set as low as it could go. =(
• 
  0 thumbs!

  shaka | March 03, 2008
  Well the game sold porly on PC,not alot of people were able to run it at full, and i think this game looks alot like Haze so only a matter of time.
• 
  0 thumbs!

  Pyrazor | March 03, 2008
  I'm not too familiar with the PS3s power but I wouldn't say it's not coming out on the 360 just yet.
• 
  0 thumbs!

  Incidnia | March 03, 2008
  I will only get it if it has the map editor.
• 
  0 thumbs!

  DeepDarkAbyss | March 03, 2008
  I managed to play this on my uncle's PC, and I thought it was pretty good. It wasn't running at full speed, (roughly 25fps) and it wasn't at full settings, and it still looked great. Very fun to play, too. So yeah, if there is a PS3 port, great. But, is there actually any proof of this? Have Crytek confirmed it?
• 
  3 thumbs!

  slumpy monkey | March 03, 2008
  Crysis gameplay is rubbish. It as more of a test for their engine. Im looking more forward to Farcry 2.
  • 
    0 thumbs!

    VeGiTAX2 | March 05, 2008
    You didn't like controlling the broken hovering jet thing from hell?
    
    Actually I think most hated that part of the game, "hey shoot down that thing that goes 419501510x faster than you." er... ok....
• 
  0 thumbs!

  CRUNK JUICE | March 05, 2008
  <red 9="9" i="i" want="want" to="to" know="know" is="is" whether="whether" or="or" not="not" the="the" 360="360" has="has" power="power" run="run" crysis="crysis" at="at" a="a" respectable="respectable" quality="quality" all="all" these="these" processor="processor">
  
  The CELL can do folding@home much better than the 360's CPU, it can do Physics calculations better thatn the 360's CPU, I would like to see the 360's CELL generate different animations on the spot for Uncharted, heck I would like to see the 360 do the water effects from Uncharted, it can even do graphic calculations better than alot of the GPU's (one of the reasons why FFXIII is looking so tasty), it can do multi-sampling Anti-Aliasing for Killzone 2. I admitt I am no computer geek but it ain't that hard to give examples of things the CELL can do which the 360's CPU can not do as well or even not do at all.</red>
  • 
    0 thumbs!

    VeGiTAX2 | March 05, 2008
    The problem you're having is that you're failing to determine what the RSX does and what the CELL does. The cell doesn't do MSAA, it doesn't apply water shading calls, it doesn't do texture filtering and blending, it doesn't render the models even.
    
    RSX = Graphics workhorse of the PS3
    CELL = Computational workhorse of the PS3
    
    Knowing that allows you to start realizing that it's not all about just 1 part of the system. In terms of the GPU, the RSX is a glorified 79xx series NVIDIA GPU for the most part while the 360 uses what might be labeled as a first generation R6xx chip because it has programmable shader units instead of fixed functions.
    • 
      0 thumbs!

      Red 9 | March 05, 2008
      So are you saying the 360 can produce better graphics? All I keep getting are these analogies, not any definitive answers.
      • 
        0 thumbs!

        VeGiTAX2 | March 06, 2008
        No one really knows I'd say.
        
        We haven't seen someone exploit the full potential of what the 79xx series could do and we haven't see someone exploit the full potential of something like an R6xx before. They both use different graphic calls (OpenGL vs DirectX) and ultimately have better driver optimization than anything normal consumers saw in the marketplace.
        
        If I said the ATI GPU in the 360 wins because that's how hardware advanced, that could be total bs, maybe games don't need programmable shader units and can do fine with fixed numbers. We just don't know at this point and we might never know. Maybe the RSX does exceptionally well in cloud rendering but if a game never does it, we'll never know. It's problematic and people like to instantly assume that because something came out later, it's better.
        
        As far as the CPU goes, CELL dominates the console market with it's CPU design. (Funny enough the CELL uses a single PPE core in a little bit different config from the 360 as it has to handle calls from the SPU's)
        
        I guess in the end it's just more of a point to say, no one knows what either console is really capable of until we see developers throw down the gauntlet. One of the biggest things the 360 has against it is drive cache, games need space, crysis needs a boatload of it to unpack itself and that could end up being a deciding factor.
  • 
    0 thumbs!

    iLLmatic | March 05, 2008
    The 360 doesn't even have the Cell, buddy.
• 
  0 thumbs!

  devil link | March 05, 2008
  The PS3 does have pretty awsome graphics im sure Crysis can survive on this console.