Single-player campaign of Crytek's 2007 PC first-person shooter makes console debut as $20 downloadable title; "remastered" title to feature tweaked controls, stereoscopic 3D support.
It has been a couple of quiet months since Crysis was first rated for the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3, but speculation of the game's eventual console arrival has persisted. Electronic Arts today confirmed that speculation, announcing that Crysis will indeed arrive on Microsoft's and Sony's consoles next month.
Crysis will debut as a downloadable game for Xbox Live and PlayStation Network and is both gaining and losing some traits in the process. When it arrives, Crysis will only feature the original game's single-player campaign. However, the campaign is being "remastered" for the console release with new lighting effects, optimized controls, and stereoscopic 3D support for both systems.
The campaign storyline will remain the same, with players joining an elite team of soldiers in a near-future setting where the United States and North Korea are embroiled in rising tensions. Players will be sent into hostile (but lush) territory held by North Korean forces in the South China Sea, and the situation is further complicated by the arrival of alien forces.
Rumors of a console version of Crysis started almost as soon as the game had a name. The sophomore effort from Frankfurt, Germany-based Crytek, Crysis was a technological showpiece for the studio's PC-only CryEngine 2. Since that time, Crytek has introduced CryEngine 3, which was incorporated into Crysis 2 and designed to run on the Xbox 360 and PS3.
For more on Crysis, check out GameSpot's review.
I'll be very interested in seeing what the game looses and what it keeps. Will they have to change the maps? Will enemy AI still work the same? Will they even have an option to let them speak Korean? Are they going to add auto-aiming?
it is cool to see that non PC gamers can finally get too play the game but I still feel like they wont get the real excitement that the PC version gave us PC gamers got, what with he whole trying to build a PC that is good enough to run that damn thing :P
@justicxprime Ok man whatever you say. We all know PC is capable of higher end graphics and dis and dat. I was just saying the way you came in was pretty arrogant and disrespectiful. But forget about that, just ignore this.
@justicxprime I hear you and I completely agree with you, no one should diss a certain platform, especially one that they know little about. I see all sides, and I also don't see anything wrong with gaming on what you prefer, but some people take it to the extreme, with rants of console dominance or vice versa.
@godzillavskong I wants saying consoles suck, original point was I hate it when console gamers diss a system they have know idea about, like this kid who claims the 360 version will be superior, yeah, okay. I am a console gamer AND a PC gamer.
@GunBladeHero you obviously missed the point why i listed my games systems and my work, it was to show you that I am not buy-est towards 1 particular system and that I am stating facts, Crysis on the 360 WILL not look as good compared to a high end PC. FACT. BTW I have been in business for 11years and my store turned from 1 small game store into 3 large locations, so dont lecture my salesmanship, especially since I never tried to sell you anything ;)
Do you really think they weren't planning to do this? They could have released both versions at the same time. It's the same story with Crysis 2 Engine: according to Crytek, that engine is able to create graphics throughout all platforms, and what we got was a port, as every game nowadays, it's not a surprise. to use a lowest common denominator isn't a technology advance, and now, for the first time in this generation, console players will know the feeling of playing a "ported game".
To all who thump down on my comment. Grow up. The game was not lunched on consoles for hardware reasons, Crytek words, adding 3D doesn't make the game better, not actual improve that hasn't already be done on PC so far. Face the damn true it just a port or strip-down version of the game. It is good though that Crytek make the effort to "port" the game to consoles so people who weren't able to play the game catch up what's going on. Hope Crytek people make me eat my words by doing something different, which i doubt (unless the truly remaster the game using Cryengine3).
@jedikevin those were just examples I stated but hell even GS has an article pointing how PC gaming is on the rise again and to add to that how a lot of publications are going more indepth with pc games my gripe was that you said GI didn't review PC games...that is clearly false
pc gaming isnt really superior as far as gameplay is concerned. i mean yeah you get shinier graphics but thats about it. consoles are more comfortable and easier to access than pcs plus they get first pick when it comes to games. i used to love playing pc online but since this generation what are the real benifits of pc gaming these days?
I played through maybe 3 times on PC, I could easily play it again..its an awesome game. Its cool you console guys get to finally play a decent version of Crysis. The multiplayer gameplay of Crysis 1 called Power Struggle was so under appreciated and very very well done, but highly complex, so not many people got into it and you needed such a high end rig on release day, not even the hardware out at the time could run the game fast enough on high settings for the multiplayer to even work. I dont think power struggle will make it to console, which is a shame, but at least you get the basic version of the single player game.
Finished this game along time ago on PC. But it will be good for console people cause its much better than Crysis 2.
@TrueIori not saying you are wrong, but define "decent". I'm willing to bet your definition and mine will differ when it comes to PCs. I should have done a better job of explaining in my first post, but there is s difference in just being able to run a game, and making it look as great as it possibly can while doing so.
wonder how this will look on a console. not that i'd buy it, i played it for 30 minutes on PC and lost interest very quickly
@BigBigR no average console life is 4-5 it only been this generation that it been longer... just fyi
@jedikevin2 "Just because you see 1-2 titles in the magazine keep in mind you many may not be represented or reviewed on said magazine." Indeed, but seeing it happen on a constant basis instead of just once in a while leads me to think PC games may be losing interest.Hey, I could care less what gaming platform anyone uses, and I won't hate on anyone who games on the machine they prefer, it just seems like PC games are slowly being diluted.
@godzillavskong Not really left field. Many a website have to appeal as much as possible to the demographic buying said paper. Offcourse a website or magazine will work to get mainstream games but Pc gaming in the last generation has been cut alot in many the eye of said publications. They will review what now people classify as "mainstream" (as if that matters) but skip on many other games. Its not just game informer, many places have done it in the last 4-5 years. The amount of pc games though have been either the same of actually a huge increase. Just because you see 1-2 titles in the magazine keep in mind you many may not be represented or reviewed on said magazine. It has nothing to do with dumbing down, elitism or other statements you guys are making.
@Dredwulf WTH does witcher 2, crysis or Dawn of war have to do with a prethara of Pc games that do not see the light of day on many a magazine. How does that make me a elitist in Any way. You will not see games such as Jamestown: legend of the lost colony, Anomaly: warzone earth, Frozen Synapses, proun etc. Offcourse they review the mainstream game. As the member stated, he is only seeing 1-2 games getting any attention on the magazine with reviews and I simply gave a simple reason. They just don't have the time,money or resources for many said Pc games. Its just the nature just like this website cut down this generation on pc reviews (Here is just a soley [url=https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AvujL7lrkmCVdDJtcWVwU2NTVFRNcFQteTZndDhsVnc&hl=en_US&rm=minimal#gid=0]Multiplatform example[/url] of this website. ) My response was soley to the other member. The amount of Pc games are still the same if not more each year. If you fail to see the context of my statement then you may want to stay away from the topic as it was a discussion between me and godzilla
@DredWulf Yep. Some people feel as if they have to degrade your preference or what you enjoy gaming on, then tell you how dominant the PC hardware is. Telling us that we are getting "dumbed down" versions. I think most of us won't have any issues playing these "dumbed down" versions.lol
@jedikevin2 ah PC elitism at it's finest...Game Informer reviews pc games...they were the deciding factor on purchasing the Witcher 2...and yes there are plenty of pc games out there that are wonderful...like the Witcher 2 and Crysis and Dawn of War to name a few but to say GI doesn't review PC games because of the "console conspiracy" is fallacy...oh and if you want proof. http://www.gameinformer.com/games/dragon_age_ii/b/pc/archive/2011/03/08/dragon-age-ii-pc-review-a-port-caught-in-the-middle.aspx
@justicxprime Your right, PC tech will always be ahead of consoles, but not all PCs are optimized strictly for gaming,where most consoles are built from the ground up, strictly to run gaming code. That is the one area that I believe helps consoles last as long as they do, constantly getting improved game engines that take advantage of each consoles architecture. Not arguing with you about PCs always having the upper hand as far as raw performance though.
@jedikevin2 I was thinking that Game Informer, being a magazine that focuses on games, would list all popular games, no matter what platform. So you're assessment that they don't review certain PC games because they don't bring revenue to said magazine company is out of left field isn't it? I'm sure most companies aren't going to get caught trying to pay Game Informer $$ to review their titles.And if they get a bad review? Do they get their $$ back? The point I was trying to make by bringing the game magazine into the discussion was that they weren't many popular PC games being listed in, or reviewed by the magazine, so it made me wonder if there is dwindling support for PC games? Like I said, I'm not hating on PC gaming, and I would like to actually get into gaming on one, but I was a little worried about software support in the future.
@justicxprime The hell do I care about your life and how many consoles do you own! Do you think that gives you the right to go trolling the way you did? Such a great ''videogames'' salesman you are.
Why don't we all just wait until the console versions are released?? Of course you won't have super sharp textures like in the ultra high settings of the PC versions. But if it looks anywhere close to Crysis 2 and run at 30fps, it will look great. Yes, RAM is the limit, but think about GTA IV. Their engine is loading stuff into RAM and removing other stuff. That way you can keep a high amount of detail nearby, and very low detail for distant objects. Btw. Textures are not a big thing. What brings consoles and PCs on their knees are all the real-time shadows and high quality shaders. I've tried it with my PC. It doesn't give a damn how high the textures and polygons are. But when shaders and shadows are high, it drops to less than 15 fps.
@godzillavskong There is actually a fairly large amount of Pc titles. Magazines like Game informer will not review them because it does not bring in revenue to such magazine. That does not cut out that there is a nice size list of Pc exclusives that release every year.You can even say pc gets more exclusives to a specific console many years in a row. Don't really know how that magazine ties in with your discussion on "some" pc gamers but just letting you know about magazines such as that.
I know it may be a moot point, but I've also noticed when I look at my Game Informer magazine, there is only maybe 1 or 2 PC titles reviewed, not to mention when you look in the back of the mag, where it lists a lot of the game reviews, there only seems to be a small handful of PC titles. Not hating on PC, I would actually like to build one this year, but I just don't understand the hate that comes from "some" PC gamers, when it comes to a PC title being released on consoles??
@RadPro Yeah, ram has been a sticking point with me for a long time when it came to consoles, and as cheap as people claim it to be I've never understood why manufacturers were so stingy with it. It would solve a lot of visual inadequacies, but I suppose we're expected to settle instead. Sony's playing this very game with the Vita, which got me wondering just how serious they were about the thing. You're right though, but in this case it's working around hardware limitations that will count most.
@leadlefthand Actually they have made more profit from Crysis 1 and Warhead on just the PC than they have with Crysis 2 on 3 platforms. Dont believe me? Try Google. Its how it is when a dev company and publishers NEED to spend millions upon millions of $ on advertising just to stand any hope of making a profit from the few console gamers that arent too busy playing COD. Its also the reason many console centric developers are now non existant, disbanded bankrupt or heading into red. Meanwhile the ones that arent dead yet are focussing back onto the PC as their lead platform because its cheaper and easier to make and distribute games while gaining profit and not have to worry about loosing money on another sales floppage like Bulletstorm, Allan Wake, Split Second, Homefront, Tron Legacy, Sega Rally, Warhammer 40,000 Kill Team ect. Five of those said games where developed by just a handfull of the console centric developers that no longer exist today because they cant afford to stay in the business or publishers cant afford to support their development anymore. Wow they must be raking in some profit from consoles eh?
They Halo:ed the consoles for once, i.e. Halo and Halo 2 was converted to PC almost 2 resp. more than 2,5 years after their console debut. Now console gamers get to play the game and see what all the fuss was about. Perhaps it's a good that they waited almost 4 years before launching on consoles, because Crysis brought every computer down on their knees trying to run it.
@bigbigR People are upgrading because they want more power, want the extra bells and whisles and want higher resolutions. Look where we are now, AMD is pushing triple screen resolutions, 1080p+ is what everyone is talking about (true 1920x1080 not upscalling etc), little extra's such as physx and the move to dx11. This is more what leads to a Pc gamer upgrading outside of hardware failure. Many times its not necessary but just a want to increase graphical content, want more power, or just a need to increase performance for other reasons. That though is to each person. When it comes to passing console standard, its not needed at all.
@BigBigR You would be surprised just how easy it is to play said games at the resolution and speed. My rig is not specifically suppose to talk about your timeframe (actually my card is 384mb not 640mb but that is irelevant). Performance of a 9600 gso is slower then say a 8800 gso which released in february of 07 (yes 4 or so months after the release of a ps3 just as the q6600 released 3 months after the ps3). . Again, it is not hard to play many of todays games (expecially multiplatforms) at said resolution, graphical quality and 30 fps. Also, recommended and minimum requirements are a pure joke. For example, did you know Rage requirements call for a AMD video card that is literally 1/2 the performance of the nvidia card used? Point is, you can get by with lower hardware and still be beyond the capabilities of a console. It depends on said game and optimization but looking at your statements, I was getting a feeling you were missing that. Its all conjecture. I feel console gamers are getting scammed with sub Hd resolutions then having them upscaled calling it HD. You do know the majority of console games don't even have 720p but have really odd bizarre resolutions under that number? And Yes, I believe you could easily max said games at that resolution and fps with the rig you have. Offcourse you wouldn't want to but I think you could.
@VckGanteng I know about all that. I'm not a newcomer to PC gaming. Like I previously stated I do run a livestream channel. I also put together my own PCs and overclock them myself, not that it is rocket science or anything. [quote="VckGanteng"]That's just my point.[/quote] Your point is nonexistent, you merely stated facts (that I completely agree with, mind you), you just had no argument to speak of.
@jedikevin2 Those "many games" you speak of, are they recent? Because I really can't see a Pentium 4 that is below minimum requirements for games nowadays do 720p just like that. Still, that 9600 GSO you speak of came out in May 2008 (note: 2 years after the PS3, 3 years after the X360). As for the 7900GTX card, I believe it should be a bit below the GSO, might be wrong though. Still, I don't think it'll run recent games at 720p at the same quality or higher than the consoles. The processor can still hold its own, though it was released on January 7 2007, not "between console release dates" as you stated. 2 years from now you'll see even better looking games on consoles (due to resource optimization), and those two cards will only run worse and worse. The point is, you might get by with those older systems, but not at the same graphical level as the top console games. For that you need something a bit more recent than that. If it were that easy to run today's PC games you wouldn't see so many people upgrading every 3 to 4 years. [quote="jedikevin2"]Take your rig now, I can almost guarantee you could max the games your stated at say 1280x720 resolution and easily get 30 fps+[/quote] You mean BF3, Skyrim, Crysis and The Witcher 2? I don't think so. Still, I want to be able to play with everything maxed out at 1080p and still be able to stream, so I'll be upgrading for that.
@BigBr: Actually that caused by few things: - Most PC developers actually increase the hardware requirements every year. - PC is obviously has better graphics, and I'm not going to argue about it. - Most console get a prize cut, so we got things better than we've paid. On the other hand, PC is.. meh. - Unoptimized codes. Usually developing on PC is harder because of wide variety of hardware combinations. - Not every console support full HD, and not all games. That's just my point. I'm both pc and console gamer, so I'm neutral.
Avalanche Studios co-founder says developer's ambition is for action, not moments that make players cry; steampunk-style game on hold. Full Story
- Posted May 15, 2013 2:33 pm GMT
4A Games creative director Andrew Prokhorov thanks Jason Rubin for telling the studio's story, but says, "We deserve the ratings we get." Full Story
- Posted May 16, 2013 8:44 pm GMT