It probably wouldn't look as pretty on a console, and that was it's main selling point. There's plenty of average shooters on consoles already, a shitty PC port wouldn't really stand out... But I'd probably play it anyway. On Live!
A sequel or spin off is highly likely considering crytek hasn't really been happy with the PC reception and they were quick to blaeme the platform over their game, and then there's all the effort they did to make cry engine 3 multi platform. But, you really aren't missing all that much anyway. I played through Warhead and it was okay fun, then I figured I'd try the original since I heard it's a little less linear but it was more of the same and I didn't even finish it. Kinda wasted engine, it can render all these huge landscapes yet the game design is as linear as Half-Life or something. Far Cry had more areas where you could just mess with the AI reactions from afar and stuff as far as I remember.
The thing with Crysis, if it was a great playing game, people wouldn't mind playing at minimum graphics levels. That's basically how I can play the game, and I didn't find it very fun at all. Most computers should be able to play Crysis, just not with good graphics.
"get a jobbuy a nice PCsimplegame is speculated to be coming to PS3 though if you want to wait"
I am almost positive it would come to 360 before PS3, the 360 (in terms of making games for it) is far more similar to the PC. It would just be easier, and cost less money, but if it comes out on one it will more then likely come out on both.
"get a jobbuy a nice PCsimplegame is speculated to be coming to PS3 though if you want to wait"
I am almost positive it would come to 360 before PS3, the 360 (in terms of making games for it) is far more similar to the PC. It would just be easier, and cost less money, but if it comes out on one it will more then likely come out on both."
i would normally agree that it would come out on 360 first (or as lead platform) but they said in a interview that cryengine 3 works better with the ps3. link
I didn't even finish Crysis on my PC. I can run it full out, and honestly it was a shitty game.
It looks beautiful, but you can't even explore the whole island. It's just all led along, but the AI just seems stupid. It's just very uninspired, and more of a tech demo than a game.
They should just do something better for consoles then a port of Crysis... just use the Cry 3 engine and make a good game.
" They should just do something better for consoles then a port of Crysis... just use the Cry 3 engine and make a good game."
since they (crytek) just bought out free radical maybe they can make a new time splitters game. awesome graphics+awesome gameplay (if they dont repeat haze) + monkeys
" They should just do something better for consoles then a port of Crysis... just use the Cry 3 engine and make a good game."
since they (crytek) just bought out free radical maybe they can make a new time splitters game. awesome graphics+awesome gameplay (if they dont repeat haze) + monkeys "
Yeah very true. Timesplitters was awesome, and although the characters are cartoony, it would be perfect for consoles. Just render them really high quality and make the environments nice and it'd be a fun game. I was really tempted that since Crysis looked so good it wouldn't matter how it played and although I thought that for like an hour, it eventually gets boring.
Crysis running on my PC full; looks good but not fun :(
I really liked Timesplitters 2 and 3, I hope Crytek decides to bring out 4, or at least is inspired by the TS game design when they work on their console projects.
First id say play Far Cry 2 and second CryEngine 3 has 2 versions one for consoles and one for pc. the PS3 is the prefered console due to the processor, though at this moment the Xbox 360 will have a decent port.
I have the PC to play crysis currently, but it just seems too much like a Tech Demo for me to spend 20$ for it...i think i'd just punch guys for 10 minutes and then stop right there.
i know this is a little bit off topic but is crysis's online any better than the single player?
on topic: LtColJaxson said:
"shadows_kill said:
"LtColJaxson said:
" They should just do something better for consoles then a port of Crysis... just use the Cry 3 engine and make a good game."
since they (crytek) just bought out free radical maybe they can make a new time splitters game. awesome graphics+awesome gameplay (if they dont repeat haze) + monkeys "
Yeah very true. Timesplitters was awesome, and although the characters are cartoony, it would be perfect for consoles. Just render them really high quality and make the environments nice and it'd be a fun game. I was really tempted that since Crysis looked so good it wouldn't matter how it played and although I thought that for like an hour, it eventually gets boring.
Crysis running on my PC full; looks good but not fun :("
yeah, i went to my friend's house that has a awesome gaming pc and we did single player and it got boring after about a hour then we just piled up explosives and had fun.
"95% of the time, if you're playing an FPS with a controller, YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG!"
Not really. I use my 360 controller as much as I can for pretty much all genres except rts and menu based driven games. The problem you'll find is that sometimes they're just not well supported. Even in Crysis which supports a plug and play system, the analog stick is treated like a keyboard and you can't drive properly, it feels weird.
The only games that aren't menu based that I prefer m/k for are arena shooters
And to the OP, don't worry, Crysis really isn't super special. It's more of a good game with super awesome graphics than just the 1337 game. Really, it just isn't that good. FarCry was largely the same. It's really a standard shooter. And no, it isn't open world like it tricks you into believing, it's more so a path with woods on either side for a bit. Definately linearly guided.
Log in to comment