Glad I Downloaded this one to my 360 and not the PS3..........! Enjoying the heck out of this game on 360 vs my laptop , fun on the laptop but more "Funner" on 32" HD with 5.1 surround :-} Thanks Crytek for re-mastering this one for console... !

@ TommyGunner

Every modern laptop should have a Hdmi output too.

Yeah if your laptop can play Crysis then it should also have an HDMI output too. The big difference between the console Crysis and the PC version of Crysis is that the PC version loads the entire island at once whereas the console version loads the game in "cells". That's one of the biggest reasons why they were able to bring this game to consoles in the first place(also of course the brilliance of Cryengine 3).

@MMAMickey: It's not that the XBox 360 doesn't make that distinction when it comes to RAM, it's just that it's built with a Unified Memory Architecture. So the 360 basically was built with no system ram. It has 512mb of vRAM and the system shares that memory from the video card.

The PS3 is not superior to the 360 in everyway at all, and I hate Microsoft, and wish I never bought an Xbox. Only thing I use my Xbox for it for Crysis because my PC keeps screwing up on me.

The only things the XBox 360 has over the PS3 is 802.11n Wifi over the PS3's 802.11g Wifi and a 12x DVD read speed vs 8x DVD read speed. As for everything else the PS3 is superior vs the XBox 360. I'm talking about specs and features of course.

Not being biased or anything but that's just the way it is. :/

@ChompOnThis12589

But i think that the difference in specs dont make that huge difference in grfx between the two consoles.
If you take two exclusives for each platform ( maybe Halo Reach and Killzone 3) you can see that the the PS3 isnt way way superior.
Its not like the gap between consoleversions and PC versions for example.

I mean you can definitely tell that they are the same generation of consoles. But Killzone 3 is definitely wayy better looking than Halo Reach. PC gamers especially would notice the difference.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWhCYwrtX5c&ob=av3e Watch it in 720p, the difference is really quite striking.

It's a lot like comparing PS2 to the original XBOX. The original XBOX most definitely had the better visuals.

A more fair comparison would be Halo Reach vs Killzone 2 where Killzone 2 still looks visually superior.

"
So why do PS3 exclusives do look "better"?
They "seem" to look better because they are build ( and with that i mean draw distance toghether with leveldesign and levelstructure etc.)
with the PS3s limitations in mind. Its easier to make rather small areas or rooms look really good and detailed (but with nothing else to calculate like physics or animations) than a landscape with millions of foliage textures and shadows that interact physically correct.

I am sorry but this arguement holds no water, have you seen Uncharted 2?

Huge outdoor environments, awesome physics, some of the best animation and shadows on console, no mid level loading.....etc.

Not to mention the multi-platform releases which these days have almost full platform parity, Assassin's Creed, Arkham City which all counter your arguement for how games are limited on PS3.

Add into that Battlefield 3 which is pretty much indentical across all consoles and the arguement that PS3 is limited in any way is seriously flawed.

I own both consoles and PS3 definitely has the advantage when it comes to graphics when programmed exclusively and up against 360 exclusives. Uncharted 3 vs Gears of War 3? no contest UC3 all the way.

@Graz9

Its so interesting to see how people get fooled all the time by naughty dog and other PS3 exclusives.
The levels of Uncharted ( no matter what part) are never as big as you think. Many of what you call wide areas with huge draw distance is just scenery. Its not like in Crysis 1 where you can explore levels as big as "contact" or "assault". Uncharted 2 is basically nothing but a neat Tomb Raider with some more physx in it if you compare it to the "techgaint" that Crysis is.
The physical limitations of the Playstation 3 are real... and the only way to get visuals like you can see in Uncharted or Killzone is to avoid these limitations by making everything narrow; really really detailed and sharp, and everything far away is mostly just scenery or really really blurred out. For example: Even simple Pc shooters like Hard reset have more Physical objects and better Textures than any Uncharted will have on the PS3. So dont take your subjective feelings for grfx as hint for the technical base frame.


@ ChompOnThis12589
I say that as a main PCgamer that there is not a big difference for me.
All console games on Ps3 or Xbox 360 have kindergartenstyle grfx compared what im used to with my high end PC.
When i hear rants and trollbattles about which console has the better grfx its like bad vs terrible for me.
( sorry in advance for the PCelitism again )

Yeah clearly high end PC's have the best visuals but that's not saying consoles look terrible. In fact the current generation of consoles still stand up very good compared to PC's especially when you consider their age. For example Battlefield 3 on PC compared to the console version (PS3 or 360) isn't that much better. Yes it is most definitely better but it's not leaps and bounds better at all. Even when PC specs are much higher, consoles stand up fairly well because games are coded much better for consoles than they are for PC's. That's because high end PC's can rely on their raw power, when in comparison if you want more out of a console you have to design a game better to utilize more out of the system because it's still running on the same hardware.

Which ever way you want to spin it the visuals in games like Uncharted 2, Killzone 2, Killzone 3 and etc are very impressive. PS3 is running on 2006 hardware and making extremely good use of it. XBox 360(2005) also stands up good in its own right. I mean who would've thought 360 would be running Crysis 1 and 2? And PS3 runs those same games when it doesn't even use DirectX.

(no need to apologize for "PC elitism", I mean high end PC's are superior)

Has anyone seen Uncharted 3 or Killzone 3? Do people care if those games feature open ended levels or super real physics? No. Does anyone care? No. They still look great.

Yeah that's what I'm talking about, the PS3 can put out some really stunning visuals. Uncharted 3 and Killzone 3 look ridiculously good.

Sorry but Battlefield 3 is exactly that game where consoles look ridiculously bad.
The lighting in ultra blows any consolegame out of the water by far far.
The reflections and lighting are clearly on par with the samaritan demo from epic.
The DX9 based engine of BF3 for consoles on the other hand barely stands a chance against the Cryengine 3.
Its also a game that really uses the visuals and physix to improve the gameplay.
Where in consolegames the physix are mostly just an effect in Crysis 1 and battlefield 3 they are essential for the gameplay.
So its not only the looks of the game its the technical base frame that counts.

IMO the difference between a 360 game like Halo Reach and a PS3 game like Killzone 2 is larger than the difference between Battlefield 3 on console compared to PC(talking about visuals not gameplay) or at best as big a difference. Also take in to consideration you are speaking about the game on Ultra.

Taken from http://www.computerandvideogames.com - DICE boss Patrick Bach explained: "The biggest difference between the PC and console version of Battlefield 3 is that we have 64 players on PC and 24 players maximum on console. The rest is more or less the same: we use the same engine, the same technology, the same animation system, the same lighting system. Our aim is to give the player the exact same experience and not try to dumb down the console version."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElPP5BFi9Wc

As you can see the visuals although slightly better are by no means leaps and bounds better. It still runs on the same engine, animation, and lighting system. The big differences between the console and PC version are in having 64 players vs 24 for multiplayer, slightly smaller maps, and running at 60FPS vs 30FPS.

Hello, everybody, the good shoping place, the new season approaching, click in.
Welcome to ==== http://www.top4biz.com ==
Air Jordan (1-24) shoes $35
UGG BOOT $50
Nike shox (R4, NZ, OZ, TL1, TL2, TL3) $35
Handbags ( Coach Lv fendi D&G) $35
T-shirts (polo, ed hardy, lacoste) $16
Jean (True Religion, ed hardy, coogi)$34
Sunglasses ( Oakey, coach, Gucci, Armaini)$15
New era cap $16
Bikini (Ed hardy, polo) $18
FREE SHIPPING
=== http://www.top4biz.com

=== http://www.top4biz.com

=== http://www.top4biz.com

=== http://www.top4biz.com

=== http://www.top4biz.com

=== http://www.top4biz.com

===（ http://www.top4biz.com ）

===（ http://www.top4biz.com ）===

===（http://www.top4biz.com）===

@ChompOnThis12589

I have played the game on the 360 and on my PC.
The lightingsystem is definately not the same as it is purely build upon DX10/ DX11 features.
I dont care what promoB$ DICE told everyone before to calm down consolegamers.
At the Geforce LAN 6 DICE told that the consoleversion is technically equal to the "low" settings on PC.
They also mentioned sometime that the lightingsystem on the consoles had to be rebuild to work on their old API`s.
So its not the same lighting on PC and console ..same goes for textures...draw distance,, foliage... LOD...and on and on and on,,
The differences are really huge from what i can tell, especially in the single player campaign where you have thousands of lights sometimes.
And Battlefield 3 on 60 FPS? dream on ! More like 42- 56 FPS with a GTX 570/580.
Also i think its not accurate to use videos to compare grfx in games... play them on each platform and look closely..than you will see that battlefield 3 is a monster on PC that simply destroys the consoleversions in every aspect.

60 FPS is what Battlefield 3 for PC is supposed to be at. Although it's not the first time developers missed their mark by a bit(just like how Crytek said that Crysis 2 would never go below 30 FPS). I've also played the 360 and PC versions of Battlefield 3 as well as on PS3. And yes seeing it in person does do it more justice but that's not to say that a video(especially a quality HD video) wouldn't do the job for much of a comparison. I also agree that the PC version does look the best and the textures are most definitely of higher quality as well as all the previous reasons I mentioned in my previous post. I believe the lighting system(like on most PC games) can be "upped" or enhanced on the PC version but I'm pretty sure that the core lighting system is the same, just like the developers said.

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/323821/battlefield-3-xbox-360-vs-ps3-gameplay-comparison-video/ The 360 reportedly has the worst lighting system by far out of the 3 versions (not surprisingly). Maybe that has held a good deal of weight in your comparison? "Battlefield 3's lighting on PS3 far outshines that on 360 once you get past the game's opening train level."

http://www.gametrailers.com/video/pc-vs-battlefield-3/722998

@bigboulder: Do you have a GTX 570 or 580? How much did you get it for? (if you don't mind)

I have a GTX 570 Phantom from Gainward.

A really "cool" grfxcard. And when i say cool.. i really mean it! The card never tops the 60 Grad Celsius at maximum load... that would be 140 Grad Fahrenheit.

Also the potential for overclocking is tremendous! You can easily top every GTX 580 with the right tweaks.

Ive paid 295 € for it @ Amazon- Germany.