Originally Posted by esa193
they would deff have to turn down the graphics
i mean the min requirements are like 1.5g
wats the ps3 and 360 got 512?
pulse the 360 cpu i believe isnt a true multi core
and the cell just suxs
id rather play on pc
its so much better graphics wise
Don't take pure paper specs too lightly.
The Xbox 360's CPU is a true multi-core processor. Three symmetrical cores to be exact.
As for the Cell sucking...you haven't seen the best of it thats all. The Cell Processor is a VERY, VERY difficult piece of hardware to work with. To completely take full use of it's power will take a while, but expect good results.
As for PC being better in terms of graphics, you do have to consider other factors. Just the price of a graphics card that can manage Crysis is about the same price as an Xbox 360 itself. That's what gives console gaming an edge over PC gaming. You don't need to worry about hardware because almost all the games will have been programmed to use most of the console's hardware power. Another advantage is that you can easily plug and play with a console. You don't need to worry about drivers, installation, hardware requirements, game settings or any of that crap. You just put the disk in and play. Done and done.
Originally Posted by unknownm
IF EA chose to import this game on a console I wouldn't be surprised if it's very crappy because it's been coded wrong like BF2 and it's sucking 2GB for max settings
. On the other hand, if it does than that will be a first
If you think about it, the 2GB RAM requirement for BF2 is actually fairly decent since most of the maps are huge. BF2 isn't some little CS:S like game with small maps. They're mostly huge maps with 32 to 64 players and numerous vehicles, helicopters and planes flying around. Think if it like an MMOFPS.
As for Crysis requiring that much, I wouldn't be suprised. The CryEngine 2 has a penchant for high-end hardware.
Either way, comparing games for PC's and games for consoles is mostly an apples to oranges comparison.