Forget "Will it run Crysis?" Say hello to "Will Crysis 3 melt my rig?", as devs hint at a properly meaty PC version this time

Crysis 2, although great, was certainly not the GPU-flaming benchmark beast that its predecessor was. In fact "dumbed-down console port" was certainly not an unheard phrase in the more disgruntled corners of the PC gaming community. This time though, it sounds like things are going to be different.

Speaking in a Gamecom Q&A, Crytek boss Cevat Yerli has addressed the giant but beautifully textured elephant in the corner of the room. When discussing the biggest challenges in making Crysis 3, Yerli freely riffed "There are brutal expectations around the PC version of Crysis 3. So this time we promise to melt down PCs, right?".

He then followed up with briefly worrying talk of the need to compromise when making a multiformat game, before pulling it back with what's hopefully a hint that Crytek are taking a "Screw it, let's just go big" attitude this time around:

"Amidst the development of late-cycle current-generation consoles, PCs are so far ahead now, so making Crysis 3 look benchmark quality on PC and at the same time looking fantastic on consoles is going to be that challenge that we didn't have on Crysis 2, because PCs and consoles were closer"

"There is unfortunately always in a multi-platform development that kind of compromise that we have to take, but at the same time we are trying not to take it, so we try to make sure that the PC version looks fantastic, plays fantastic. This time we’re trying to say, ‘Okay, let’s not compromise the PC but let’s try to push the consoles so make the PC version happen" 

Slightly ambiguous in terms of how far exactly Crytek is going to go to beef up the PC version, but it certainly sounds like a massive improvement over Crysis 2's "console as target platform" development. More like "We're making this for the PC, and pushing the consoles to catch up as far as they can".

Here's hoping, anyway. Because anything that pushes all the hardware as far as it can go is surely good for everyone.


  • Zeph20 - March 11, 2014 6:16 a.m.

    Well, I was all excited to play this game thinking it would push my rig to the limits... I was a bit disappointed that it didn't even have 1 loss of frame rate at the highest setting plus AMD Catalyst Enhanced options enabled.. >.>; The hell was the point in buying all the best components when I can't play a game that utilizes them all? xD
  • sporeboy100 - August 21, 2012 8:34 a.m.

    i should arrange my PC's funeral incase this kills my rig
  • OohWiiUILookJustLikeBuddyHolly - August 18, 2012 9:35 p.m.

    It will look incredibly good but the PC folk will still complain and say the console version ruined the series.
  • Viron - August 18, 2012 12:44 p.m.

    It doesn't matter if it sets their computers on fire and melts them into poo, if it comes out on a console PC gamers are going to complain it's been dumbed down, now and forever.
  • Net_Bastard - August 16, 2012 2:49 p.m.

    Don't believe them until the PC version is being played by you. They said some very similar shit when Crysis 2 was released.
  • gazzc - August 16, 2012 10:24 a.m.

    I just hope they do not overdo it like with the original crysis, where pretty much nobody at all could play it on release unless you lowered the graphics so much it looked like it was a game from 1999. In fact only just now am I able to play the original at maximum settings with antialiasing enabled and get a proper frame rate, a whole 4 years and 3 pc upgrades later. It was a great benchmark tool but pointless as a game.
  • Net_Bastard - August 16, 2012 2:51 p.m.

    It wasn't "pointless as a game". It was actually very fun as a game. There aren't many games where you can kill a soldier by throwing another soldier at his face.
  • TheCakeIsaPie - August 16, 2012 8:38 a.m.

    "Because anything that pushes all the hardware as far as it can go is surely good for everyone." Yeah, but something that requires us to purchase new hardware is not. The worst part about PC gaming is that it's a never-ending rat race for the newest and fastest parts. Whereas console development is about making code efficient and getting the most out of the hardware, pc development is about pushing for new stuff all the time. I would rather that developers focus on gameplay and innovation instead of raw technological power, but then again I'm not db1331. I'm not so superficial that I think graphics matter. I care about a game's quality and innovation, both of which are hampered by wasting resources on chasing after better and better graphics. But that's just me.
  • larkan - August 16, 2012 9:07 a.m.

    It doesn't have to be a rat race, most games that come out today can run on 5 year old hardware, mainly because they cater to the console crowd and give PC games the shitty ports later (Dark Souls, Darksiders 1 & 2, Borderlands, Dead Island, Resident Evil 4 & 5, etc) I used to be the guy that needed the fastest and best graphics card that came out, same with other hardware. But the introduction of the first gen of Core i7 and the NVIDIA 200 series really changed that for me, as things have scaled to a point that upgrading really isn't necessary every 2 months, or even 2 years. I plan on keeping my GTX 580, which I've had for a year, until it breaks, same with my 2 year old core i7. So it's not a rat race really, we're just so far ahead technology wise from consoles that games like Crysis 3 (which btw fuck Crytek, sellouts) no one really cares about in terms of cranking their hardware, I'm pretty sure no one will have to tri SLi 680s in order to get the best out of it.
  • StuntzMcKenzy - August 16, 2012 9:10 a.m.

    You say that like PC games are locked at one graphics setting. And just because you don't want to spend the money for the higher outcome doesn't mean we should all have to sit back and wait for you.
  • TheCakeIsaPie - August 16, 2012 10:33 a.m.

    And the "missing the entire point" award goes to...
  • StuntzMcKenzy - August 16, 2012 2:16 p.m.

    Explain the point because most people put there point in the opening lines of there arguement. "Yeah, but something that requires us to purchase new hardware is not. The worst part about PC gaming is that it's a never-ending rat race for the newest and fastest parts." UHhhh I'm pretty addressed that with "You say that like PC games are locked at one graphics setting." YOU MISSED THE POINT! J.A.
  • StuntzMcKenzy - August 16, 2012 2:16 p.m.

  • TheCakeIsaPie - August 17, 2012 10:26 a.m.

    Seriously, you didn't understand a single thing I wrote. I'm not complaining about my computer being weaker than someone else's. Please reread my comment and actually read what I wrote this time, instead of what you want to read.
  • CombatWombat101 - August 16, 2012 2:46 p.m.

    Such is the beauty of PC gaming: you don't need to purchase new hardware, no matter how hard a game pushes your rig. We've got graphical settings for a reason. Besides, games can make a GPU sweat with more than simply shinier textures. I would be all for a game that strains hardware because of all the things going on at the same time, or perhaps even just having more details in the environments. Not graphically, but aesthetically. A more diverse crowd of NPCs; more trash and random junk lining the alleyways, and not that N64-quality crap they throw in nowadays either; advanced AI that makes NPCs actually - gasp! - intelligent. All these things require more system resources. Furthermore, you're acting like graphics and gameplay / story / everything else that makes a game good are mutually exclusive. A game doesn't have to be ugly to play well and have a good story, just as a pretty game doesn't have to be nothing more than a series of gorgeous textures. I won't pretend that graphics are the most important part of a game, but your mentality isn't any better than people who do. Graphics aren't the most important part because *everything* is the most important part. Developers should be pushing for top quality in every aspect, not *just* graphics or *just* everything else. I don't think a developer will ever put out an inferior product because they "[wasted] resources on chasing after better and better graphics," I think that sometimes they just have no ideas, so they make it pretty. A game's graphics may amount to nothing more than the textures we see on screen, but it's a big part of what draws us into the world we're trying to inhabit.
  • TheCakeIsaPie - August 17, 2012 10:38 a.m.

    Don't forget that the gameplay was the weakest part of "Crysis." It's difficult to tell now since "Crysis 2" came out and had even weaker gameplay, though. I know that a game can have great graphics and amazing gameplay at the same time (e.g. "Batman: Arkham City," "Total War: SHOGUN 2," "The Witcher 2," etc.) but what I'm asking is how much better could a game be if it weren't too focused on being a technical powerhouse? The Japanese voice-acting in "SHOGUN 2" is awful, likely because CA had no budget left for a proper translation. I'm not complaining about my computer being weaksauce; I'm complaining about backwards priorities in the industry. I do agree with you that technological innovation is a type of innovation and should be embraced just like all the others; I made it sound like I thought otherwise so I concede that point. First and foremost a game should be designed starting with gameplay and adding the graphical icing on the cake later, not the other way around. A game that look good will be impressive for a while, but a game that plays well will be impressive forever. So shouldn't we focus more on the gameplay than graphics? Why does "This will melt your PC," get articles written about it instead of "This will be a lot of fun?" Seems backwards if you ask me. I love my computer games just as much as my consoles and I know that every platform has its pros and cons. All I'm doing now is expressing my distaste for one of PC's cons. Style over Substance is a far-too wide-reaching problem. In conclusion, let's go out for milkshakes and be friendly, eh?
  • Net_Bastard - August 16, 2012 2:48 p.m.

    Graphics advance technology. Would you want to be stuck in the 4-bit era? No, because those graphics were so basic that they hampered gameplay as a result. Graphics help both immersion and technology. Take Legend of Grimrock, for example. That game has amazing graphics, and the immersion is directly helped as a result. I don't care if a game has bad graphics, but if you actively rail against good graphics, then you're the worst. If you are against games having good graphics, then you're the lowest of scum. Having both good graphics and good gameplay is the only way for the industry to move forward. Deal with it. Also, the "quality and innovation are both hampered because of graphics!!!" is bullshit. Look at the Witcher games. I highly doubt CDPR has a huge budget. Yet, they can make very graphically impressive games, and they still have good quality, gameplay, and story. Graphics are important to your game. They're not as important as gameplay or story, but they're still very important. Hell, why stop at graphics? Technology as a whole is important. AI, physics, and graphics are all important, and they're all a key part of a good experience.
  • into the sound - August 16, 2012 8:38 a.m.

    well, i just built a new desktop last month, so... if i get this it probably won't be the PS3 version...
  • EAC73 - August 16, 2012 8:12 a.m.

    can't wait for this, passed up on crysis 2 because of the lowered specs and that my friend spoiled it for me, but this looks amazing.
  • Moondoggie1157 - August 16, 2012 7:45 a.m.

    I'm actually really curious to see how far my PS3 can be pushed, I know there is a lot of potential left for the console. People really need to stop bitching and complaining about graphics in gaming, it's getting to be a such an old and annoying argument.

Showing 1-20 of 22 comments

Join the Discussion
Add a comment (HTML tags are not allowed.)
Characters remaining: 5000