Comments with -10 or lower "thumbs" are removed from display.

• 
  -1 thumbs!

  Final Blade | January 29, 2008
  Its not going to be good on the consoles to be honest, why port them.
• 
  -1 thumbs!

  Supernouva | January 30, 2008
  And you base that conclusion on what fact(s) or information?
  • 
    -1 thumbs!

    TurMoiL911 | January 30, 2008
    Since when does finalblade98 base his conclusions on facts and/or information ?
    
    Wasn't there another article here on GameGrep discussing the failure in sales for Crysis due to the low number of gamers with powerful enough PC's to run it ?
  • 
    0 thumbs!

    Final Blade | January 30, 2008
    LOL i have no proof i do actually check this And as Vegi put it:

    quote VeGiTAX2
    

    By memory I do not mean Blu-Ray vs DVD9 I mean the RAM on the machine, that regardless both systems have to find a way to at least pull 720p with AA.
    
    For the game as it stands to run in 1280x1024 on High resolution settings it occupies 440MB of video memory (720p is 1280x720 so this is about as close as it gets, 1080p would consume 615MB of video memory), this doesn't also include the RAM overhead to run the rest of the game as well. Since these game systems aren't packing 1GB+ in system memory it poses a large problem to port things like this.

    Also iLLmatic stated how the game abuses the RAM for eye candy and the game itself is average at best.
    
    Thus porting a game like this to the consoles a very bad problem which leads it to suck at most cases. So please think before you speak.
• 
  -1 thumbs!

  the new era | January 30, 2008
  Like I said in the news article on Spore's delay, is this some foreign gaming thing