Our man Ryan saw just a snippet of gameplay running on PS3, and said it looked exactly the same as the 360 version. But now it appears that over the course of the title, Sony's system might have the edge.
Jones added that Crytek had no difficulty developing for the PS3 in comparison to the 360.
"We haven't found it more difficult to develop for PS3," he told CVG sister magazine PSM3.
"We're lucky in the fact that we've come to the generation slightly later than other people - the ones who were trying to build the first technology and games were surprised at how different the PS3 was. We took our time and worked out the right way to approach it.
"At the moment, we're getting slightly more performance from PS3 compared to 360. I'm very confident that products using CryEngine 3 are going to come out as the best looking, or at least in the top three, on every platform."
Crysis 2
Official trailer
2:10Launch trailer
Crysis 2
Official trailer
2:10Launch trailer
Age Restricted Content Please enter your date of birth below in order to verify your age before watching this video
You must be at least 18 years of age.
Play Again? Missed something? Just watch it again..
Watch More Videos Browse related videos and see what's new & popular
Share This Video Email this video, or embed it into your own web page
I think that is what happens when you take your time to work out how to optimise your games for a certain system, rather than just slap out a poor port.
Having watched that video, and whilst it's very pretty, I'd say it's inferior to both Gears 3 and Uncharted 2 from a graphical perspective, but time will tell I guess.
I had already decided this would be a PS3 purchase, I had a feeling PS3 would be able to handle slightly more in respect of this game given the additional grunt it has, plus it's no doubt going to be a large game file wise, so Blu-Ray would be preferable.
Naturally they won't put out a shoddy port on 360, and with Crytek being as they are, I doubt they would settle for anything less than parity on both systems, or as near as dammit. Anything less would be a failure I think, in their eyes as well as ours.
Having watched that video, and whilst it's very pretty, I'd say it's inferior to both Gears 3 and Uncharted 2 from a graphical perspective, but time will tell I guess.
We ain't seen much of Gears 3 yet.
But we know it's using an updated version of the creaking UE 3.0.
Personally, I prefer what I've seen so far of Cry Engine 3. It looks more realistic and less shiny than what you get with Epic's engine. Plus it doesn't make character models look fat and silly.
Naughty Dog Engine 2.0 is amazing for 3rd person games.
But I'll stop this talk of engines as it is making me go weak at the knees.
It will be interesting to see how each platform handles Crysis 2, if, as they claim each Game will be in the Top 3 on each platform then surely everyones a winner?
Still, we havent had a fight about polygons in a while, lets have one today .
good old xbox starting to show its age. pity they changed the game layout to fit a stinky old dvd.
the size of the 360 discs never really bothered me even with mass effect 2's strange multi disc set up. the games where good enough with no noticable drop in quality.
then i got FFXIII for the 360 with it's grainy cut scenes,strange filtering effect around hair and grass,weaker lighting etc and wish it was on a blu ray with 1080p fmv and 720p in game graphics.
now admittedly it looks absolutely fantastic regardless and i nearly wept when i first set foot on the archylte step but if it was on one disc- uncompressed it would be even better as the ps3 version proves.
maybe it's time to by a 'station 3,what's the MKV playback like on them?
Having watched that video, and whilst it's very pretty, I'd say it's inferior to both Gears 3 and Uncharted 2 from a graphical perspective, but time will tell I guess.
We ain't seen much of Gears 3 yet.
But we know it's using an updated version of the creaking UE 3.0.
Personally, I prefer what I've seen so far of Cry Engine 3. It looks more realistic and less shiny than what you get with Epic's engine. Plus it doesn't make character models look fat and silly.
Naughty Dog Engine 2.0 is amazing for 3rd person games.
But I'll stop this talk of engines as it is making me go weak at the knees.
No it doesn't, that's purely a design choice. Mass Effect, Lost Odyssey are proof enough of that.
Having watched that video, and whilst it's very pretty, I'd say it's inferior to both Gears 3 and Uncharted 2 from a graphical perspective, but time will tell I guess.
We ain't seen much of Gears 3 yet.
But we know it's using an updated version of the creaking UE 3.0.
Personally, I prefer what I've seen so far of Cry Engine 3. It looks more realistic and less shiny than what you get with Epic's engine. Plus it doesn't make character models look fat and silly.
Naughty Dog Engine 2.0 is amazing for 3rd person games.
But I'll stop this talk of engines as it is making me go weak at the knees.
True, but I've also seen very little of Crysis 2 on the consoles.
Totally disagree about UE3 engine "creaking" though, the visuals in the latest GOW 3 video's are stunning and just look better than Crysis 2, so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.
nice. but PS3 owners should not brag too loud about this. as many ppl know most multiplatform games was often oposite only 1-2 years ago. but the hardware is getting older and devs get a chance to finally use the machine properly.
its expected, after all the ps3 is a newer machine. so it wont be long before u will see this on all games.. its already happend with the exclusives(u2, kz2, heavy rain). that doesnt mean that xbox is far behind, mass effect 2 looks amazing. and im sure gears3 will look on par with u2, but the games on ps3 will have moved beyond by then.
Hmmm you have to be sceptical when he's making these comments to a ps3 dedicated magazine.
This is exactly what sony fanboys will want to hear, this will certainly help boost sales and interest Clever old tactics imo.
As another poster said, the faceoff's at eurogamer will be very interesting indeed regarding this title. We'll see then what version runs the best(after the pc version of course).
thats what happens when a real developer takes time out to code properly and not do a shoddy port job.
developers should be relishing these challenges, not cating out like valve.
good old xbox starting to show its age. pity they changed the game layout to fit a stinky old dvd.
Is it any wonder fanboys are subjected to so much hate when we see comments like this?
No excitement at the prospect a better game being produced, but obvious joy at the chance to have a dig at the competition due to reports about a game that is still very much "In Progress" on all machines.
Not to mention the total disregard that this article hails from a PS3 magazine and wouldn't exactly be falling over itself if both versions were said to be identical.
The big question for me is how much is "slighty better"?
If we're only talking a matter of 1-2 fps and slightly better textures, then it's not really worth getting overly excited about. If on the other hand we're talking about a much bigger increase in fps (say 10fps or so) and a noticeable graphical improvement then it might be worth getting a little more interested.
This is precisely why I have both consoles... Bayonetta on Xbox... Final Fantasy 13 on PS3...
It's all about the game and not the console...
On one console I can play Supreme Commander 2, Gears of War and Alan Wake...(not to mention Tropico!) On the other God of War 3, Uncharted 2, Modnation and Heavy Rain...
Obviously for this, PS3 wins out, performance will be better, etc. - it's all about the game!
I think the next battleground in the console "war" will be online connectivity - I have to admit for something like Split/Second that will pretty much be the same on both consoles - I'll get the Xbox version because Live is more stable... Yet I got Just Cause 2 on PS3 (no online, but youtube uploads!)
I always postulated that the PS3 would become the platform of choice for multiplatform titles...
Still, I'm sure Gear 3 and Reach will both look more than good enough.
I just bought Resident Evil 5 for the PS3 (been meaning to play it for ages!) and despite various screenshot comparisons I've seen which tend to slightly favour the 360, I would still say the PS3 version looks stunning!
The difference is nowhere near what it used to be with some games. For example, I bought GRAW 2 for the PS3 having owned it on 360 and the difference in anti-aliasing was shocking. Still a very playable game but some of the lines on the horizon (e.g. buildings) were just jaggy as hell - straight lines looking like staircases...?
I would imagine the difference between PS3/Xbox will be vastly minute in comparison to the PC version when taking about Crysis.
Although I must admit that it gives me a little bit of pleasure to think that this small difference will seriously irk some of the more loyalistic xbotties...
Any excuses based around the DVD not having enough storage space is weak. It's not an excuse at all.
There's absolutely no reason why a game couldn't come on two or more DVDs. The extra discs information is easily loaded up on the hard drive, a memory card or USB device. With the recent 360 update allowing the use of cheap off-the-shelf USB cards no one has an excuse for a lack of storage space, especially developers.
I'm still using an original 360 and it's 20 gig hard drive. I always download games to the drive. When I'm finished with a game I'll delete it and load on another.
The storage size of a DVD compared to blu-ray is of no consequence whatsoever these days. I imagine the PS3 version would look better than the 360 because it's a more powerful machine. But I'm sure both will look last-generation compared to the PC.
The big question for me is how much is "slighty better"?
If we're only talking a matter of 1-2 fps and slightly better textures, then it's not really worth getting overly excited about. If on the other hand we're talking about a much bigger increase in fps (say 10fps or so) and a noticeable graphical improvement then it might be worth getting a little more interested.
This.
They could be talking about results from benchmarking which may not show much difference at all to the naked eye. Plus when in the action, are you really going to notice any slight improvement.
nice. but PS3 owners should not brag too loud about this. as many ppl know most multiplatform games was often oposite only 1-2 years ago. but the hardware is getting older and devs get a chance to finally use the machine properly.
this is their first time developing on ps3. so that is irrelevant really.
its just a dev taking the time out to do it properly.
and to others... it doesn't matter if it was a ps3 mag they made this comment to - do you think that they are going to turn round and tell an xbox mag that they have the better version?! of course not.
they knew fair well that this comment would reach everybody.
The storage size of a DVD compared to blu-ray is of no consequence whatsoever these days. I imagine the PS3 version would look better than the 360 because it's a more powerful machine. But I'm sure both will look last-generation compared to the PC.
final fantasy XIII says hi... and what do you mean these days?
BR is becoming more increasingly important as time goes on.
No they wouldn't say to an xbox magazine that the xbox 360 version is better because that's not what they've said about the ps3 version. They've said 'at the moment we're getting slightly more performance out the ps3 compared to the 360 version'.
'At the moment' being the key words here, they're covering themselves perfectly for the identicle end result of crysis 2 on both machines.
We'll see what's the best version when comparison face offs and the like appear. It's not impossible that the ps3 version could be slightly better, but unlike a lot of fanboys, i'm not falling for this until i see the evidence
After initially being put off by the decision to change the game's setting(and as a result, it's size), this trailer - coupled with the gameplay footage that leaked recently - has piqued my interest again.
The gameplay footage in particular, looked amazing.
I think this comment flies in the face off the suggestion that PS3 isn't as powerful as Xbox 360 and is harder to develop for.
I think Crytek are also unintentionally sticking a big finger in the direction of Valve, and rightfully so. The other intention for Valve's PS3 hatred isn't its development (they even got EA to port Orange Box let alone try it themselves) but it's loyalty to MS, much like a pet dog.
I think this comment flies in the face off the suggestion that PS3 isn't as powerful as Xbox 360 and is harder to develop for.
I don't think anyone ever said PS3 wasn't as powerful as Xbox did they? On paper PS3 always had an advantage, though Xbox had advantages elsewhere in respect of ease of coding and squeezing juice out of. It is well documented that PS3 is harder to develop for. The article doesn't mention the amount of effort going into getting it running 'slightly better' on PS3, only that it is.
Personally I find it refreshing that a dev wants to utilise all the power it can, despite the obstacles it may face in doing so. PS3 is definitely up to the task, it's just getting the most out of it that causes dev's problems.
and i only have one brain. it's doing alright thanks.
As with most things on this forum, this is open to debate
It will be a good looking game whatever console you choose to play it on! I'm just glad someone like Crytek are trying to push the consoles forward, instead of poor porting all the time.
Crytek are spending a worryingly large amount of time talking about how amazing the graphics are in Crysis 2, and not a lot else.
Great graphics a good game does not make.
Totally agree, im getting abit fed up of hearing how great it looks and all we've seen is a pre rendered movie, show us some s**t or f**k off!
Theres a video on youtube thats in game, its most showing off lighting and the such but has gameplay at the end of it.
Mate that stuff on tubeyou is as old as the hills and doesn't look spectacular at all, I wana see something present so that crytek can justify why they're banging on all the time!
People keep bringing up Gears3. I haven't watched the trailer yet but I was wondering if they showed any in game footage?? Or was it all just cutscenes??
Also I never give a s**t about digital foundry's comparisons, they are always biased for the 360. I'm sure the developers would say it runs better on ps3, and they would say it doesn't. They even said that the FFXIII cutscenes looked exactly the same on ps3 and 360. A blatant lie.
The 360 version will be the best at retail, mark my words, always happens, 360 versions always p**s over the ps3 versions on multiplatform games, same will happen with this game.
The game also looks pretty crap so far, graphics are nowhere near as good as killzone 2 or halo reach.
People keep bringing up Gears3. I haven't watched the trailer yet but I was wondering if they showed any in game footage?? Or was it all just cutscenes??
Also I never give a s**t about digital foundry's comparisons, they are always biased for the 360. I'm sure the developers would say it runs better on ps3, and they would say it doesn't. They even said that the FFXIII cutscenes looked exactly the same on ps3 and 360. A blatant lie.
You obviously never read that comparison article, as they never said that.
Quote from the article: The results in Final Fantasy XIII aren't up to snuff - frankly, the encoding looks amateurish.
<i>Also I never give a s**t about digital foundry's comparisons, they are always biased for the 360</i>
That's utter b******s. He's given the PS3 version the better mark more than once. It's just a sad fact that generally multiplatform titles are inferior on the PS3 (see Bayonetta, SFIV, COD:MW2, Bioshock, Bioshock 2, Fallout 3, etc etc etc).
Differences between game versions is largely irrelevant anyway - it says less about a console's power and more about the skill of the developers.
And, as someone else has pointed out, the key words in this article are "slightly better" and "at the moment." The differences are likely to be all but invisible to the naked eye, and knowing Crytek they will ensure platform parity by the time of release.
PC will trounce both the consoles anyway, as it always does.
This is precisely why I have both consoles... Bayonetta on Xbox... Final Fantasy 13 on PS3...
It's all about the game and not the console...
On one console I can play Supreme Commander 2, Gears of War and Alan Wake...(not to mention Tropico!) On the other God of War 3, Uncharted 2, Modnation and Heavy Rain...
Obviously for this, PS3 wins out, performance will be better, etc. - it's all about the game!
I think the next battleground in the console "war" will be online connectivity - I have to admit for something like Split/Second that will pretty much be the same on both consoles - I'll get the Xbox version because Live is more stable... Yet I got Just Cause 2 on PS3 (no online, but youtube uploads!)
It's good to have both! ;O)
I love Tropico! I play it several times a week, in fact it's probably my most played game this year, that music is sublime, reminds me of Caribbean holidays where they play the same music all the time!
It's also jolly lovely that it is better at the moment on the PS3, I'm sure it will look nice on the Xbox too eventually.
<i>Also I never give a s**t about digital foundry's comparisons, they are always biased for the 360</i>
That's utter b******s. He's given the PS3 version the better mark more than once. It's just a sad fact that generally multiplatform titles are inferior on the PS3 (see Bayonetta, SFIV, COD:MW2, Bioshock, Bioshock 2, Fallout 3, etc etc etc).
Differences between game versions is largely irrelevant anyway - it says less about a console's power and more about the skill of the developers.
And, as someone else has pointed out, the key words in this article are "slightly better" and "at the moment." The differences are likely to be all but invisible to the naked eye, and knowing Crytek they will ensure platform parity by the time of release.
PC will trounce both the consoles anyway, as it always does.
Its not the ps3's fault why those multiplatform games are inferior on the ps3, its the lazy developers fault for not trying to get as much out of the ps3 as possible. Crytek though is actually trying to get as much power out of the systems as possible and it shows in the ps3's version of crysis 2 with its graphical superiority.
It will be interesting to see how each platform handles Crysis 2, if, as they claim each Game will be in the Top 3 on each platform then surely everyones a winner?
Still, we havent had a fight about polygons in a while, lets have one today .
My polygons are so much more polygonal than yours.
It will be interesting to see how each platform handles Crysis 2, if, as they claim each Game will be in the Top 3 on each platform then surely everyones a winner?
Still, we havent had a fight about polygons in a while, lets have one today .
My polygons are so much more polygonal than yours.
Is that right? As Harry Hill would say ..... Fiiiiiiiiiiggggggghhhhhhtttttttttttt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You still on here? I thought most people had made it clear they don't give a s*it about your retarded opinion. If this game has multiplayer I'll get it on the xbox on account of PSN being wank.
You still on here? I thought most people had made it clear they don't give a s*it about your retarded opinion. If this game has multiplayer I'll get it on the xbox on account of PSN being wank.
why am i still here? am i invading your virtual space?
It will be interesting to see how each platform handles Crysis 2, if, as they claim each Game will be in the Top 3 on each platform then surely everyones a winner?
Still, we havent had a fight about polygons in a while, lets have one today .
My polygons are so much more polygonal than yours.
Is that right? As Harry Hill would say ..... Fiiiiiiiiiiggggggghhhhhhtttttttttttt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
/Me runs and gets the original Tomb Raider Lara Croft polygonal suit. Take those pointed bad boys Harry and your burping TV can have some too.
Who really cares if one is slighty better than the other.
I remember in the good ol' days when some multiplatform games where totally different depending on what you played it on, like aladin on the mega drive & snes, Quake 2 on the psone/n64/pc etc and 'arcade perfect' was what we all wanted but never got
And let's not forget guys....they say "at the moment" we are getting a little bit more.
It's not saying that the finished game is better.
The finished game will be better on the ps3. I am a absolutely certain of this. Its a well known fact that the the ps3 is much more powerful than the xbox360. So why wouldn't the ps3's version preform better?
I would have thought that the 360 would have an ever so slight advantage as it has a slightly more powerful Gpu, but if thats what Crytek have said and they're making the actual game I'm inclined to believe them.
pity they changed the game layout to fit a stinky old dvd.
The game 'layout' has nothing to do with the amount of storage space on a dvd(the original - which has more open enviroments came on a single Dvd). Besides disc swapping which has been used successfully for many years, the dvd vs blu ray games argument is null and void now you can install to Hdd.
thats what happens when a real developer takes time out to code properly and not do a shoddy port job.
developers should be relishing these challenges, not cating out like valve.
good old xbox starting to show its age. pity they changed the game layout to fit a stinky old dvd.
i know,i know you are part of the Sony Defense force,and i know i shouldn't be answering your posts,but lets be honest now....you mention the xbox's age,that's right.....its nearly 5 years old
and the PS3 only has ..an edge...oh dear
LOL..this reminds me of when they laughed at xbox 360 announcement and said it was more like an xbox 1.5..and then the PS3 came out and wasn't that much better
i am sure whoever wishes to play this game on their chosen platform wont be disappointed,and that should be it
FWIW-i have both a 360 and a PS3,and think they are about as good as each other(where one fails,the other excels IMO)
If this game has multiplayer I'll get it on the xbox on account of PSN being wank.
Yep thats pretty much my opinion , even if the PS3 version was much better I still wouldnt get it, as there is no way im playing a FPS on some s**tty dualshock pad ...
TBH I probably wont get it anyway ... as Crysis is a big pile of turd in the gameplay department .. I dont expect this to be anything different.
The first Crysis was graphically groundbreaking a gree but other than that it went by quite quickly having what i recall a terrible story, poor sound and subpar controls.
I dont even play my 360 anymore, i sold my PS3 just because PC gaming is far superior.
Anyway it's right that the PS3 does have a better processor, but it's fact that the 360 has the better graphics chip which probably balances that out.
You can guarantee this game will run like crap on most hardware anyway except the newest and best, the first game took like 2-3 years of graphic cards to catch up to play at playable framerates.
theres no need to dwell on thee sort of statements, in probability the games will be released with no perceptable difference, just like all the other ps3-360 cross platform games (except the orange box wich was a bit choppy on ps3 compared to 360, but i slill love it)
You still on here? I thought most people had made it clear they don't give a s*it about your retarded opinion. If this game has multiplayer I'll get it on the xbox on account of PSN being wank.
why am i still here? am i invading your virtual space?
And let's not forget guys....they say "at the moment" we are getting a little bit more.
It's not saying that the finished game is better.
The finished game will be better on the ps3. I am a absolutely certain of this. Its a well known fact that the the ps3 is much more powerful than the xbox360. So why wouldn't the ps3's version preform better?
I'm no expert but I could believe that whilst the 360's GPU is easier to eek the best out of, the Cell can actually do more when in the right hands...
Perhaps I am being swayed by marketing talk but I have heard multiple claims recently that x game wouldn't be possible on the 360 - however, I never hear the reverse...
I'm talking about MAG (simultaneous processing of 256 players, not so much the graphics!), God of War 3 (barely fits on a Bluray apparently), etc etc.
I’m told the 360 has better inputs/connections to play in HD and I gotta say I haven’t seen many games which look sharper than the Gears series...
However, I think that the PS3 can perhaps push more around on screen in it’s own slightly-softer-looking manner...
I'm no expert but I could believe that whilst the 360's GPU is easier to eek the best out of, the Cell can actually do more when in the right hands...
Perhaps I am being swayed by marketing talk but I have heard multiple claims recently that x game wouldn't be possible on the 360 - however, I never hear the reverse...
I'm talking about MAG (simultaneous processing of 256 players, not so much the graphics!), God of War 3 (barely fits on a Bluray apparently), etc etc.
I’m told the 360 has better inputs/connections to play in HD and I gotta say I haven’t seen many games which look sharper than the Gears series...
However, I think that the PS3 can perhaps push more around on screen in it’s own slightly-softer-looking manner...
This one up manship is all well and good, however scientifically speaking the human eye is more or less unable to tell a difference once an image reaches 30 to 40 FPS. Some PC enthusiasts claim they can tell the difference when they are gaming at 110 FPS instead of a "paltry 60 FPS". Whether this is simply a psychologically induced phenomenon or whether there is genuinely something to it remains unknown to me.
If Crytek is referring to other graphical matters than just FPS then that may change matters, yet personally I expect that there will be precious little difference between the PS3 and Xbox 360 console versions of "Crysis 2". Now the PC version on the other hand...That one I expect to leave the console versions in the dust if paired with a suitable gaming PC.
Lol, I have my moments. All in good humour though...
And KFD...is that true about 60fps? When I was trying to set up CSS to play optimally on my laptop loads of people told me they couldn't play at less than 100+ fps...
I won't be wasting my money on this junk of Crysis 2. Instead i will wait for Killzone 3, which we all know is going to raped Crysis 2 in everything also Resistance 3 might be announce at E3 that will kick some serious ass too. Crytek only cares about graphics Crysis 1 sucked hard. And dug PS3 is way more powerful then Xbox 360 so of course is going to be a trillion time better on PS3.
Lol, I have my moments. All in good humour though...
And KFD...is that true about 60fps? When I was trying to set up CSS to play optimally on my laptop loads of people told me they couldn't play at less than 100+ fps...
Elitist bunch these pc gamers...
Scientifically speaking, yes. Although the human eye does not view things in terms of frames per second. Rather our eyes view events in motion in terms of continuous light/information. Images viewed at under 30 FPS appear to flicker to the unaided human eye, while between 30 to 60 FPS the human eye will see grey instead of flickering. Thus generally speaking 60 FPS is the "flicker fusion point" for human eyes.
Other relevant factors to consider would be the speed at which the viewed object/movement is progressing at. If it's moving very fast a higher FPS rate may be needed in order to avoid judder artifacts (if I'm not mistaken this ties in with the Hz frequencies of modern day plasma, LCD, and OLED TVs and the delayed response time usually displayed in milliseconds). It also bears worth mentioning that the fusion focal point in a human eye can vary from person to person, as well as depending on the lighting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_rate
P.S. Regarding some PC gamers' claims that they "can't play X game unless it's 100+ FPS", personally I suspect the majority of such people are putting on airs in order to appear elitist and on-side with the "in" PC crowd (or however they perceive themselves). There may be some PC gamers that are that discerning and willing to spend the resources on getting the latest and greatest PC hardware, yet it's bound to be a tiny minority of the overall PC market in general (note: Not just the PC gaming market). 100+ FPS is nice yet personally I don't care so much about FPS as long as the actual gaming session is enjoyable and does not come across as a jerk-o-matic vision gaming session.
Im sorry but that is a straight out lie If you refer to the footage shown from ign I think and game trailers every time ps3 was shown with pc and Xbox you could clearly see that the ps3 was not at the same standard as Xbox 360 and pc due to lighting issues and texture and so on
Im sorry but that is a straight out lie If you refer to the footage shown from ign I think and game trailers every time ps3 was shown with pc and Xbox you could clearly see that the ps3 was not at the same standard as Xbox 360 and pc due to lighting issues and texture and so on
Dont know ,what your watching , lighting on ps3 is better than on 360 in the video clip, not much in it , but it is better
Im sorry but that is a straight out lie If you refer to the footage shown from ign I think and game trailers every time ps3 was shown with pc and Xbox you could clearly see that the ps3 was not at the same standard as Xbox 360 and pc due to lighting issues and texture and so on
Hmm, they must have got the photos mixed up and labelled the PS3 one as 360...?
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court, 30 Monmouth Street, Bath, UK BA1 2BW England and Wales company registration number 2008885
