Crysis 2 is a 'Solved Challenge' for Consoles

[Marcus Yam]

Your PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360? Yes, they can play Crysis 2.

Crysis 2 is a 'Solved Challenge' for Consoles : Read more

 

[afforess]

In English: "We sacrificed graphics on the consoles so console fanboys can pay $10 dollars more for the same game with worse graphics than the PC. Brilliant!"

 

[Guest]

So, does this mean that they basically dumbed down the graphics in order to suit the outdated needs of console gamers? How is that progress? It had better have a good storyline, if that's the case.

 

[jednx01]

I seriously doubt that the graphics on the PC version will be worse than crysis 1. Crysis 2 is a different story.

 

[jednx01]

Whoops. I hit the submit button before I was done typing. What I meant to say was: "I seriously doubt that the graphics on the PC version will be worse than crysis 1. Crysis 2 on consoles is a different story..."

 

[builderbobftw]

Either

a. Console version looks like crap, and so does PC.

b. Console version looks like crap, PC version looks great.

Either way, Console will still look like crap.

 

[joytech22]

I think the console version will come out Okay, and according to Crytek should mark a visual singularity within the console community (meaning better visuals then any games currently out for the consoles)

On a side note, Stupid Wii.

 

[micr0be]

ahhh.... as hitler said .... farmville is all i need

 

[coopchennick]

Yeah the console version will look a lot worse than what's possible on a PC... duh

But what I got out of this is that crytek has really been able to optimize cryengine3 (UNLIKE cryengine2). If they're comfortable with it on a console, I'd assume they're able to get it to run really well on a PC.

 

[Maxor127]

Graphics aren't everything. I was impressed with Crysis' graphics, but the gameplay was dull and disappointing. It didn't appeal to me like Far Cry did. It's not the kind of game I'd ever want to play again except maybe to test drive a new system to see how it handles the game. I expect Crysis 2 to be more of the same.

 

[doomtomb]

[citation][nom]afforess[/nom]In English: "We sacrificed graphics on the consoles so console fanboys can pay $10 dollars more for the same game with worse graphics than the PC. Brilliant!"[/citation]
That's not what they said at all

 

[kennyforgames]

that's the reason why my ps3 and my xbox360 is nothing more than the purpose of decoration. PC rocks. I mean pc shooting game rocks.

 

[CHRISTLUBAS]

[citation][nom]micr0be[/nom]ahhh.... as hitler said .... farmville is all i need[/citation]
No Hitler is still playing World at War 2 Allied Zombies.....

 

[nottheking]

[citation][nom]micr0be[/nom]ahhh.... as hitler said .... farmville is all i need[/citation]
I dunno why people keep voting you down. They must not've seen this video.

"My Fuhrer- Fermi- Has a 20% clock rate miss. It's hot, buggy, and unfixable."

[citation][nom]soldier37[/nom]the console games run at 720p no AA or AF even on the best HDTV it wont compare.[/citation]
To correct things a little... The Xbox 360 does mandate x2 or x4 (x4 preferable) AA on all their games. Granted, it's an older algorithm, that appears to miss a lot, (as well as not even HANDLING transparency textures) so it's not as good as modern AA on modern cards. The PS3 CAN do AA, but because its "RSX" is simply a cut-rate G71, it can't do AA+HDR, and the developers have always chosen HDR. Also, the Wii (yes, the Wii!) DOES do x4 AF on its games. 'course, that might be kinda overkill for 480p.

Lastly, not all 360/PS3 games are 720p. On the former, a lot are LESS than that, including the MAJORITY of "top-shelf" titles; Halo 3 is 640p, and Oblivion and Fallout 3 are actually at 576p; closer to standard-def than high-def. (the ONLY 360 games I know that hit 1080i/p are arena sports games, like Madden NFL) It's a frequent joke that the next Xbox will be called the "Xbox 720" on the grounds that unlike the 360, it'll actually be able to handle all games at 720p.
[citation][nom]Maxor127[/nom]It's not the kind of game I'd ever want to play again except maybe to test drive a new system to see how it handles the game.[/citation]
Indeed; Crysis wasn't so much a game as a benchmarking tool. Which is worrying for consoles, since it's kind of a moot point for them; obviously they'll look infinitely worse; by now, it'll be a BIGGER gap than comparing the PS3 to the Wii.

[citation][nom]doomtomb[/nom]That's not what they said at all[/citation]
It's what it translated to; Sony and Microsoft charge a $10US extra fee to release games on their consoles, hence why a PC version typically costs $50US, vs. $60US for an otherwise identical console version. (minus the console version typically including lower-res textures, some removed shader effects, etc.)

 

[baracubra]

I really enjoyed Crysis 1, and can't wait to play Crysis 2 no matter what the graphics. Ofcourse I'd like them to be better then 1, but even if its the same or slightly cut back, the city setting should be so radically different that we won't be able to compare to the extent of another jungle game...

 

[Guest]

Not that I have dx11 hardware, I'm curious to know if it is going to support dx11 effects.

 

[Wolygon]

Graphics aren't everything. I was impressed with Crysis' graphics, but the gameplay was dull and disappointing. It didn't appeal to me like Far Cry did. It's not the kind of game I'd ever want to play again except maybe to test drive a new system to see how it handles the game. I expect Crysis 2 to be more of the same.

Obviously some butthurt console dearest comrade.

 

[nenito]

Come on guys/gals, seriously?. whats with all the hate on consoles, they bring us awesome games really, god of war 3 just to name 1 of hundreds, dont get me wrong i am not biased, and i love pc games, but it seems people are more interested in " crysis looks like crap on consoles" than any actual gameplay. and for the most part i bet the ones saying those things are LARGELY pc gamers, very biased, and NON open minded. consoles have serious firepower. and the main reason they do is because none of the hardware changes. what i mean by this is, in pc gaming, everything is relative to the system running it, drivers, resolution, fps,etc etc. some games are better optimized for nvidia others like call of duty are best suited on ati. and the gear we all have is largely untapped in terms of potential. Console on the other hand does not exhibit these problems, sure there tech is autdated. but it has also been mastered unlike our graphics cards and mult-core cpus, where everything is constantly changing, it doesnt allow developers to truly understand and utilize the tech to its full potential.
whew.
that said. I do not think console will look as good as pc.
BUT.
i think the comparison would be like
console graphics: High PC : Very High
and thats still awesome considering crysis warhead manages what? probably only 30 fps on a pc setup that costs roughly 199 ( XBOX 360).

 

[nenito]

[citation][nom]the_punkinator[/nom]Obviously some butthurt console dearest comrade.[/citation]
well somebody gets it. boy, too bad crysis wasnt for you, but you are totally right graphics is not everything, not by a long shot.

 

[kennyforgames]

Quote :Graphics aren't everything. I was impressed with Crysis' graphics, but the gameplay was dull and disappointing. It didn't appeal to me like Far Cry did. It's not the kind of game I'd ever want to play again except maybe to test drive a new system to see how it handles the game. I expect Crysis 2 to be more of the same.

yes, obviously grahpics aren't everthing, but eyecandy is just most important for almost everyone here. I never enjoy playing RPG games with my gameboy.