Crysis 2 to Have 'Best Graphics You've Ever Seen'

[marraco]

-I hate the aliens, and not in a sense that I get pleasure shooting them.

-I don't trust this claim about graphic quality. I want high resolution screenshots of non city/open spaces.

-Crysis 1 was too short. They should focus on larguer maps/more levels. Graphic quality was ok.

-Far Cry 2 graphic was ok except by the grass, wich weirdly and unnaturally rotates when the player rotate

 

[borisof007]

[citation][nom]doc70[/nom]I just hope it will be developed natively for PC.[/citation]
*grumble* what modern warfare 2 should have been >.>

 

[tburns1]

I'm with blackmancer, but not as a joke ...

If this new engine is supposed to be the bomb, can it play the original Crysis content? I mean, Doom2 could play the Doom WAD files, ya' know ...

 

[m-manla]

Good job Crytek! For one, people don't realize that in the case of the PS3, Even though the RSX can tap out easily, the Cell BE has a lot of extra real estate. Still is slightly powerful than a Core i7 (but not by much). The 512MB of RAM is limiting, but one thing is the PS3 doesn't have overhead by an OS and background apps. Consoles is also less dependent on Resolution, and more dependent on polygons, physics, etc. So it will be interesting to see this thing on the PS3.

 

[Guest]

Tom's Please change the way we can view the pictures this system is retarded.

 

[marraco]

[citation][nom]M-ManLA[/nom]Good job Crytek! For one, people don't realize that in the case of the PS3, Even though the RSX can tap out easily, the Cell BE has a lot of extra real estate. Still is slightly powerful than a Core i7 (but not by much). The 512MB of RAM is limiting, but one thing is the PS3 doesn't have overhead by an OS and background apps. Consoles is also less dependent on Resolution, and more dependent on polygons, physics, etc. So it will be interesting to see this thing on the PS3.[/citation]

I'ts true, but somewhat missleading. The core i7 utilization is near 0% in most games.
The load in on the video cards, wich are many orders of magnitude faster.

 

[climber]

[citation][nom]tpi2007[/nom]To be honest I beg to differ, the screenshots on this page certainly look good, but if the graphics are going to look no better than these screenshots, then I don't think there is much improvement, probably some tweaks, definitely big coding optimizations, but overall I don't think this "cinematic" concept has evolved much in the last five years.Compare these screenshots to playing Crysis in Very High settings with AA on. Is there anything to really be that enthusiastic about ?In my opinion consoles are holding back game studios in developing truly "life-like" graphics instead of just cinematic. I mean, the Xbox and the PS3 both have DX9c GPU's. The GPU on the PS3 is a modified 7900GTX. Remember that an 8800GTX than came after it was faster than two 7900GTX's together.Whyis Crysis famous until this very day ? Because it pushed the envelope. You still have to buy the most expensive graphics card setup if you want ot make it look at its best at max resolution and AA. Thtat is what drives progress.Sure, console owners will appreciate the effort and we all appreciate the code optimizations, but if adding to that we don't get another push forward, we. the PC users will continue waiting for these two consoles with their meager 512MB of Ram amd DX9 GPU's (notwithstanding powerful CPU's, but there is only so much they can do to improve graphics) to fade away and a new console launch.[/citation]The RSX engine is a modified 7800 GTX, not the 7900 GTX.