Support NeoGAF

[Feindflug]

I've heard some very conflicting opinions on the footage, on the bombcast Brad didn't seem really impressed at all visually.

That CryEngine 3 vid from GDC is (as far as I know) the only in game footage of Crysis 2 running on a console, and it looks good, but certainly nothing spectacular, but maybe the game has come a long way since then. I'm looking forward to seeing it, I guess it'll be at E3 in a big way.

Yep, things about Crysis 2 on consoles are confusing...the screengrabs from the latest GDC video look horrible and it's hard to believe that Crytek will release something like this especially as an example of their brand new "great-looking" engine, on the other hand we have some who have seen the game in action saying that it looks amazing and then you have for example Brad from bombcast who's not impressed.

WTF is going on? :lol I guess we'll have to wait till E3 to see a more recent gameplay video and judge for ourselves.

 

[Duke Togo]

damn thats ugly,even cods look better

?

 

[Zen]

To actually look better than KZ2, it really does have to look better than crysis on medium...this probably being a more linear affair shouldnt make that too hard... I really don't know what to expect. None of the actual console gameplay shown thus far has indicated that it is the best looking game, but the quality of that footage has been really poor

I really have no problem with Crysis 2 being a more directed experience, it's all about getting the core gameplay down, which is something they didn't manage, with all the technology and specs, of Crysis 1. In fact having more contraints will probably be to their benifit.

 

[REMEMBER CITADEL]

Bungie is a no as the work they've done speaks for itself. Artistically they're amazing but technically I'd say they're below the rest. I've always acknowledged that they sacrifice graphics for game play and that's cool, it hasn't hurt them at all.

Tech is way more than graphics. There are still not many games doing everything that Halo 3 was doing more than 2 years ago and Reach looks like another step forward in every way.

Remedy have done a great job with AW but we'll have to wait for the final game to see if it's still pushing the large open areas and physics that they showed off ages ago. I haven't kept up on it to be honest apart from the new trailer.

Yeah, we'll see how the full game stacks up, but that last trailer was quite amazing, even when you consider that cutscenes are not rendered in real-time. What's most interesting is Remedy's claim that "there's an insane amount of potential what we could still be doing on the 360".

All in all, good times ahead for everyone.

 

[How About No]

That is one detailed truck. :|

But it all comes together like a painting!!

 

[SolidusDave]

damn thats ugly,even cods look better

bu..bu..bu..but MWs are some of the best looking games according to many players and game critiques/awards. (though to be fair I don't think C2 will run in 60fps on consoles ^^)


btw PC-only GAF sickens me in this thread.

 

[ViolentP]

btw PC-only GAF sickens me in this thread.

PC gamers aren't elitist, we're just better.

 

[jaypah]

PC gamers aren't elitist, we're just better.

nobody said anything about elitists, just that you guys sicken him.

 

[ViolentP]

nobody said anything about elitists, just that you guys sicken him.

Oh, well, yeah.

 

[HK-47]

?

Those cods do look pretty damn good.

 

[LabouredSubterfuge]

Those cods do look pretty damn good.

And appropriately sub HD.

 

[subversus]

Well, screenshots from videos always look like ass. But I wouldn't expect much from Crysis on consoles graphics-wise. It will be more about gameplay. Also may be lightning, animations and destructability will stand out. Textures, LOD will suck because they always suckon consoles in open-world games due to memory limitations.

 

[DJ Lushious]

even when you consider that cutscenes are not rendered in real-time.

Wait, what?! AW's cut scenes aren't rendered in real-time? I feel ripped off!

 

[Salazar]

Those cods do look pretty damn good.

Better in motion.

 

[Metalmurphy]

This

is the new

 

[Dennis]

Now I want fish for dinner - mmmm, fried cod cakes.

 

[Nirolak]

Now I want fish for dinner - mmmm, fried cod cakes.

What happened to your avatar?

 

[Dennis]

What happened to your avatar?

It is the console version.

 

[Nirolak]

It is the console version.

Ah I see.

 

[StuBurns]

It is the console version.

Genius

 

[AnkitT]

They're setting your expectations low so you'll be blown

Spoiler

away!!

Good one!

Spoiler

AD reference I presume?

Anyways, will be buying it for my PC, but its good if they can get it with similar fidelity on consoles as well.

 

[scoobs]

It is the console version.

LOL

 

[Shaka]

Uncharted 1 cost 20 million USD also. Confirmed in an interview. Both cost the same.

Budget includes marketing.

 

[StuBurns]

Budget includes marketing.

I don't think so, and actually, U2 cost 22M.
However, it's a far more substantial package, and it's not like they didn't work on the engine after they shipped the first game.

 

[Gully State]

It is the console version.

:lol :lol

 

[HK-47]

Now I want fish for dinner - mmmm, fried cod cakes.

oh snap

 

[subversus]

this thread is stupid

people compare screenshots from heavily compressed videos to bullshots, then read some interview where the guy says right things slightly exagerrating for figure of speech (PC people forgive some bugs and slowly picking up gameplay - the same thing that Battlefield producer said in the Gamasutra interview) and call him a moron for this.

But at least it's funny to read :lol

 

[duk]

looks like shite :lol

get em boys!

 

[Wazzim]

It is the console version.

:lol :lol :lol

 

[TheOddOne]

343 were formed mid-2009, IIRC. An early 2011 release simply doesn't offer enough time for a custom engine to be developed and optimised (edit: Not that this'd happen considering Reach :lol). Even mid-late 2011 is pushing it. If 343's game is to use a custom engine, then we'll be seeing the game in 2012.

Edit: Wait, why are we discussing Halo in a Crysis 2 thread? :lol

Edit 2: I just sort of agreed with you!

Why would they release a new Halo game early 2011 when Halo:Reach shipped a couple of months before? Also you know Corrinne Yu is director of technology right?

 

[Shaka]

I don't think so, and actually, U2 cost 22M.
However, it's a far more substantial package, and it's not like they didn't work on the engine after they shipped the first game.

Usually when you talk about a games budget I'm pretty sure it includes the games marketing. I could be wrong :/

 

[ghst]

nobody said anything about elitists, just that you guys sicken him.

he is looking a little green.

 

[hxa155]

Crysis is cool and all, but does it have anything to distinguish itself from the rest of the FPS's other than graphics and being open-world? They should just focus on gameplay and framerate.

 

[StuBurns]

Crysis is cool and all, but does it have anything to distinguish itself from the rest of the FPS's other than graphics and being open-world? They should just focus on gameplay and framerate.

Crysis might be the best FPS ever made, if that helps.

 

[jett]

Crysis might be the best FPS ever made, if that helps.

 

[StuBurns]

http://www.vistawallpaper.com/data/media/5/Half-Life_2_Episode_Two_wallpaper.png[IMG][/QUOTE]
That's my personal favorite, but that's the best game that happens to be a shooter, not the best shooter if you get what I mean.

 

[jett]

That's my personal favorite, but that's the best game that happens to be a shooter, not the best shooter if you get what I mean.

Gotcha.

 

[LabouredSubterfuge]

It is the console version.

Oooooooooh I get it now.

 

[Gouken]

its about time something is better on the PS3 than the 360 version.

 

[Liabe Brave]

its about time something is better on the PS3 than the 360 version.

It's rare, but it's happened a couple times before.

 

[StuBurns]

It's rare, but it's happened a couple times before.

A literal couple.

 

[MvmntInGrn]

It is the console version.

:lol

 

[SolidusDave]

A literal couple.

though comparisons always concentrate on finding 2-3 different pixels and never for contrasts in audio, like the similar slight difference of DD5.1 to DTS/LPCM7.1/general higher audioquality etc.

 

[StuBurns]

though comparisons always concentrate on finding 2-3 different pixels and never for contrasts in audio, like the similar slight difference of DD5.1 to DTS/LPCM7.1/general higher audioquality etc.

Those things are like the standard things though, the way those comparison never say "but of course, the 360 has the better controller and connectivity solutions", the PS3 general sounds better, the console runs quieter too, but those kind of things can't really be included in comparisons.

 

[SolidusDave]

Those things are like the standard things though, the way those comparison never say "but of course, the 360 has the better controller and connectivity solutions", the PS3 general sounds better, the console runs quieter too, but those kind of things can't really be included in comparisons.

You are correct because the developer can't implement it in the 360 version even if they want to deliver a perfect port (though to some degree you could say similar things about the different GPUs in the 360&PS3, like 360 GPU comes with eDRAM so it has AA in this UE game etc. )
I just wanted to throw this in as it's generally neglected and if the PS3 version misses 3 pixels it's automatically considered the worse version and so on, but sound quality is quite important as well (and I'm not even an audiophile).

btw. in the end I don't really care about both because apart from some extreme examples the differences in this gen's ports are hardly noticeable (especially w/o a direct comparison, high-end equipment and the "right" settings; let alone the individua'sl senses), but I'm annoyed if games don't offer the same software features if possible on both consoles, in particular custom music...

 

[StuBurns]

You are correct because the developer can't implement it in the 360 version even if they want to deliver a perfect port (though to some degree you could say similar things about the different GPUs in the 360&PS3, like 360 GPU comes with eDRAM so it has AA in this UE game etc. )
I just wanted to throw this in as it's generally neglected and if the PS3 version misses 3 pixels it's automatically considered the worse version and so on, but sound quality is quite important as well (and I'm not even an audiophile).

btw. I don't really care about both because apart from some extreme examples the differences in this gen's ports are hardly noticeable (especially w/o a direct comparison), but I'm annoyed if games don't offer the same software features if possible on both consoles, in particular custom music...

I completely agree. I think it's more than anything because more people have decent TVs, so the way it looks is more important to the majority, in theory at least.

And it's true, the systems are different, but usually I think it's because people know developers are not using the system to it's best. When something like Bayonetta comes out running and looking like dog shit, on a system we know can easily support the game performing far better, it's the developers fault, not the system/first party. When a game sounds better on PS3, it's not really the developers fault.

Comparisons should be a software comparison, not a hardware/firmware one.

EDIT: As for your additional edit, I kind of think the opposite actually. If there is something one system can do, which the other can't, I think developers should maximize that, I like to think the game is a little different on the other system. When it's something like extra weapons, it's bullshit of course, but if it's something like PS3-PSP inter-connectivity etc, I'm all for it.

EDIT2: A better example actually is I'd be pissed if a PS3 game got shitty video compression like the 360 version of FFXIII to make both versions the same, or the 360 had worse textures than it could to match the PS3 having a little less RAM.

 

[Razgreez]

:lol

Did you play the original far cry on highest settings at the time it was released? Twas much better looking than any other FPS out at the time in both artistic direction and actual graphics. It hit the whole holiday island setting on the head. If there was something better looking at the time then do inform me since i must have missed it

 

[sinny]

Did you play the original far cry on highest settings at the time it was released? Twas much better looking than any other FPS out at the time in both artistic direction and actual graphics. It hit the whole holiday island setting on the head. If there was something better looking at the time then do inform me since i must have missed it

Half Life 2 and Doom 3 were released in the year 2004. Both are better for me. Especially Doom 3 , the graphics are still amazing. But Farcry was great too. It's more about personal tastes.

I think he is laughing at Farcry > Crysis in terms of WOW effect when they were released. If that's the case im with him. Crysis was unbelievable.

 

[EmCeeGramr]

Did you play the original far cry on highest settings at the time it was released? Twas much better looking than any other FPS out at the time in both artistic direction and actual graphics. It hit the whole holiday island setting on the head. If there was something better looking at the time then do inform me since i must have missed it

Far Cry was pretty damn good looking (until Doom 3 and HL2 came out months later), but Crysis after 3 years is still the best looking game of the generation and is still capable of wowing.

 

[JaseC]

Far Cry was pretty damn good looking (until Doom 3 and HL2 came out months later), but Crysis after 3 years is still the best looking game of the generation and is still capable of wowing.

PCs have generations now?