-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Crysis 2 |OT| This is what happens Larry...
- Thread starter MickeyKnox
- Start date
Shurs said:
From the levels I'm allowed to talk about from last week's preview embargo, the Xbox 360 version maintains its framerate better, has better lighting on characters in particular, and appears to support SSAO in places that it isn't apparent in the PS3 version. This is in addition to the ps3 version being more "stretched." This causes more aliasing, but it also just looks kind of weird at times. It's still a great looking game though.
Barack Lesnar
Banned
The game looks incredible on all 3 platforms, dude. I'm admittedly a Crytek fanboy and biased to a certain extent because of that but it's not like my opinion is in the minority here. Almost every one of your posts in this thread has been downplaying Crysis 2 while subtly trumpeting PS3 exclusives in the process. Have you not noticed that?Norml said:
BMAN said:
Honestly, get it on the system where you'd rather be playing. At 1680*1050, performance will probably be pretty close to the 360 version at 720p. It will look better, but not by leaps and bounds.
Expect your 8800GT to be close to the 5750 there. Keep in mind, that's without any anti-aliasing.
Igor Antunov
Banned
TheExodu5 said:
ROFL
Textures, lighting, shadowing, anti-alising, vast improvement in frame rate, resolution, all differences between pc and consoles.
And when they add directx11 effects....
REMEMBER CITADEL
Banned
BMAN said:
People with high-end configurations will obviously disagree, but I really like what they've done with the PC version this time around - they made it run well on today's hardware, including a wider array of low and mid-range configurations. Unlike Crysis, which was optimized for tomorrow's (at the time) hardware and ran like shit on anything but high-spec machines.
BattleMonkey
Member
TUROK said:
You need to say this some more
REMEMBER CITADEL
Banned
TheExodu5 said:
At 720p it should easily outperform the 360, though.
I'm even thinking of giving it a try on my old 9600GT.
The Omega Man
Member
that CPU can be easily overclocked to 3.0 or 3.2 GHZ, get a more recent video card for about 200$ /250$ and you be running the game much much better for not much of an investment.BMAN said:
LiquidMetal14
hide your water-based mammals
This thread is becoming inflated and bloated with garbage.
REMEMBER CITADEL
Banned
TheExodu5 said:
Perhaps. I have a 1680x1050 monitor and I play some games on lower resolutions. It doesn't really bother me.
(Although my PC is also connected to a 720p TV, but I haven't played anything that way yet.)
Barack Lesnar
Banned
Haven't been following the PS3 vs. 360 debate that well. Is that the consensus? In my opinion, they look almost identical. On the surface the differences seem to be so minor between the two. But as someone who only has a PC I can never understand why PS3 and 360 users argue so much about a couple dropped frames or a missing shadow here and there. If it was like a PC vs. console difference then that's huge but the gap between the two versions is so small, isn't it? I'd just get whichever version your friends getting.CozMick said:
Unlike the magical health bar which means you can get shot 5 times, get down to 1 health left, and then a pin prick magically kills you?bkfount said:
Unless you magically step on a health pack that restores you to good as new?
Or...you know...Crysis which had regenerating health?
BattleMonkey
Member
Animator said:
Yea Warhead ran like shit for me with same settings as Crysis 1.
Barack Lesnar
Banned
Isn't it like 1160x720? Is that really something to kill the game over? Or how about the fact that Crysis 2 has real-time lighting and shadows while those other games bake it? Should that huge technical achievement be ignored because the res is 1160x720 instead of 1280x720? Which would you rather have: lighting tech that's never been done before on a console or 100sq more pixels?Norml said:
TheExodu5 said:
I like that SLI on the MP demo is borked.
also this is with custom settings via a .bat file, but this was 45-60fps in the demo.
It looks much better to me than the default crap.
AMD Phenom II X3 720 @ 3.2ghz
8GB DDR2 in Dual @ 400mhz
1GB xfx Radeon HD4890 @ stock
As you can see, putting the FOV to 90 gives this weird fish eye effect, but having the FOV too low makes my eyes tired. That's the only way I know how to explain it.
professor_t
Member
TheExodu5 said:
They didn't test the 5850? Do you have any idea of where it would fit on that list?
evil solrac v3.0
Member
shinobi602 said:Kind of cynical of me, but I'm actually enjoying the number of people eating crow in this topic when they thought consoles can't run games that look this good.
=P
low resolutions......
Barack Lesnar
Banned
FOV 90 is crazy. I dunno how people play FPS' at 90 unless they're related to a tuna. 75 or bust lol
Heavy said:
Guess it depends on how you look at it.
1. You could look it as the 360 version only misses native resolution by 10% or so, and the PS3 version misses native resolution by 20%.
or
2. Of course, that also means the PS3 version misses the target by twice as much as the 360 version and has additional frame rate issues.
Also represents a different approach to PS3 development. The Unreal games usually dial back some effects and cut a tree/some grass to claw back some performance. PS3 exclusives tend to avoid doing some things. Crytek decided to do it all and let the resolution and performance fall where it may.
HomerSimpson-Man
Member
TheExodu5 said:Honestly, get it on the system where you'd rather be playing. At 1680*1050, performance will probably be pretty close to the 360 version at 720p. It will look better, but not by leaps and bounds.
Expect your 8800GT to be close to the 5750 there. Keep in mind, that's without any anti-aliasing.
What's the deal with the SLI/Crossfire benches? It's so...broken. :/
shinobi602
Member
evil solrac v3.0 said:
I know about the resolutions, but honestly, when I'm playing this game on my 42" Bravia, and it looks this damn good on 6-7 year old tech...it's b-e-a-utiful.
I don't start seeing what numbers are crunched or what texture is missing in the foreground or crap like that, the overall package is damn gorgeous. All that matters to me.
Why does it matter if he or someone else thinks crysis 2 360 or ps3 versions don't look as good as some ps3 exclusives? It's just their own opinion.Heavy said:
You even alluded to in your previous post these sort of debates aren't even interesting anymore..yet you keep engaging in these debates. So..some gaffers think certain ps3 games look better. Good for them.
Seriously, this is why we need a separate gfx comparison thread.
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
That's terrible. They should have went with Ja Rule.CozMick said:
HomerSimpson-Man
Member
Spookie said:
Yeah, low FOV makes me get nauseated much faster.
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
90 on something like HL2 isn't the same as 90 on Crysis 2. 90 is more like 120 in Crysis 2. They must calculate it differently.Spookie said:
Lostconfused
Member
Yup http://www.rjdown.co.uk/projects/bfbc2/fovcalculator.phpSapientWolf said:
professor_t said:
The demo was locked before they had a chance to test everything. It should be slightly above the 6850.
Keep in mind this is at the lowest settings (Gamer). Still, 5850 should run it very well. Game also still looks really good...Hardcore doesn't look that much better (see above, PC vs consoles), and runs at about 1/2 of the speed.