I'm not an true analyst by any means, but the biggest difference seemed to be in lighting and effects when I was toggling between Very High and Extreme. For example for light sources you could literally see the haze coming through on them on Extreme where you don't on Very High. Things like smoke in the distance seems more pronounced in Extreme as well.
So I played a few minutes of Crysis 2 (busy until later) and it looks great on my PS3 even on an SDTV. Very minor fps drops but nothing too bad. Ran better and looked better than the PC version even though I have an:
I'm not an true analyst by any means, but the biggest difference seemed to be in lighting and effects when I was toggling between Very High and Extreme. For example for light sources you could literally see the haze coming through on them on Extreme where you don't on Very High. Things like smoke in the distance seems more pronounced in Extreme as well.
So I played a few minutes of Crysis 2 (busy until later) and it looks great on my PS3 even on an SDTV. Very minor fps drops but nothing too bad. Ran better and looked better than the PC version even though I have an:
Not cool. I've been trying to decide whether or not to get the PC version or 360 version. The multiplayer demo ran pretty well, but I have my doubts on the single player since I have lower specs than yours and the first Crysis didn't run well at all.
Yeah I'm gonna lock it down on 30 and go to Extreme for my second play through of the campaign. Right now I'm playing on Very High because I get a near constant 60fps. I'm also using my wired 360 controller and playing this game at 60fps is great.
Grav said:
So I played a few minutes of Crysis 2 (busy until later) and it looks great on my PS3 even on an SDTV. Very minor fps drops but nothing too bad. Ran better and looked better than the PC version even though I have an:
So I played a few minutes of Crysis 2 (busy until later) and it looks great on my PS3 even on an SDTV. Very minor fps drops but nothing too bad. Ran better and looked better than the PC version even though I have an:
Man, the tearing could be on the overscan area, which is the case with many other games. That would make the tearing imperceptible unless you're specifically looking for it, but a tool designed for measuring the framerate would still be able to detect it. Still, less than 2% torn frames, especially if the tearing is located in that area, is what I call a non-issue.
So I played a few minutes of Crysis 2 (busy until later) and it looks great on my PS3 even on an SDTV. Very minor fps drops but nothing too bad. Ran better and looked better than the PC version even though I have an:
With the new exoskeletons, they look and play differently, but it's not difficult to believe in terms of the game's fiction, that they are the same aliens.
It would disappoint me less if it was a bad, if experimental, game. That's my biggest issue here: the decline of major triple A titles into repetitive, unambitious, piss-dribbling mediocrity.
How are the graphics? OK!
How is the gameplay? OK!
How is the story? OK!
How is the multiplayer? OK!
This isn't a game where I should be using the word OK. I've seen and done everything in it a thousand times before in other so-called cinematic shooters in this generation. Crytek's games used to WOW me, but alas, that era seems to be at an end.
So far I'm really enjoying the game, and have been very impressed visually (360). The lighting has really impressed me. I'm not a hardcore techno-junkie when it comes to graphics, so I can't say one way or the other if it's better than "X" game, only that it manages to impress me.
My only gripe so far has been the inconsistent AI. I've had a number of times where the enemy would be walking in place while running into a wall or corner. I also had a scene where all of the enemies didn't trigger properly, and I ended up having to use Nanovision to shoot them through a roof in order to proceed (I was impressed that I could shoot through the ceiling, lol).
I do have one question: Spoiler alert for first five or 10 minute mark of the game
How does Prophet remove his suit and then manage to put it on Alacatraz? Barring the fact that Alcatraz is unconcious when this happens (making it even harder), the suit seems to sync itself to the user's DNA, and the administrative aspects of the suit seem to require a cradle. With the way the suit functions, and the specificity of the individual user, it seems like each nanosuit would have to be tailor made and configured for each person.
Is it hard to understand that people are disappointed because of the differences between this game and Crytek's past releases? That it is definitely smaller and more limited and that's something people who liked the first game don't want?
You have not played it yet and are making these type of posts, which means you're going into it with a made up opinion already, which is simply unfair. This type of mindset seems common and is what spawned the OP.
Nekrono said:
Crytek's awesome decision taking happened and decided to forget about him and create this new character with a retarded name.
Because Nomad was such an interesting, well-developed character? Can you remember a single line of dialogue he said during the campaign? The story and characterization in Crysis 1 were dreadful, and that's a near universal opinion. The Gears of War games had better characterization than Crysis 1, ffs.
I think they did the right thing by giving the story a fresh take because the original's was almost non-existent.
I <3 Memes said:
I'm fine with the city setting as well. It just looks so damn small. And it is not because of the city setting. I dont see any way that a city uses more resources to render than a tropical beach full of vegetation. If vegetation was so easy to do than every game wouldn't have struggled with it for so long.
It IS because of the city setting. A tropical jungle/beach landscape versus a dense metropolitan area? Think about what you're saying.
Plus, we had 2 games already int he same setting, I'm happy they went a totally different route.
The level of detail in the city, the stores, the objects littered everywhere, the destroyed landscape, it's incredible. Saying it requires less resources isn't anything we can prove without a doubt, since most of us aren't game developers. There's SO much detail packed into the environment it's bonkers. Crytek put a ton of care into every little part of the game.
MadOdorMachine said:
They could make another spin off like Warhead.
I think they failed. I guess to some people it looks good, but to me it doesn't. I guess the best way I can explain is this. In Crysis 2 they throw a lot of tech at you to wow you but almost all of it is done in a non optimum way. In other words, the resolution is lower, the framerate is bad, there's constant low-rez texture pop-up, there's triangle and jaggies on water and shadows, etc. etc. Some people may think this looks good, but to me, they failed. It certainly doesn't look as good as something like Uncharted or Killzone and in many ways, CoD did a better job at optimizing what could be done on consoles.
The thing is, Crysis isn't a game that you rush through like CoD where everything is linear and frantic. Crysis is a game where you camp out, pick the most effective way to tackle a situation and breath in the atmosphere and tech they put into the game. In the first Crysis I would literally stop and look at waterfalls. In the opening level of Crysis 2 I saw triangles on the water falls. Who wants to look at that? They failed imo although I can see why some people who haven't played the original might be impressed.
Exacty.
I doubt it. They already released a patch for it actually.
Why in the world are you comparing the console version of Crysis 2 (you mentioned framerate, resolution, jaggies, shadow deficiencies, etc.) to Crysis 1?!
FYI, Far Cry 2 is a completely open-world and has as impressive vegetation as Crysis 1. Probably even more so since it can all be destroyed and dynamically lit on fire.
So I played a few minutes of Crysis 2 (busy until later) and it looks great on my PS3 even on an SDTV. Very minor fps drops but nothing too bad. Ran better and looked better than the PC version even though I have an:
That's not possible. Something is wrong with your setup or drivers or something, I dunno lol. You'll be able to run it well at 1080p on Extreme with those specs.
You don't think it's respectable the way they delivered a sizable portion of the Crysis experience to machines that are 5/6 years old? I mean, it's obviously smaller, yes, but for what they were trying to do, I think they accomplished their goal.
And we know they're not solely set on making everything multiplatform since they're already making one exclusive title for the Xbox 360, so maybe if they're able to license enough projects with CryEngine 3, they'll make enough cash and be willing to take a risk on a new PC-exclusive that's made with future hardware in mind just like the first Crysis was.
I don't think Crytek's days of pushing new hardware to the limits are over.
Wow, this site must be getting pounded. I still haven't been able to go to the page. Forgive me for bringing up graphics again but I've never understood this. Some devs seem to let screen tear appear on 360 but it keeps framerate up. Yet on PS3, they have no tearing but drops frames. This is similar to RE5.
Yeah, I keep looking at the little yellow lines at the top when they're claiming it's tearing -- I just don't see it. Pretty insignificant screen-tearing.
Wow, this site must be getting pounded. I still haven't been able to go to the page. Forgive me for bringing up graphics again but I've never understood this. Some devs seem to let screen tear appear on 360 but it keeps framerate up. Yet on PS3, they have no tearing but drops frames. This is similar to RE5.
Cmon man. If that was true then there would have been anything stopping Crytek from ever porting Crysis 1 and Warhead over to consoles. Cmon man.
Until the last few years tress, bushes, and vegetation were all pretty poor looking compared to building and structures. It's just too much intricate detail to render decent looking leaves and grass even today. Even Crysis 1 has terrible flat looking leaves on trees and bushes. The palm fronds are really the only vegetation that looks semi-decent.
Wow, this site must be getting pounded. I still haven't been able to go to the page. Forgive me for bringing up graphics again but I've never understood this. Some devs seem to let screen tear appear on 360 but it keeps framerate up. Yet on PS3, they have no tearing but drops frames. This is similar to RE5.
They probably use tripple buffring on PS3, it allows the frame rate to drop below 30/60 fps without tearing. the X360 is probably just capped at 30 with a few drops.
Why in the world are you comparing the console version of Crysis 2 (you mentioned framerate, resolution, jaggies, shadow deficiencies, etc.) to Crysis 1?!
FYI, Far Cry 2 is a completely open-world and has as impressive vegetation as Crysis 1. Probably even more so since it can all be destroyed and dynamically lit on fire.
I'm comparing Crysis 2 to Crysis because it is a sequel. They tried to get a PC game running on PS3 but had to downgrade the game to such a point that it's unacceptable. It looks and runs like crap on consoles and the PC version has been tailored down because of it.
And we know they're not solely set on making everything multiplatform since they're already making one exclusive title for the Xbox 360, so maybe if they're able to license enough projects with CryEngine 3, they'll make enough cash and be willing to take a risk on a new PC-exclusive that's made with future hardware in mind just like the first Crysis was.
I don't think Crytek's days of pushing new hardware to the limits are over.
I wish this part of your post was true but I seriously doubt it. You can sell millions with a 360/PS3 exclusive shooter, but it's a much, much bigger risk to try to attempt that with a PC exclusive, let alone one that would be geared towards higher-end setups. Your potential customer base would be exponentially smaller than what you'd have on a 360 or PS3. All we can do is wait for the next-gen of consoles.
People didn't have machines that could practically run it when it released. That said, not sure the reception at the time, but Crysis has been viewed positively for at least the past 2 years if not longer. That's gameplay as well. So, that's a 'no' for the second question.
Ok, looking at the LoT analysis, I have to say the IQ looks disappointing on BOTH consoles. Lots of jaggies, not the sharpest IQ, weak textures in areas, poor texture filtering etc. To me it sort of seems like a less severe case of Halo 3. The loss of general IQ additions at the expense of an advanced lighting model. I would have said the sandbox nature of things also has an affect, then most people are saying it's more like an arena shooter, and add to that, every screen or video I've seen of the game pretty much confirms that. Nothing really that open about it. Not so far.
I could care less about not using the same character from the first game, he was pointless silent protagonist anyways, but I just hope by the time I finished C2 that their is some explanation of what happened after C1's characters and the whole "going back".
Cmon man. If that was true then there would have been anything stopping Crytek from ever porting Crysis 1 and Warhead over to consoles. Cmon man.
Until the last few years tress, bushes, and vegetation were all pretty poor looking compared to building and structures. It's just too much intricate detail to render decent looking leaves and grass even today. Even Crysis 1 has terrible flat looking leaves on trees and bushes. The palm fronds are really the only vegetation that looks semi-decent.
Then how was Far Cry 2 able to be put on consoles? If you downgrade the physics of Crysis 1, what's different about it from Far Cry 2 which is on consoles? FC2 even has an open-world and vegetation that can be lit on fire, along with real-time (I think they're real-time) day/night cycles.
MadOdorMachine said:
I'm comparing Crysis 2 to Crysis because it is a sequel. They tried to get a PC game running on PS3 but had to downgrade the game to such a point that it's unacceptable. It looks and runs like crap on consoles and the PC version has been tailored down because of it.
I haven't played the console version but pretty much everyone else in the thread disagrees with your assessment that it "looks like crap on consoles", including virtually every reviewer.
They probably use tripple buffring on PS3, it allows the frame rate to drop below 30/60 fps without tearing. the X360 is probably just capped at 30 with a few drops.
Because Nomad was such an interesting, well-developed character? Can you remember a single line of dialogue he said during the campaign? The story and characterization in Crysis 1 were dreadful, and that's a near universal opinion. The Gears of War games had better characterization than Crysis 1, ffs.
I think they did the right thing by giving the story a fresh take because the original's was almost non-existent.
Dude you do really need a well developed character for a first person shooter game? That's like saying that we need a really good character for Call of Duty, most shooter games don't focus on the character, because it really doesn't matter, what matters are the situations you are put into.
Now, that being said, Nomad was a fucking great character, he spoke when needed, his attitude was perfect, he had the perfect mix between sounding like someone that can get the job done and kick ass without sounding retarded, cocky or lame. He was just right for the game.
Pshyco in Warhead was great too.
Alcatraz on the other hand.... doesn't even talk? lol.
PS: And I do remember a couple lines from him:
"My chute is gone! my damn chute is gone! I've got no main, no reserve!."
Then how was Far Cry 2 able to be put on consoles? If you downgrade the physics of Crysis 1, what's different about it from Far Cry 2 which is on consoles? FC2 even has an open-world and vegetation that can be lit on fire.
Dude you do really need a well developed character for a shooter game? That's like saying that we need a really good character for Call of Duty, most shooter games don't focus on the character, because it really doesn't matter, what matters are the situations you are put into.
Now, that being said, Nomad was a fucking great character, he spoke when needed, his attitude was perfect, he had the perfect mix between sounding like someone that can get the job done and kick ass without sounding retarded, cocky or lame. He was just right for the game.
Pshyco in Warhead was great too.
Alcatraz on the other hand.... doesn't even talk? lol.
PS: And I do remember a couple lines from him:
"My shute is gone! my damn shute is gone! I've got no main, no reserve!."
Then how was Far Cry 2 able to be put on consoles? If you downgrade the physics of Crysis 1, what's different about it from Far Cry 2 which is on consoles? FC2 even has an open-world and vegetation that can be lit on fire.
I haven't played the console version but pretty much everyone else in the thread disagrees with your assessment that it "looks like crap on consoles", including virtually every reviewer.
There is a massive difference between the vegetation in FC2 and the one i Crysis, and I have played both. Add in the fact that FC2 forgets everything you do once you move a 100 meters away, while broken trees and houses remain in Crysis.
As far as I understand doing semi-transparent vegetation is a massive drain on bandwidth, which is why some PS3 ports lacks vegetation. This could also go a long way in explaining why increasing the resolution in crysis quickly kills performance.
But I'm not an expert, if someone has actual insight into this i defer to their knowledge.
I think they failed. I guess to some people it looks good, but to me it doesn't. I guess the best way I can explain is this. In Crysis 2 they throw a lot of tech at you to wow you but almost all of it is done in a non optimum way. In other words, the resolution is lower, the framerate is bad, there's constant low-rez texture pop-up, there's triangle and jaggies on water and shadows, etc. etc. Some people may think this looks good, but to me, they failed. It certainly doesn't look as good as something like Uncharted or Killzone and in many ways, CoD did a better job at optimizing what could be done on consoles.
The thing is, Crysis isn't a game that you rush through like CoD where everything is linear and frantic. Crysis is a game where you camp out, pick the most effective way to tackle a situation and breath in the atmosphere and tech they put into the game. In the first Crysis I would literally stop and look at waterfalls. In the opening level of Crysis 2 I saw triangles on the water falls. Who wants to look at that? They failed imo although I can see why some people who haven't played the original might be impressed.
Exacty.
I doubt it. They already released a patch for it actually.
There is a massive difference between the vegetation in FC2 and the one i Crysis, and I have played both. Add in the fact that FC2 forgets everything you do once you move a 100 meters away, while broken trees and houses remain in Crysis.
As far as I understand doing semi-transparent vegetation is a massive drain on bandwidth, which is why some PS3 ports lacks vegetation. This could also go a long way in explaining why increasing the resolution in crysis quickly kills performance.
But I'm not an expert, if someone has actual insight into this i defer to their knowledge.
His point, though, was "why wasn't Crysis ported to consoles then"? And I replied with a game that's very comparable, minus the physics. My question is what aspects of Crysis couldn't be done seeing as how FC2 was on consoles?
Mr_Brit said:
smh... Can't believe there are people defending silent protagonists. Then again there seems to be a defence force for everything on GAF.
I'm not really defending them. I would much rather have Alcatraz be vocal and some personality. My response was to Necrono saying he missed Nomad, who was about as interesting as a silent protagonist.
I wish this part of your post was true but I seriously doubt it. You can sell millions with a 360/PS3 exclusive shooter, but it's a much, much bigger risk to try to attempt that with a PC exclusive, let alone one that would be geared towards higher-end setups. Your potential customer base would be exponentially smaller than what you'd have on a 360 or PS3. All we can do is wait for the next-gen of consoles.
The reason they went multiplatform with Crysis 2 was to show off CryEngine 3 and prove its worth for console development. The real money is in licensing the engine. Don't they make the majority of their cash on licensing to simulators and stuff, anyway? Why wouldn't they have more freedom to choose what projects they work on than other devs if that's the case?
Then how was Far Cry 2 able to be put on consoles? If you downgrade the physics of Crysis 1, what's different about it from Far Cry 2 which is on consoles? FC2 even has an open-world and vegetation that can be lit on fire, along with real-time (I think they're real-time) day/night cycles.
Dunia is a fantastic engine that as far as I can tell has gone completely unused since FC2 and Avatar. But just looking at how many games take on city settings with a minimum of vegetation and foliage it is clear how difficult it is to handle. I would guess that devs would also have a huge advantage in rendering only what is visible in a cityscape where you only see 2 sides of a building at a time compared to a forest or jungle where there is really no way to conserve resources by hiding sections that dont need to be rendered at the moment.
Heavy said:
And only certain trees can be destroyed in Crysis, not every tree, so the interaction comment is curious as well. And they can't be lit on fire.
Even trees that cant be destroyed have to have physics applied. Leaves and branches moving in the wind. Trees sway when grenades or explosions go off near them. They would look kind of dead without the physics. They could have went the same route as Oblivion and only had the foliage sway within a certain radius of the player though. That is one of the things that was changed when you lowered the physics setting in Crysis. On maximum all of the vegetation that you could see would sway or could be destroyed (by that I mean only the trees that could normally be destroyed) no matter how far away.
The burning grass in FC2 was just a texture switch. The actual physics of the fire moving is as real as water lapping on a shore in a videogame. Done well it looks convincing and that is all that matters.
Compared to Crysis, again the vegetation is sparse and generally in most areas just tons of the same tall grass. The vegetation in Crysis was not all destructible, but it also besides having interaction with wind, also was able to interact with ballistics and the player/npc characters. They deformed and moved as the characters moved through them. The texturing while not always great in areas, was generally far more detailed and high quality in comparison to much of the awful texturing used in FC2. Crysis in general had far more going on screen wise along with everything else going on that it did far better than FC2.
Setting fires was only really impressive part of FC2 and even that just got redundant as it was the same exact effect each time.
I don't think it would be impossible to put Crysis 1 on consoles, but it likely wouldn' have run as well. C2 was made from the ground up to be cross platform
The reason they went multiplatform with Crysis 2 was to show off CryEngine 3 and prove its worth for console development. The real money is in licensing the engine. Don't they make the majority of their cash on licensing to simulators and stuff, anyway? Why wouldn't they have more freedom to choose what projects they work on than other devs if that's the case?
Yeah, the vast majority of Crytek's revenue is from military shit and other non-gaming related stuff. Probably more info in their Wiki
I <3 Memes said:
Dunia is a fantastic engine that as far as I can tell has gone completely unused since FC2 and Avatar. But just looking at how many games take on city settings with a minimum of vegetation and foliage it is clear how difficult it is to handle. I would guess that devs would also have a huge advantage in rendering only what is visible in a cityscape where you only see 2 sides of a building at a time compared to a forest or jungle where there is really no way to conserve resources by hiding sections that dont need to be rendered at the moment.
Sooo, it turns out, apparently, that the retail version has pretty much all of the first game's developer commands stripped out. There's a command console but barely any console commands. Fabulous.
I can see myself actually unlocking the game, leaving it untouched and downloading the beta at this rate.
Sooo, it turns out, apparently, that the retail version has pretty much all of the first game's developer commands stripped out. There's a command console but barely any console commands. Fabulous.
I can see myself actually unlocking the game, leaving it untouched and downloading the beta at this rate.
Sooo, it turns out, apparently, that the retail version has pretty much all of the first game's developer commands stripped out. There's a command console but barely any console commands. Fabulous.
I can see myself actually unlocking the game, leaving it untouched and downloading the beta at this rate.
There is really no difference from the beta/demo aside from what maybe a few optimizations here and there, I mean Crytek was even showing the same lame beta build a few weeks from the game releasing lol, you could tell by the function line showing up on context menus like pick up stuff, push something, etc.
Compared to Crysis, again the vegetation is sparse and generally in most areas just tons of the same tall grass. The vegetation in Crysis was not all destructible, but it also besides having interaction with wind, also was able to interact with ballistics and the player/npc characters. They deformed and moved as the characters moved through them. The texturing while not always great in areas, was generally far more detailed and high quality in comparison to much of the awful texturing used in FC2. Crysis in general had far more going on screen wise along with everything else going on that it did far better than FC2.
Setting fires was only really impressive part of FC2 and even that just got redundant as it was the same exact effect each time.
I'm not arguing that FC2 doesn't look as good as Crysis and that the textures and are worse and all that other stuff (duh), or that a console version of Crysis would look like shit in comparison to the PC version.
My response was to the question posed "why wasn't Crysis on consoles then?" And my answer was that I believe it could be done minus the advanced physics because Far Cry 2 is very similar in both the general gameplay and setting. Can you refute that?
