Being the sequel to the game that famously brought even the most powerful PC gaming rigs to their knees, you'd expect Crysis 2 to be, how should we say, significantly streamlined for its release on Xbox 360 and PS3. Aw heck, we'll just say it -- how could the console versions even hold a candle to the PC? As evidenced by the video after the break, the 360 does a fine job of keeping up, at least in multiplayer.
In the split-screen footage, it's clear that the PC version sports higher-resolution textures, some higher-detail models and different (one might say improved) lighting. Other than that, though, the two appear fairly close to the untrained eye. Of course, this is multiplayer, so both versions are less fancy in order to keep the framerate up, but this should at least make for some good anecdotal evidence for console players afraid they're missing out big-time by not having a $3,000 PC.
Not sure why Zigma got downvoted. Though maybe it's because this game's very existence is based on eye-candy.
More likely that it's because he's still playing N+ and not Dragon Quest IX or Pokemon White/Black. Which is absurd if you ask me and we should probably break his legs for it.
I'm not seeing Shadowrun in that list which is honestly the most incredible multiplayer experience on current generation consoles because strategic movement is what determines whether or not a player excels. Too bad Old Shovelface gave the game an insanely biopolar review during the embargo (which no longer exists, original 2 pages long now only 2 paragraphs).
But in regards to Brink, +1 man. That is my most anticipated title for 2011 and that is saying a hell of a lot. Sorry Duke, Drake and Skyrim.
I'd try Dragon Quest IX if I were you. I haven't enjoyed the series in a long while but there is something special about IX oddly enough. It was hard putting it down to play Pokemon White.
Random story: I told a friend who's studying to be a character modeler in Austin about the demo since he got a new PC just last year (and I thought it'd be a decent graphics card test for him). First he said, "Eh, Crysis is boring, no thanks." Later he downloaded the demo and tried it only to say, "screw CE3, it looks worse than what's in the original game. They just made it for consoles and said screw you to PC gamers. Crysis 1 on PC actually ran worse than Crysis 2! That's proof they made it worse!"
I know, cool story bro and all that. My opinion is that it looks good. They probably just optimized the original code to make it both look and run better, and for that I'm glad. It's nice to see some real competition for Unreal Engine.
@sonicspike41 you're right. but thats no secret. they had to scale it down a bit to port it to consoles. I don't really care though, it still looks better than anything I've seen on unreal or source engines.
I try to tell him that, but he's stuck in his ways. He apparently earned the name "retro" at his college for being in love with "old school arena shooters" and almost nothing else (with the exception of SSB, Metroid, and Tomb Raider).
Whenever I try to act neutral and understanding, he responds with "you always stand up for the corporations". I'm really only friends with him cause we do both like games and anime and it's nice to have at least someone to talk to when I'm stuck at home.
The PC version definitely looks better, but that's to be expected. That being said, I am reasonably impressed with the performance Crytek has squeezed out of the 360. Also,I definitely enjoyed the MP demo on both platforms.
The left side does look freakin' awesome. I wonder what the specs are for that PC and how many 360's can be bought by comparison. Not too shabby for a 5 year old console though.
oh yes, the mindless "my copy looks shinier then yours" argument. I always thought we would move past this. Plus a 360 vs a PC is pretty unfair comparison.
@UnstoppableEwok I know its pretty lame, but if you look into the controller settings of other games (cod,battlefield,halo,etc.) there is an auto aim feature, that is usually turned on by default. LAME
@bxgt Seriously. How can gaming "journalists" not know anything about an entire platform of gaming? The "$3000 PC to play today's games at their highest" stigma has been dead for YEARS now. Anyone who continues to parrot this crap only shows the world that they haven't touched the platform for the better part of the decade.
please answer this honestly because I am looking at buying a new PC. (not building one)
How much would I have to spend to to buy a prebuilt PC to play this on the highest settings and then every game on very high settings for the next 6 or 7 years? It is my understanding that this can be played on a $600-800 computer is you build it, but I have no desire to learn how to build a PC or research it, also what about future games?
I'm sure he can run a few, but there are some games i doubt he can play maxed out, like metro 2033 for example would choke a bitch on that his machine maxed, but i'd say there are a fair number of games he could play... then again we all have limits to what we consider decent fps too... Other than that I mostly agree with your statement.
@bxgt You keep posting that video, but that's not proof that a $450 computer can run it on max. Unless you post your specs, prices and links I will call bullshit. I made my PC about a year and a half ago for a grand, and my pc won't max out Crysis 2.
@iceveiled I built mine for $460 CAD a year ago and I'm maxing crysis 2 at 1920*1080...your doing something wrong....bought my parts on black Friday...it's mostly OEM parts, still very possible though, all you need is a good deal.
you are a flat-out liar. not only does your pc NOT cost $450, i highly doubt you are running it at "max" settings. unless you're maxing anisotropic filtering, anti-aliasing, textures, reflections, and every single setting, that's not max.
i know what i'm talking about. i keep track of the most recent pc hardware, and do occasional mock builds just because i like to and don't have the money to follow through with it all the time.
tl;dr: you are a liar, or at least a severely mistaken fool.
As much as reviewers embelish with the "$3000 pc" line, bxgt is embelishing just as much with the "you can play any modern game maxed out at $450" line.
It sure as hell doesn't cost 3 grand to play modern PC games maxed out, but it sure as hell doesn't cost $450 either, and I build PCs all the time.
I feel comfortable saying that folks with DX11 cards are currently very much in the minority. I'm holding off on one until we're closer to BF3's launch. Then I'll enjoy me some souped-up Crysis 2 (hopefully).
Honestly though, while it looks good, the maps are small and urban. The comparison I'm much more interested in is Crysis 1 vs. Crysis 2 - I would also love to see Crysis 2 running a jungle area, for further scienceing.
No, you're not the only one. Right now Crysis is still running DX9, and in the demo at least you can't actually change specific graphics settings. You only have ambiguous "hardcore" "gamer" and "advanced" settings for graphics. It still is a good looking game, and doubtless will look better on the PC than the consoles, but they definitely took a step down in terms of high end graphics.
I really cant see justifying the price of a gaming PC anymore. This is pretty amazing considering the 360's age. The PC definately looks better, but its not worth the extra price.
An off-the-shelf OEM system with a $300 video card will outperform any console for years. In fact, by the time the next consoles come out, they still won't be able to match the performance of that $300 video card.
@AFATALERR0R Console vs PC price is not something that can easily be compared. For instance, I imagine you own a computer of some sort - you could define the price of a gaming PC as the cost difference between a nice computer and the one you have. Another factor is the TV you use costs an order of magnitude more than the PC monitor (or laptop screen).
Even disregarding this, a computer to run Crysis 2 at max settings isn't that expensive. Probably around $700. (disclaimer: anecdotal evidence) I bought mine for around $850 last year and I get ~40fps at max settings, and ~55fps at one below.
PC components (Other than high end video cards, which really aren't even needed.....5 more FPS, WOOOOOOO!!!!) are at the cheapest I can remember in forever. With little effort, you could put together a machine, under 1000, and easily around 700-800, that will run most games very comfortably for a long time.
And on the other hand, you could've dropped $400 on a 360, 5 years ago, that has run an amazing library of games (arguably better than PC), for a very long time as well.
Both sides have their appeal, I guess it just depends on how far you want to push the graphic and performance envelope.
The world has been ravaged by a series of climatic disasters and society is on the verge of total breakdown. Now the aliens have returned, with a full invasion force bent on nothing less than the total annihilation of mankind, starting by trying to rip the heart out of Earth's most iconic city. In New York, terrifying alien invaders stalk the streets and a nightmare plague strikes down the city's myriad inhabitants with brutal epidemic speed. The city's systems are in chaos, its streets and skyline are smashed and in flaming ruin. This is New York City like you've never seen it before. Neither paramilitary law enforcement nor the might of the US military machine can stand against the invaders, and all who choose not to flee are dead men walking. Just to survive in this maelstrom of death will require technology beyond anything any modern soldier has ever seen. One man will inherit that means to survive. One supersoldier, wielding the combat enhancement technology of the future with Nanosuit 2, will make the last stand to save humanity from destruction in the urban jungle that is New York City.
