Crysis 2 SP Shootout: PC vs. Xbox 360 vs. PS3

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
Both console version look terrible compared to PC (but better than most console games), so this isn't really offering any new info.

More looking forward to DX11 and hi-res textures for the PC.
 
So this test just confirms what we already knew, the by todays PC gaming standards weak card from late 2006 outperforms the todays consoles in gfx in this title.

Heck my old 8800 gtx is almost an ancient relic in PC gaming today and yet manage to beat the consoles in this title, i find it really amusing especially when some kids seems to believe their console is top of the line. Think again - You get what you pay for...
 
[citation][nom]welshmousepk[/nom]More looking forward to DX11 and hi-res textures for the PC.[/citation]

Indeed, heard a patch is on the way from Crytek to the PC enthusiasts.
 
A good mod api is a good foundation to make sure a class A title lives on for quite sometime (and usually remembered when the next sequel is released, generating better sales from fans).

I recall all the good old mods for quake for instance, team fortress just to name one!
 
Looks worse than Crysis 1, all three versions. The PC version might not be at full settings, plus Youtube may degrade it, because I don't see any big difference. So, or Crysis 2 has worse graphics than Crysis 1 or the videos are not good enough in order to not make consoles look like shit.

I'm doing a playthrough on Crysis and Crysis: Warhead. Then I'll play Crysis 2.
 
I rented it for xbox just to check the story out before a purchase, and the frame rate drops are so bad I had to quit playing it. I own a high end PC with a nvidia 580 and I7.
 
[citation][nom]Filiprino[/nom]Looks worse than Crysis 1, all three versions. The PC version might not be at full settings, plus Youtube may degrade it, because I don't see any big difference. So, or Crysis 2 has worse graphics than Crysis 1 or the videos are not good enough in order to not make consoles look like shit.I'm doing a playthrough on Crysis and Crysis: Warhead. Then I'll play Crysis 2.[/citation]
You hit the nail on the head first time.
Unless you view the original comparison videos in full HD on a 40"+ screen you will never get an accurate difference between them.

Using less than standard-def youtube vids to show a high-end graphical comparison is plain stupid.
 
[citation][nom]cronik93[/nom]The small linear levels explain why people have way better performance over the first Crysis.....[/citation]
I think the 1080p comparison has a good summary:
"I'm slightly disappointed that crytek don't included dx11 at launch, however it's greatly optimized and probably the best graphical multiplat game i played on par with exclusives.

Pc settings are, 1920x1080 very high. Ran on a i7 920 & 6950 with over 100fps. Truly amazing optimizing. But crossfire looks like this "

On Crysis you do not get over 100FPS with a 6950 at 1080p. Some people say it's because the game does not scale, bad optimizing, etc. I don't think so. If you want to see a bad optimized game with bugs, look at S.T.A.L.K.E.R.

"Gameplay wise, sure good game. Less open and less options than the first Crysis. Though this feels more polished and got a OK story".
 
I was hating on the graphics of Crysis 2 for some sometime until I started to really think about it and now that I have I don't really think it's fair to compare Crysis to Crysis 2 in terms of graphics because they are completely different settings. You can't compare a lush jungle to a dense urban metropolis... nature is by default beautiful. A dense jungle full of life is going to look prettier then the city even if the city has better "graphical" support, every time, hands down. You may think thats BS but go look at pictures of real life cities and then compare them to lush jungle landscape photos or hell just go watch planet earth...
 
[citation][nom]thegamersblog[/nom]I was hating on the graphics of Crysis 2 for some sometime until I started to really think about it and now that I have I don't really think it's fair to compare Crysis to Crysis 2 in terms of graphics because they are completely different settings. You can't compare a lush jungle to a dense urban metropolis... nature is by default beautiful. A dense jungle full of life is going to look prettier then the city even if the city has better "graphical" support, every time, hands down. You may think thats BS but go look at pictures of real life cities and then compare them to lush jungle landscape photos or hell just go watch planet earth...[/citation]

Well, if you look for human characters, cars and other artificial objects, textures, tree complexity (in Crysis 1 there were also small trees), lights, map size, etc. may be you can get a better comparison.

I can't really speak for Crysis 2 because I have not played it, but there are things that can be compared and based on youtube videos of both games, Crysis 2 seems to look worse.
 
[citation][nom]rantoc[/nom]So this test just confirms what we already knew, the by todays PC gaming standards weak card from late 2006 outperforms the todays consoles in gfx in this title.Heck my old 8800 gtx is almost an ancient relic in PC gaming today and yet manage to beat the consoles in this title, i find it really amusing especially when some kids seems to believe their console is top of the line. Think again - You get what you pay for...[/citation]
The 8800GTX has the same age as the ps3 and one year younger than the xbox360. Not to mention that the price of the GPU itself was more expensive than the consoles. At the time PS3 prices started at 399$, the xbox360 prices started at 249$, yet 8800 gtx price started at 600$. So it's expected to be better, or it would have been a great disappointment.
 
Considering how dated the console hardware is, I'm actually quite impressed by the quality they've managed to get out of the 360 and PS3.
 
Well as has been mentioned before, I think the standard still is the old Crysis. Heres to hoping that the DX11 patch is of higher quality than Dragon Age's patch 🙁
 
[citation][nom]Vladislaus[/nom]The 8800GTX has the same age as the ps3 and one year younger than the xbox360. Not to mention that the price of the GPU itself was more expensive than the consoles. At the time PS3 prices started at 399$, the xbox360 prices started at 249$, yet 8800 gtx price started at 600$. So it's expected to be better, or it would have been a great disappointment.[/citation]

Yea but that was how many years ago??? An 8800GTX can be outperformed by a Radeon HD 5750, which only costs $90 (brand new on newegg). Also you can pick an 8800GTX off ebay for $80 or less easily.

Although rantoc was being a d-bag elitist when he made his statement, I agree that its unbelievable how console players STILL think that consoles have the best graphics. Seriously a $90 graphics card poops on both consoles.
 
retarded, consoles are always going to be one step behind a pc. if consoles were 'upgradeable' hardware wise, hmm perhaps they would just be a computer with a gamepad... imagine that! i bet they could make TONS of money on that! lol, only reason consoles are around is because companies are stuck on an outdated ideal. it's like saying 'this year we've upgraded the manual push rolling long mower, it now has gears, we call it an 18 speed!'
 
[citation][nom]amk09[/nom]Yea but that was how many years ago??? An 8800GTX can be outperformed by a Radeon HD 5750, which only costs $90 (brand new on newegg). Also you can pick an 8800GTX off ebay for $80 or less easily. Although rantoc was being a d-bag elitist when he made his statement, I agree that its unbelievable how console players STILL think that consoles have the best graphics. Seriously a $90 graphics card poops on both consoles.[/citation]

Nothing wrong with looking down on the console kids... My GPU could run 2-3 PS3 VMs. Keep in mind that they are the one slowing innovation for everybody.
 
I do not know what people are talking about. May be when you count pixels looking one feet from the texture of the building you get disappointed that Crysis 2 is not better (and even worse) than Crysis 1. But in terms of immersion and realism the second Crysis is better. Playing the first Crysis, I always felt that it is artificial world. Yeah, sure, the jungle and trees were much better than anything I have seen on PC at the time, but there was no question that what I was seing was just an imitation of reality. The trees were still blocky, the ground and stones were still out of place with lightning and so on. I do not have this feeling with C2. Sure, it is possible that it is easier to model urban environment, but they did a hell of a good job doing it. I really impressed that DX9 can do it. And I do want to see what DX11 will offer - volumetric shadows in smoke is one of the thing which definitely missing from this game and which can significantly change atmosphere.
 
Wow with as bad as the gameplay looks on the PS3/Xbox i'm surprised that people even pay money for those junk machines. What garbage lol. These videos expose what consoles are, junk. They can't do all the other great things that PCs do, and the one thing they can do (games) they don't even do well.

PC ftw.
 
[citation][nom]rantoc[/nom]So this test just confirms what we already knew, the by todays PC gaming standards weak card from late 2006 outperforms the todays consoles in gfx in this title.Heck my old 8800 gtx is almost an ancient relic in PC gaming today and yet manage to beat the consoles in this title, i find it really amusing especially when some kids seems to believe their console is top of the line. Think again - You get what you pay for...[/citation]

I still use 8800GTX.
Wow, ancient relic...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom