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

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
[citation][nom]invlem[/nom]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.[/citation]
this is a shame, they've had plenty of time to improve on game play and graphics...consoles are holding back the developers....PC were and are still better when it comes to games
 
[citation][nom]skaz[/nom]Videos are at 720p. Unfair match. Most pc gamers will be playing this game at the least 1080p.[/citation]
consoles can't play well at those resolutions, therefore they had to make it fair, lol....
 
[citation][nom]Filiprino[/nom]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".[/citation]

Most of that optimizing is much lower res textures. Actually they are half the resolution of Crysis. A guy on the Steam forums checked and when he put a texture from Crysis inton Crysis 2 (the same texture too) it was 2x more detailed.

Thats not really optimizing, more downscaling so that consoles can actually play the game.
 
[citation][nom]jimmysmitty[/nom]Most of that optimizing is much lower res textures. Actually they are half the resolution of Crysis. A guy on the Steam forums checked and when he put a texture from Crysis inton Crysis 2 (the same texture too) it was 2x more detailed.Thats not really optimizing, more downscaling so that consoles can actually play the game.[/citation]
Yeah, I've found something about that: http://vghq.net/2011/03/28/crysis-2-textures-are-12-size-of-crysis-1-proof/

So, if textures are half sized, what else have they watered down? Sad. Come on, they used the same textures from Crysis 1, they could have kept that work on PC and use models with lower poly count and textures for lower graphics settings. There's enough disk space for that. Or maybe they could push Blu-Ray on PC by selling two versions: one in DVD and one in Blu-Ray with the extra oompf, "True HD edition" lol. Or just one DVD edition with a DVD9 and a DVD5 for the additional detail.
I'm getting more reasons to play Crysis 2, just to feel the difference.
 
Personally, I intend to wait until the DX11 patch, I have a LGA 2011 CPU and a much better GPU (or two). Preferably with a the game modded for even higher quality.
:)
 
^^ read the comments. I posted a link stating that the dx11 patch was just a rumor made up by some website and as far as the crysis folk are concerned there will be no dx11 patch until they say for certain there will be a dx11 patch.
 
I know that this game makes a lot high-end pc gamers want to piss themselves and cry because of the "toned-down" graphics, but frankly i think that's just bs. If your definition of a good pc title is one where only the rich kid on the block can max it out on his $4000 3-way sli build, theres just one word for you. Elitist. Besides, that's not really a good business strategy, unless crytek started charging $300 per copy. I don't own a console and don't plan on owning one any time soon, nor do i have a high-end rig, so it just annoys me when both sides r complaining about the other. It's just games... grow up. I still agree tho that there is no real comparison between high-end or even budget gaming pcs and consoles, nor will there probably ever be. Console owners r just your average non tech-savvy dude, more or less, and they aren't gonna learn crap.
I'll end that rant now...
 
[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]

believe the top end card from 06 or close to there was gforce 6800 ultra, possibly a 7000 line card.

and consoles beat the 6800ultra by todays standard.
 
[citation][nom]bigpoppastuke[/nom]Bringing up how PC's 5 years ago are better than today's consoles isn't logical thinking. Buying an xbox/ps3 at any of the current price points is a bargain considering everything you get with the package (2 games[usually] a console, controller, and a harddrive) Most of you are just talking about a graphics card in comparison. You still need the rest of the PC components to run that graphics card. Build a comparable PC and I bet it will run you the same amount of money in the end as a ps3 or Xbox360 would. Of course I'm leaving out displays and speakers but thats apart of both of them.I'm a die-hard PC gaming fan but the whole logic between performance of xbox/ps3/pc gaming is stupid. These consoles are way past the end of their cycles and should'nt be compared.Consoles are a bargain, let's leave it at that.[/citation]

you are leaveing out the important part.

for pc gameing, you need a graphics card. without that, a pc can do damn near everything else.

a 400$ pc build i good for most people, and thats graphics cardless.

now dump in even a 100$ graphics card, and it kicks the consoles @$$, that 100-300$ (not including the extreme top end) is the gaming premium. its what you pay to turn your computer from just a computer to a gaming machine.
 
Agreed with above alidan. YOU CANNOT compare a pc's entire cost to a console since most people already have a pc and need only buy a video card, and no we don't all blow 600 fu***** dollars on a video card or 2, anyone who thinks that is silly.

As someone stated, a 90$ card beats both consoles, those who spend much much more spend the money because they enjoy better realism, like audiophiles who buy 500 dollar cans because they love acoustics + other equipment and want to hear it all, or someone who buys a bmw i135 instead of a tiburon because they want more/better car.

So, my point, stop comparing the cost of an entire pc to a console when all the average person needs is a video card, AND stop comparing videophiles to console gamers ffs, no videophile on earth would settle with a console, ever, that's like an audiophile settling with ipod earphones.
 
Oh right, how silly of me to forget to mention that your also comparing a machine which can do thousands of things to a console which can accomplish significantly less....
 
[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]believe the top end card from 06 or close to there was gforce 6800 ultra, possibly a 7000 line card.and consoles beat the 6800ultra by todays standard.[/citation]
7800GTX was available since 22 June 2005.
8800GTX came in on september 2006. With a card from 2005 you can play all multiplatform games (althought they pump min. requirements, those aren't real minimum requirements). With today's cards you get 100FPS or more.
Of course, with a 7800GTX you won't be able to play Full HD, but consoles can't do it neither.
 
@the associate

Saying most people already have a PC doesn't cover it. What's to say it's up to date enough to just plug in a PCI-E GPU into it. What if you're running an old PC with an old CPU, a mobo with an AGP socket, a Compaq V55 monitor, & a pair of £10 trust speakers. You'd need a new mobo, cpu, RAM, heatsink, power supply, possibly a case, possibly a new hard drive....oh, that's a new PC, & before you've even got to the GPU, & a monitor & new speakers to show off this shiny new tech.

I'm not saying you can't put a PC together for a reasonable sum of money, & that you have to buy the top of the range GPU (the most I've ever paid is about £110) & I'm not saying that everybody will need everything, but generalising that the only thing anybody will ever need to play PC games will be a new GPU is over simplyfing matters way too much. "Most" PC's will be used for email & browsing, & might not have been updated in years. The CPU might not be up to the job, & a new CPU might not fit into their existing MOBO, the RAM might be slow, etc etc etc.

My PC is getting on a bit now (AMD X2 5000BE+ 512MB, HD3870, 4GB Kingston Hyper RAM), but it played the first Crysis at reasonable settings at 1680x1050 as long as I didn't go near the anti-aliasing. I know it's better technically than my PS3, but I don't game on my PC anymore as I just prefer the ease of consoles. I used to update my PC regularly, but since I got my PS3 in late 2008, I haven't felt the need. It's not all about graphics.

That's not say I don't understand why PC gamers are cheesed off that the PC version of Crysis 2 is gimped, but don't go blaming the console gamers. We're just people who game on a different platform to you. We don't have to game on PC just because you think it's better. It's not better for me, or the millions of other people who choose to console game rather than PC. It doesn't mean we're idiots, or technically challenged, it's just a choice. By all means bitch about the developer/publisher of the game, but don't go blaming people who have a hobby.
 
That last paragraph was aimed generally at the PC elitists moaning about console gamers, not solely at "the associate".
 
first off,, the difference about pc gaming and console gaming is about the realism and casual. i think the way we gaming in pc and in console , was different. the core about pc is realism, and the core about console is casual (ease of use, simple mind). so development in pc game cannot mix and match with the console.. pc needs its own idea and resources. anyway, too much fps games these days. kinda boring since COD. but crysis is different, because its graphics. but now dumbed down,, sigh, now its the same like the rest. we want experiences in dx11 though.
 
[citation][nom]kaden101[/nom]@the associateSaying most people already have a PC doesn't cover it. What's to say it's up to date enough to just plug in a PCI-E GPU into it. What if you're running an old PC with an old CPU, a mobo with an AGP socket, a Compaq V55 monitor, & a pair of £10 trust speakers. You'd need a new mobo, cpu, RAM, heatsink, power supply, possibly a case, possibly a new hard drive....oh, that's a new PC, & before you've even got to the GPU, & a monitor & new speakers to show off this shiny new tech.I'm not saying you can't put a PC together for a reasonable sum of money, & that you have to buy the top of the range GPU (the most I've ever paid is about £110) & I'm not saying that everybody will need everything, but generalising that the only thing anybody will ever need to play PC games will be a new GPU is over simplyfing matters way too much. "Most" PC's will be used for email & browsing, & might not have been updated in years. The CPU might not be up to the job, & a new CPU might not fit into their existing MOBO, the RAM might be slow, etc etc etc.My PC is getting on a bit now (AMD X2 5000BE+ 512MB, HD3870, 4GB Kingston Hyper RAM), but it played the first Crysis at reasonable settings at 1680x1050 as long as I didn't go near the anti-aliasing. I know it's better technically than my PS3, but I don't game on my PC anymore as I just prefer the ease of consoles. I used to update my PC regularly, but since I got my PS3 in late 2008, I haven't felt the need. It's not all about graphics.That's not say I don't understand why PC gamers are cheesed off that the PC version of Crysis 2 is gimped, but don't go blaming the console gamers. We're just people who game on a different platform to you. We don't have to game on PC just because you think it's better. It's not better for me, or the millions of other people who choose to console game rather than PC. It doesn't mean we're idiots, or technically challenged, it's just a choice. By all means bitch about the developer/publisher of the game, but don't go blaming people who have a hobby.[/citation]

The theorical ease of use of the consoles is buried under the control companies exert. In a computer you just have to put in a disc, install once and forget to use it again. And with online content distribution it's even easier, and you have the possibility to backup your downloaded content to the medium of your choice.
Good luck with consoles, and remember to buy one every 5 years, without being able to play older games.
 
Sure, PCs look better. They're also woefully inefficient at pushing pixels compared to a console. That's just the nature of the beast. There's nothing new to see here.

Now that I've gotten that out of the way, I'll get to why I am actually submitting a comment.

It's offensive to be told I'm not a "real gamer" because I do care about graphics in a game. I've been playing video games in my home since Atari 400 days(got mine in 1981, wrote my first computer game 6 months later, saved it to casette, etc). I have played on every console I could get my hands on, including a Neo-Geo(when they were relevant).

I am the very definition of a hardcore gamer. I spend my free time reading about games, learning about games, playing games, devising strategies for games, programming games, reviewing games... yet some snooty little upstart with a hardon for consoles wants to tell me I am not a "real gamer" because I also care about graphics.

Just because I don't fit your mold doesn't mean you know anything about me, or others like me. My generation is the reason you even have video games to talk about.
 
[citation][nom]Lansow[/nom]Sure, PCs look better. They're also woefully inefficient at pushing pixels compared to a console. That's just the nature of the beast. There's nothing new to see here.[/citation]
Oh yeah, sure.
 
Crysis has terrible gameplay and AI. i installed it just to check the graphics on PC. Farcry has even lamer AI and gameplay. This game is not worth. here it is, i said it.
 
Haha, finally the console users see what it's like to have a game ported to their favored device. Great video's, enjoyed all!
 
[citation][nom]kaden101[/nom]@the associateSaying most people already have a PC doesn't cover it. What's to say it's up to date enough to just plug in a PCI-E GPU into it. What if you're running an old PC with an old CPU, a mobo with an AGP socket, a Compaq V55 monitor, & a pair of £10 trust speakers. You'd need a new mobo, cpu, RAM, heatsink, power supply, possibly a case, possibly a new hard drive....oh, that's a new PC, & before you've even got to the GPU, & a monitor & new speakers to show off this shiny new tech.I'm not saying you can't put a PC together for a reasonable sum of money, & that you have to buy the top of the range GPU (the most I've ever paid is about £110) & I'm not saying that everybody will need everything, but generalising that the only thing anybody will ever need to play PC games will be a new GPU is over simplyfing matters way too much. "Most" PC's will be used for email & browsing, & might not have been updated in years. The CPU might not be up to the job, & a new CPU might not fit into their existing MOBO, the RAM might be slow, etc etc etc.My PC is getting on a bit now (AMD X2 5000BE+ 512MB, HD3870, 4GB Kingston Hyper RAM), but it played the first Crysis at reasonable settings at 1680x1050 as long as I didn't go near the anti-aliasing. I know it's better technically than my PS3, but I don't game on my PC anymore as I just prefer the ease of consoles. I used to update my PC regularly, but since I got my PS3 in late 2008, I haven't felt the need. It's not all about graphics.That's not say I don't understand why PC gamers are cheesed off that the PC version of Crysis 2 is gimped, but don't go blaming the console gamers. We're just people who game on a different platform to you. We don't have to game on PC just because you think it's better. It's not better for me, or the millions of other people who choose to console game rather than PC. It doesn't mean we're idiots, or technically challenged, it's just a choice. By all means bitch about the developer/publisher of the game, but don't go blaming people who have a hobby.[/citation]

Well yea, that's why I said "average", I do see where your coming from, since claiming the average pc in every household has a good tri core or better is an exaggeration, since it's probably less than average. But most importantly that's also why I said the pc can accomplish much MUCH more than a console, and since others were using high priced pc's as their examples, I am referring to those mid to high end pc's which can indeed do way more.

And to be fair my point wasn't aimed at people with your point of view, more specifically those with outrageous thoughts on how much ALL pc gamers spend on pc's. And that those who do spend much more do so because of examples I have previously posted :)
 
its not worse then crysis 1, crysis 1 was boring and unplayable. the action in crysis 2 + the awesome graphics are 10x better then crysis 1 !
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom