By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - Crysis 2 on X360 looks better than the original Crysis!

Reasonable on 19 May 2010

It might appear better to the eye - but I assure you that it's not exceeding how Crysis looked on a proper PC rig, not technically in terms of resolution, AA, etc.



Try to be reasonable... its easier than you think...

Around the Network
hsrob on 19 May 2010
disolitude said:
All the joking aside, I think his point is clear. Crysis 1 was an unoptimized mess of a game which looked great but required skynet to run at max. With Crysis 2 they finally learned how to code an an optimized engine...

I don't think this is entirely fair. If it were true shouldn't we have seen many better-looking games by now given that PC graphics hardware is so much more powerful now than in 2007? All it would take is an engine decently optimised to take advantage of current hardware.

Not sure about you but I have seen no such game.



curl-6 on 19 May 2010

Crysis 2's urban setting clearly has a lot less to render than the dense jungle of Crysis 1.

Even considering that though, this is PR-BS.

It's impossible for current generation consoles to run Crysis 1 maxed out at a playable framerate, that's like expecting the Wii to run Killzone 2 at 30fps without downgrades.



Solid_Snake4RD on 19 May 2010

cool

now leTs see what PS3 and PC version look like



Hephaestos on 19 May 2010
d21lewis said:
This game uses the Super FX chip. That's why.

Crisis in space with Airwings confirmed!!!

 

 

(chip on a CD? your joke has 2 layers!!)



OoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoO

Around the Network
Ping_ii on 19 May 2010

ROFL!!! brain damage.



palancas7 on 19 May 2010

You guys should really read first. It's not Crytek that said that. It's the genius "journalist".



 

KillerMan on 19 May 2010

Yeah. Right. Just show me some PC footage from Crysis 2 already.... I want to know what modern PC hardware can do. Not what 5v years old PC hardware can do...



Scoobes on 19 May 2010

So, is the writer of this article partially sighted or something? Because what he says makes no sense unless he was playing Crysis on a PC with the bare minimum spec. Not only has nothing come close to what Crysis acheived on high to max settings, but it also had a lot more to render than the urban environment of Crysis 2. I wouldn't be suprised if part of the reason Crytek chose New York is actually because it's easier on the hardware.

Off topic: If Crysis 2 is set 3 yrs after Crysis 1, what happened to Nomad and Psycho?




Get your Portable ID!

disolitude on 19 May 2010
hsrob said:
disolitude said:
All the joking aside, I think his point is clear. Crysis 1 was an unoptimized mess of a game which looked great but required skynet to run at max. With Crysis 2 they finally learned how to code an an optimized engine...

I don't think this is entirely fair. If it were true shouldn't we have seen many better-looking games by now given that PC graphics hardware is so much more powerful now than in 2007? All it would take is an engine decently optimised to take advantage of current hardware.

Not sure about you but I have seen no such game.

Metro2033, Battlefield BC2 (DX11) come close if not beat it in some areas.

All I know is that I can't run Crysis Warhead maxed out at 1080p with a GTX295 and overclocked AMD Phenom 940 and maintain constant 30 fps. All these other games that are almost as good looking I can run at almost 60 fps. It looks amazing but it really is badly optimized. You need a 1000 dollar video card in 2010...to run it flawlessly maxed out.

Here is a nice benchmark showing the performace you can expect with 3rd best video card on the market today.

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,671298/Geforce-GTX-295-vs-Radeon-HD-4870-X2-Benchmarks-with-8x-anti-aliasing/Reviews/?page=4