Just show me PC footage. It was already known that console versions won't touch even the first Crysis. I want to know what modern PC hardware can do.

It looks like jaggiefest '10 :/

The first CryEngine 3 techdemo footage on consoles already looked better than this. And yes that wasn't just a trailer or anything that was gameplay.

i really dont care , i never doubted it , i always knew the tech demos was all PR bull!@#$.

the second you start making a game (adding ai, mechanics,music,sound effects,physics,complex geometry) you would have to start scaling back on the ps3/360, the pc version was always the definitive version to get anyways.

crysis 2 will look good when its finished but first parties will always beat out middleware engines.

First vid very impressive in the beginning but later looks like Ressistance 2 from 2008 which I didnt like too much. Second vid looks like AVP2 from last decade.

I will support any good game but I get quickly put off once ppl start hyping a game that is not even out and put it above the few masterpieces that simply have no match on consoles. Words like: revolutionary, best gfx ever, must have, great, the best etc have no effect until you can actually check it.

I hope Crytek do pull off a game that looks as good or even better than UC2 and GOW3 because I'm sick of playing bad looking games on my HDTV and with the cryengine 3 more developers will make better looking games. But sadly from what I've seen so far of Crysis 2 the game doesn't even look as good as Killzone 2.

Why do developers always say there game is the best looking yet. It only makes them look fucking stupid and it starts a lot of arguments all over the internet.

first one is a tech demo from last year,,,which is irrelevant since it is missing many things unlike a complete game(AI,open world maps,...) allowing the developer to boost some other aspect of visuals

the second one is the more recent one which is decent but no where near KZ2 again but better than unreal engine 3 games ,,,,so i m happya s long as many devs adopt this new engine over UE

Who Cares!!! Of course the developers and the press are going to talk it up because it gets people talking about the game. The game doesn't come out for some time either so graphical comparisons are absolutely pointless! The only worry I have is that the game may get streamlined a little too much for the consoles.

i m saying it looks better,,how??by looking at it comparing it to trillion ue3 games

I still think it's too early to judge the graphics of Crysis 2 on consoles as Crytek seem to have been pretty busy developing tools and upgrading the engine rather than developing the game. The game's assets are probably still in heavy production and I highly doubt many completed assets are shown in those pics. It's similar to how GoW3 got flak when showing unpolished screens or the E3 demo. The difference between those shots and the final build were quite immense.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-godofwariii-demo-vs-retail-blog-entry
Or
http://www.gamersyde.com/news_god_of_war_3_images-7871_en.html (older) vs http://www.gamersyde.com/news_god_of_war_3_new_screenshots-9061_en.html (newer)

The tech demo Barozi linked shows a tech demo utilizing many finished assets from Crysis 1 which is why it looks so good. The pics in the OP were taken from the tech demo they shown at GDC ( http://www.gametrailers.com/video/gdc-10-crysis-2/64317 ) which most likely uses a lot of unfinished assets and placeholders. I don't think we can judge the visual fidelity until the assets are more complete. From what that tech demo shows though, the physics and particle effects are looking really good which was the sole purpose of that tech demo - to showcase the abilities of the engine and not demoing a final product.