A short summary in English:
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/aid,7...t-und-spielerisch-gelungen/Action-Spiel/Test/
Crysis 2 -- console vs. PC first impressions
- Thread starter Final8y
- Start date
You would expect the PC version to look better. Surely a 1k+ Pc will produce better results than a £80 xbox... Personally i,m still amazed at how far they have pushed the ageing technology in the 360 and what they are producing on it.. Its not really fair comparing the two...
Basically sums up my feelings. I doubt a PC of the same cost (£160 for the brand new 'slim' 360, less if you manage to find somewhere still stocking the old model) would be able to achieve the same results.
They're completely different creatures and i really wish people would stop trying to compare them, of course the graphics are better on the PC.
Well you don't even need a 1k+ PC, you can build a system for £250 odd that'll spank the consoles. You only need an old, dirt cheap 8800GT to better the 360. (8800GT can play the first Crysis on high above 720P)
Not that the 360 is bad or anything but just saying, it's so cheap to build a decent system now.
Speaking from experience, sadly it can't. It's more than capable in Warhead, but in the original Crysis some sections are unplayable on high with a 8800GT and a [email protected].
It can play on a mix of High and Medium though and looks damn sexy none the less.
We have our benchmark for the next few years
The original Crysis will still be the benchmark over this. They've dumbed down the engine significantly in Crysis 2 to allow more people to enjoy what the game has to offer. Crysis aimed too high for its time and Crytek are not keen on making the same decision, this game will be less demanding.
Really? I played the first on high with an 8800GTX at 1680x1050 and it ran great, when I switched to the 8800GT it was only a little worse and that was with an E6300 at 3.3
I got like 20-25fps if I remember right, I was always confused as to how Crysis seemed to run so smooth even though it was only at 20-25, some games feel horrible at that framerate. (like CSS
)The 8800GT comment is sort of out of date now though, you can get a much better card for £70 or so I'd imagine.
Bet 4870's go for around that now90% of the game was fine, it's just certain sections (the snow levels and the final level on the ship) were unplayable. The final level caused my framerate to plummet to 10-15fps and i had to lower the settings from high
90% of the game was fine, it's just certain sections (the snow levels and the final level on the ship) were unplayable. The final level caused my framerate to plummet to 10-15fps and i had to lower the settings from high
Ahh I do remember the ship being a little laggy actually.
I do like the current state of PC hardware though, a few years ago you had to pay through the nose for a decent graphics card, the 8800GTX was what, £500 on launch? and now you don't even need a card that costs more than £120 to max out 90% of games at 1920x1200 odd! I'm reserving the last 10% for hogs like Metro and possibly ARMA.
PC has a lot of potential but game developers don't push their boundaries (Apart from Crysis, Metro) and they wait for next-gen consoles to produce good graphical games on the pc so we're always playing catchup.
PC obviously has better graphics but I don't think PS3/Xbox have bad graphics nor they're far behind.
PC obviously has better graphics but I don't think PS3/Xbox have bad graphics nor they're far behind.
Hopefully will change over the next few years, consoles are not moving to the next version so right now its the PC's time to shine.
Ahh I do remember the ship being a little laggy actually.
I do like the current state of PC hardware though, a few years ago you had to pay through the nose for a decent graphics card, the 8800GTX was what, £500 on launch? and now you don't even need a card that costs more than £120 to max out 90% of games at 1920x1200 odd! I'm reserving the last 10% for hogs like Metro and possibly ARMA.
I agree totally, aside from Crysis and Metro there isn't a game out there that is too demanding for my 8800GT which cost me £150 three(?) years ago, there is no way this card would still be doing so well back in the 'golden era' of PC gaming. Back then a graphics card had a lifetime of about a year, now i can see me squeezing another year out of this one still.
I guess developers have finally realized gameplay + art direction > graphics.
I actually wouldn't be too happy if PC gaming development went back to the way it was; new game = new graphics card. It's just better this way.
Some of you are looking it wrong.
Its the worry with some games lately is that some PC versions are not looking much better than the consoles with the PC using the same exact low res textures & the only difference is what can be set with AA & AF & the RES.
There was allot of talk on this from with peoples fears of the games pc gfx getting dumbed down allot because it was coming to the consoles as well.
Its the worry with some games lately is that some PC versions are not looking much better than the consoles with the PC using the same exact low res textures & the only difference is what can be set with AA & AF & the RES.
There was allot of talk on this from with peoples fears of the games pc gfx getting dumbed down allot because it was coming to the consoles as well.
No, i'm really not. I love the fact that Starcraft 2 and Dragon Age run like a dream on my 3 year old, budget graphics card. If i still had to fork out for newer, more expensive hardware i would have just moved over to consoles completely by now. It's one of the main reasons i'm still investing in PC games.
Read everything that i said.
Most people would complain if the PC was not better & that has been a problem on some titles, people should be glad that its confirmed that the pc version had not been dumbed down as you cant take everything for granted with PC games any more over consoles.
Last edited:
I did, i disagree.
They must be really bad ports then because 90% of the time the PC version of a console game always looks considerably better. I know Mercenaries 2 had an extremely poor port but can't think of that many others.
I'm not that fussed tbh, Crysis wasn't anything special aside from the visuals, I've enjoyed many games with far worse visuals a lot more than I ever will enjoy Crysis. (I'm including DS games there too)
Edit: and it is more about art direction really, I think Dragon Age is a nicer looking game than Crysis. Though I will give Crysis one thing, the character models were amazing, insane facial detail.
OK so its a no win situation.
People were fearful of the PC versions gfx getting dumbed down & would have moaned if that turned out to be the case & then people will still moan when its shown that the PC is not dumbed down & is superior to the console.
Or People were fearful of the PC versions gfx getting dumbed down & would have moaned if that turned out to be the case & then some consolers will moan when its shown that the PC is not dumbed down & is superior to the console with a frame of mind " well what would you expect why even compare".
Last edited:
Yes 90% of the time but what is important is what titles are in the other 10%, if they are title that most where not looking forward to then it would not matter.