Crysis 2 -- console vs. PC first impressions

For the money we pay for our graphics card alone we should get a lot more for our money! You can get a 360 for £65. The games we get for pc is just a crap port with better resolution anyways I don't think its right that we get like 2 demanding games a year when we pay this sort of money comparing to a xbox and bare in mind Crysis is 3 years old.
 
nlr said:
For the money we pay for our graphics card alone we should get a lot more for our money! You can get a 360 for £65. The games we get for pc is just a crap port with better resolution anyways I don't think its right that we get like 2 demanding games a year when we pay this sort of money comparing to a xbox and bare in mind Crysis is 3 years old.
Click to expand...

ATi and nVidia dont make games! Also they have a vested interest in consoles, as they make the GPU's for them.

That said, we have been getting filthy ports. BC2 was promised to not be a port, yet it clearly is. I play the hell out of BC2 now, but the copy pasta work coming from the consoles to the PC is disgusting.

They claimed flares worked on the helo's. They swore blind it worked. Thats because they did work on the consoles, but not the PC. Though they didnt test the PC.
The nerfing that happens, a lot of it is balanced for the consoles then copy/pasta to the PC.

Then theres the games bais to use the CPU over the GPU, again, because the GPU in consoles isnt great, so it leans heavy on the CPU. Leaving our sexy GPU's strolling while anything less than a quad core struggled (though my e8400 @ 4GHz held it, swapping it to a second hand Q6600 saw vast improvemnts, to the point I see little improvements on a 920 I have now).

So, I am happy Crytek have focused on producing a sweet title for the PC, not that I expected any less!
 
Last edited:
I was wondering if PC gaming died like many people seem to believe wouldn't that put ATI and NVIDIA out of graphics card business or atleast heavily affect their gpu business. They get more money from PC gfx than console market. If there aren't PC games then what would be the point of producing the likes of 5850,460, 5870,470,5970,480 etc ?
 
Warbie said:
PC gaming isn't dying. It's now giving a higher end, console with a m&k experience.
Click to expand...

coughs said:
Certainly it hasn't died but usually with better hardware available we should be getting more! and we're not.
Click to expand...

And it will not move on until the next consoles are out.

Tiger Woods, fifa, pes and even the battlefield series now as an example are all stale because they can't improve them much year on due to the limits of the current consoles.

All the above will be greatly improved once the next consoles are out, unfortunately that means we have to wait also.
 
When the new consoles are out there is a massive leap for example Xbox 1 and 360

Example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ysIaFqa1Fw&fmt=18

So I can't imagine how good pc games will be then but its a shame we always wait for consoles I just don't see why developers can't make games FOR pc especially for the amount we spend comparing to a cheap console lol

When are the new consoles out? Every 4 years?
 
Ya, from some rumours, it would appear the xbox "720" will be out next November with BF3.

Speculations are it will be running DX11.5. The rumours I was reading read quite well, stating that MS had stated they would sell a new console alongside the current gen model. Which would allow the new "slim" model.

But yes, currently, PC gaming is back in the BOOM and consoles are holding devs back. But by the time the next gens hit it will be the same old story all over :/
 
There's this one scene in Crysis that my system really struggles with more than anywhere else. On the second level where you get to the hut with the rocket launcher and a scope weapon upgrade overlooking the small village. It's a massive vista and I remember trying all sorts of tweaks and settings and I just couldn't get it to run any higher than 20fps. Yeah I'm not sure how this is relevant but I felt like sharing it anyway :p

I just know that if I ever come across £1k by accident, the first thing I would do is literally buy a brand new PC, install Crysis and then go straight to that hut.

Crysis 2 PC vs 360 conclusions in this thread are fairly obvious and nothing new.
 
Eclectic said:
ATi and nVidia dont make games! Also they have a vested interest in consoles, as they make the GPU's for them.

That said, we have been getting filthy ports. BC2 was promised to not be a port, yet it clearly is. I play the hell out of BC2 now, but the copy pasta work coming from the consoles to the PC is disgusting.

They claimed flares worked on the helo's. They swore blind it worked. Thats because they did work on the consoles, but not the PC. Though they didnt test the PC.
The nerfing that happens, a lot of it is balanced for the consoles then copy/pasta to the PC.

Then theres the games bais to use the CPU over the GPU, again, because the GPU in consoles isnt great, so it leans heavy on the CPU. Leaving our sexy GPU's strolling while anything less than a quad core struggled (though my e8400 @ 4GHz held it, swapping it to a second hand Q6600 saw vast improvemnts, to the point I see little improvements on a 920 I have now).

So, I am happy Crytek have focused on producing a sweet title for the PC, not that I expected any less!
Click to expand...

Indeed BC2 is a port & the give away was no server IP input in game.
 
Sounds promising but I'm still not convinced that Crysis 2 will run smoothly on all levels without having to compromise on settings.
 
Margaret said:
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. :p
Click to expand...

Aye its about damn time the midrange market was actually respectable. I paid £140 for a G92 8800GT 512mb from ocuk a few years back and that was the first solid midrange card which really demolished games on the highest settings at my 17 inch monitor res.

Crysis at a high res with high settings plus abit of AA usually nails the FPS in a few parts of the game even on the best rigs. I did a recent playthrough with my i7/5870 system and I could max everything out at 1920x1080 but wouldn't use 4x AA at all. Got away with 2x AA for most of the game but even had to turn that off in a few sections of the game to maintain the fluid framerate. Looked amazing even without the AA though.

I'm looking forward to the proper sequel just for the single player experience. If its anything near the same quality as crysis and warhead, it will be well worth the ££
 
This is the first indication that the PC may not be a console port which is kind of relieving for me. This game will have me uprgading my graphics card and thats a lot of money to spend for a console ported game
 
Margaret said:
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.
Click to expand...

Does that include a operating system?
 
Sounds like a conspiracy theory could be brewing? - Microsoft and Sony's secret ploy to get everyone to purchase consoles?

I'm not happy either really a lot of developers make loads of promises and give us lots of "polished" HD videos before game launch and then the game fails to deliver. I spent £220 at the beginning of the year on my Radeon 5850 because I wanted to be able to play the latest games with decent GFX settings. Yet I am finding that I can run most on highest settings with not much improvement in eye candy.

ATI and NVIDIA are the ones who should be helping to keep the PC games industry alive after all I assume that game manufacturers have to pay a fee or meet some sort of criteria to endorse their games with ATI or NVIDIA logos?

I mostly play BFBC2 at the moment yet the graphics don't appear any scale better than HL2:Episode 2 and L4D2, TF2.

Lets hope Valve do us proud when HL2/3 eventually appears...
 
Gotta agree it would be nice to show the console buoys what they are missing but I kind of agree with dlknight that until the finished article is put infront of us to judge I wont make any comments yet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom