An EA press release this morning announced that the company has agreed to a deal extension with Crytek to publish Crysis 2. Being the next installment to one of the most hardware-demanding and well-received games of recent times, they have their work cut out for them. There is a pretty limited amount of information circulating so far, but the press release did say that the title would be built on CryEngine 3, and that it would be available on the PC, Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3.

Read the whole story

A mild surprise that they're going to do a PC version. After the original Crysis became one of the most downloaded (stolen) games off of Bit Torrent, the Crytek people stated that they were seriously reconsidering doing any further PC games and would concentrate only on console games.

Hopefully there will be some more info on Crysis 2 coming out of E3.

well you did it now Tom. here come all of the rationalizations for why its okay to steal these games...Arrrg

I read an interview with one of the Crytek developers who claimed that Crysis 2 was going to be 5-8 times better than Crysis, not sure how to quantify that, but it will be interesting to see how they optimize this one to support ' 5-8 times better'. I built a 3 teraflop triple crossfire machine just to handle crysis/warhead. i think the mainstream will fore go this edition if they don't make it more hardware friendly this time around.

@TomSEA As far as I recall they never stated they would dump the PC, but said to never develop a PC-only game again (or give priority to the platform) but go multi-platform from scratch instead, which has proved more financially viable for other developers.

@red Oh, I believe they have learned their lesson by now.

"I built a 3 teraflop triple crossfire machine just to handle crysis/warhead." LOL...well, that's definitely one way to maximize your gaming experience! Which cards have you crossfired and what processor are you using?

Yeah, that "5-8 times better" quote seems a little strange. However I think CryTek learned their lesson about stiff hardware requirements with Crysis. They did much better with Warhead. I'm sure they're none too pleased that their Crysis game is now historically more noted as being used for benchmark testing than a quality game.

Originally posted by TomSEA:
"I built a 3 teraflop triple crossfire machine just to handle crysis/warhead." LOL...well, that's definitely one way to maximize your gaming experience! Which cards have you crossfired and what processor are you using?

im using 3x ati hd 4830's, however i found out that ati vendors were 'reviving' the disabled spu's to get an edge in the 4830 market. that explains why all the ID programs were seeing 800 spu's instead of 640, so its more like 3 4850's. (and it still uses all of that) i started with an Kuma 7750 BE OC @ 3.4, but changed to a Phenom II 955. I get great FPS up to 1900x1200 enthusiast settings, but i don't think the public at large is going to go to my geeky lengths to play it.

Nice! That should keep you at the cutting edge of gaming for the near future. Bet you have your case packed in liquid oxygen to keep those cards cool (and quiet). ;-)

Julio - I believe you're right. That was what Crytek stated - heading towards multi-platform development. However, you could clearly tell from their interviews that they were extremely frustrated over the amount of illegal downloads of Crysis. Can't say as I blame them.....

The game is not demanding.

Anyways , great news, thanks for sharing.

Crysis is not demanding? Then why is it a staple benchmarking tool for reviews in the gaming sector. You run pci rigs, you wouldnt know the first thing about demanding. Hence the reason for your previous comment.

What super said, silly comments like that don't help those who are trying to learn something or figure out their next build General.

Guys i don't have that good a computer and i'm able to run it in full, its not tht demanding.

what does "not good" and "in full" mean?....general LOLOL

Crysis runs highest detail on my pc at 45fps average. Guest, you have to consider the resolution you're running at as well. Most Benchmarks show crysis on resolutions available on 22-24" monitors. Crysis is the most graphic intensive game to date. I'd put Flight Simulator second with a one up in multple cpu core usage.
A benchmark on a 19" monitor or smaller is hardly a benchmark at all for enthusiast. Most monitors being purchased by gamers are usually in the 20-24" range.

and thats with the most advanced CPU/VGA (i7/GTX295) combo available guest.

Excellent news. Maybe it will give me (and many others) another reason to get a new rig.

My previous rig consisted of a QX9650 with an HD 4870X2 and two Raptors. It gave me less than 50FPS at 1920x1200, so I cannot possibly see how it runs better on a slower PC, unless you play at 800x600 or something.

As super said, your comments are irrelevant, since you continue to waste money on antiquated hardware that serves no purpose whatsoever towards improving anyone's (yours included) gaming experience.

My only concern is that the console release may hinder the pc version, in terms of more than just the graphics. I thought cry engine 3 would allow crysis to run on ps4 or something, but crysis 2 on this generation? Imagine playing crysis on a 7900gt, to make it worse, this is crysis 2, i just don't see how its possible.

At the same time though, i can't blame crytek, way too many pirates on the pc, they don't realize how much they're killing their own industry.

I just don't understand all this talk about how people cant see Crysis done on the home consoles, seriously its beautiful, but it doesn't look that good, Killzone 2 looks easily AS good in many ways albeit not very colorful, and have you seen the bosses in Resistance 2? Crysis 2 will look beautiful on the home consoles.

"5-8 times better"...Crysis, in my opinion, is the number one over hyped game last year, the most pirated prize serves as proof. Crysis, though graphically forwarding, wasn't as incredibly amazing as I thought (I ran on med/high + low resolution on 9600gt) and the game play was ok, but nothing innovating. If it weren't so graphically demanding, I think it would have just gone through the world as any other generic FPS game.

first of all HK ... it wasnt last year, it was 2007. secondly saying that crysis was "graphically forward" is like saying that jennifer Lopez has 'pleasant features'. (hugh jackman for the ladies) I know, I built a machine just to play it on and see what it could do. Crysis, and for that matter 'warhead' cannot be appreciated with a 9600GT and a 19" crt monitor and a E4600 on 'med' to 'high' settings...thats kind of the point. it broke ground on its graphics, not its game play.