Crytek: Crysis 2 will be graphically superior on the PC

[Jos]

Crysis was without a doubt the most demanding PC game title upon its release in November 2007, and even today it's still capable of bringing well-equipped systems to their knees. So when news broke that Crytek was planning a cross-platform sequel many were worried the PC version's graphics would be dragged down as a result. However, according to Crytek CEO Cervat Yerli, Crysis 2 will be graphically superior on the PC compared to both PS3 and Xbox 360 editions.

Yerli revealed this to CVG after being asked why the company decided to show the Xbox 360 version of the game at its recent New York showcase, to which he simply responded that people were expecting to see how the game looked on consoles. At the same event, Crytek showed just a glimpse of the PS3 version running alongside the Xbox 360, with both looking exactly the same -- though Yerli himself later said the PS3 version performs "slightly" better at the moment.

Crysis 2 will be the first title to be built on CryEngine 3 when it debuts later this year, and has been hyped as bearing the best graphics in the history of video games. Though it's extremely high hardware requirements were probably one of the reasons the original game didn't sell as well as expected, the game should be much more optimized this time around.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/38605-crytek-crysis-2-will-be-graphically-superior-on-the-pc.html

 

[princeton]

I don't know. Is the person who wants to sell you crysis 2 going to say. "It looks the same on pc because we dumbed it down for console gamers and ****ed you over worse than IW ever did."? No he wont. But I still believe him. Console gamers always stand in the way of progress though. Games look like crap because their developed for consoles. And console gamers act like pc looks like garbage because they run emachines garbage heaps. And I still believe the "your eye can only see 30fps" BS was started by a console gamer as console games run at 30fps.

 

[TomSEA]

Well princeton, I think us PC gamers can rest assured that the PC version will be better. The CryTech engines have always been engineered for PC's only and they decided to go with consoles long after their development. For once the consoles are going to get a port of a PC game instead of the other way around.

 

[Guest]

John Carmack said it best when he referenced why it so difficult to make one game for multiple formats. http://www.wegame.com/watch/Rage_idTech5_demo_Quakecon_2007_Part_1/ about ~5:00 into it.

 

[BMfan]

And I still believe the "your eye can only see 30fps" BS was started by a console gamer as console games run at 30fps.

Who said that?,i'm a console and pc gamer,and from what i have heard is that the human eye can only see 60fps.
If like me you will have games that you prefer on the different machines,like racing and sandbox style games for the ps3 and FPS for the PC.

What i have found though is that if your game runs at 60fps and v-sync is on your games run smoother but if you get over 120fps with v-sync off it looks as smooth as 60fps with v-sync on.

 

[9Nails]

BMfan said:
Who said that?,i'm a console and pc gamer,and from what i have heard is that the human eye can only see 60fps.

It's been said, but I'm not sure who. I think Doom 3 was locked to 30 FPS, so maybe someone at iD or Raven? I remember that wasn't optimal and it hurt the gameplay some.

 

[princeton]

BMfan said:

And I still believe the "your eye can only see 30fps" BS was started by a console gamer as console games run at 30fps.

Who said that?,i'm a console and pc gamer,and from what i have heard is that the human eye can only see 60fps.
If like me you will have games that you prefer on the different machines,like racing and sandbox style games for the ps3 and FPS for the PC.

What i have found though is that if your game runs at 60fps and v-sync is on your games run smoother but if you get over 120fps with v-sync off it looks as smooth as 60fps with v-sync on.

The human eye can see well over 60fps. In cod4 I can definitly tell if its above 60fps and as soon as i hit that fraps switch its well above 60 and vice versa with low fps. And a monitor will display much over 60fps regardless if the refresh rate is 60hz. You will get tearing but it will still be smoother than 60fps.

 

[Whiffen]

The human eye does not see things in refresh rates, and there is no true FPS equivalent, as we see in a constant stream of analog waves of photons. Our eyes are more sensitive to brighter light and certain colours like green. Meaning we can pick things out like a quick flash of light even if it only lasts for a thousandth of a second.

The question is when are there enough frames per second to make moving objects look like one fluid motion. This differs across the scale. It depends on the brightness, colours, the object in motion and how it is displayed and interlaced. In general this can be anywhere from 15 to 120 fps, again it all depends on what it is. Movies are typically enjoyed at 24-29 fps, where as some video games are best played at 30-60 fps. If your playing a very fast moving FPS game over 60 fps could be desired, where as an RTS looks fine at 30 fps.

The point is stop looking for a human fps equivalent, it changes across the board.

 

[klepto12]

princeton said:

BMfan said:

And I still believe the "your eye can only see 30fps" BS was started by a console gamer as console games run at 30fps.

Who said that?,i'm a console and pc gamer,and from what i have heard is that the human eye can only see 60fps.
If like me you will have games that you prefer on the different machines,like racing and sandbox style games for the ps3 and FPS for the PC.

What i have found though is that if your game runs at 60fps and v-sync is on your games run smoother but if you get over 120fps with v-sync off it looks as smooth as 60fps with v-sync on.

The human eye can see well over 60fps. In cod4 I can definitly tell if its above 60fps and as soon as i hit that fraps switch its well above 60 and vice versa with low fps. And a monitor will display much over 60fps regardless if the refresh rate is 60hz. You will get tearing but it will still be smoother than 60fps.

technically u cant see above 60fps what u are seeing is the change between fps like 60 to 95 then back again its called stutter and it happens when the fps drop really fast then goes right back up so technically the human eye cant see a refresh faster than 60fps it just looks smoother when it is above this number.

 

[ET3D]

A large part of the need for a higher frame rate in FPS is the input lag, not whether the eye can see the difference. I wonder if some game designers are taking this into account by having the input/game loop run at a different rate than the graphics loop.

 

[klepto12]

all i know is my rig has a hard time with crysis and warhead so the second game will kill my system most likely. im in need of a 5850 to soothe my low fps in crysis lol. This game looks amazing but i think it will more than likely be sold more on consoles for the simple fact that most peoples computers cant play it.

 

[Guest]

"Crysis 2 will be graphically superior on the PC"

Really, that's what DICE said about Bad Company 2, and I bought it (and the game). The rule (not the exception) is that multi-platform games DON'T and NEVER DID look better on PC. Get real.

 

[Richy2k9]

hello ...

i'm quite sick of all contradictory statements from Crytek.

i love the games, will certainly get it on PC where i believe it wil be best.
but i'm also sure it will be great on the consoles.

according to tech demos & crytek's statement, quality wise it will go like this: PC - PS3 - Xbox360!
in the beginning they said that the PS3 wasn't better than Xbox360 (maybe to be careful with fans & MS)
then they said would be great on PS3, somewhat lead some people to believe that it was the lead platform.
then they say (which i believe the truth) will be higher level on PC !

Crytek need to stop make statements & let the final product talk for itself .. let us fan decide.

& the best would be not having a lead platform + ports on others, but an entire exclusive MAXxed out version on each & every machine. In understand may cost more, but when a developer say their product will be a benchmark, so be it & do what's needed!

the other issues i have with them are the bad statements & inconsistencies about other games, please do not compare, serves no good purpose & yes, you may come with the best GFX game ever, we don't stop there!

now for frame rate, i somewhat agree with Whiffen ... human eyes have no same limit but the difference is seen with monitors that can't really handle everything, but depends on the spex of your monitor!

Crytek, we already love you, repeating my advice, STOP the statements, comparison & critics & give us the best of Crysis 2 on all platform.

cheers!

 

[Burty117]

Guest said:
"Crysis 2 will be graphically superior on the PC"

Really, that's what DICE said about Bad Company 2, and I bought it (and the game). The rule (not the exception) is that multi-platform games DON'T and NEVER DID look better on PC. Get real.

LOL! this made me chuckle, Dude, go onto google and google video and screenshot differences between the PC version of any console game (mass effect & 2. Bad company 2, Call of duty's - all of them, UT3) to name a few and they all look better on the PC for the simple fact that the developers can switch on every graphical option the engine provides because PC's have the power to cope which consoles do not.

In Crysis 2 for example, go onto gamespot and watch the interview with the Director of Crytek and he shows a quick video of the graphics comparison of all 3 versions and the Xbox and PS3 versions are missing lighting effects entirely and the textures are a big step down plus neither are running (and cannot run) in full 1080p.

Although I agree that crytek need to stop saying stuff like this, I believe they are telling the truth as proven, if you need links let me know and I'll be happy to provide Guest with screenshot comparisons.

 

[Guest]

And some *****s are still saying that "PC gaming is dead"! LOL

This is very good to shut up these dumb lobbyists!

Very good that Crytek has decided not to cripple the PC version to make it even between PC and consoles... PC has scalability and is upgradeable, some things consoles will never have... BTW, FPS are MEANT to be played on PC, with a good keyboard and mouse controls!

 

[Guest]

Indeed.

A Geforce 480 probably has more processing power than PS3 and XBOX360... Together! LOL

 

[Richy2k9]

hello ...

what i also hate are console war ... or console vs PC.

come on! ... believe it or not, not all games are better on PC, when you have to compare also for the price.

let me clarify one thing, i'm a PC + PS3 gamer, i didn't buy a PS3 for the 'power' but for the content, i think it's the best alternative for my PC, for the latter provides me more of everything. I have 18hours+ exposure to PCs (work + home, nah i'm not a geek LOL!) & used to be a techy that assembled the machines, so i have experience of what is a PC.

a PC with little specs, that would cost around 666 USD$ would be more than enough for decent gaming & that may be as near to a console at around same price, yet at this level the console surpasses the PC for quality & options.

if you invest a little more, you have more options on the PC & have a console killer, but if you put the effort & a lot of money, a PC 3-4x more expensive, you are sure you can beat the consoles + even combined 2 consoles prowess ... yet it cost more like i said!

this put aside, we can't say that console gaming is bad compared to the PC, those saying so either never tried the consoles, didn't get the real point, can't afford to pay the price of the games, or are just fanboys!
why can't we have both, a console & a PC, or more - all the consoles / platforms.
i bought a PS3 for the exclusive games & a PC for all other things plus some games. Games on console this generation look quite good, you get what only high end pcs at twice the price can give & content wise not bad too. So cut it now, don't compare consoles to PC, it's pointless! Btw, i can use a Keyboard + mouse on PS3 (USB - directly) or via the XPS adaptor for gaming ...

We all know what Crytek did with Crisis & Warhead, we want it to be perfect on the PC, i'm sure it will be, from the videos i've seen, the PC version is the best, but even if they are less on consoles, they are just great. So we all are happy ...

I'm much sure i'll buy it on PC than on PS3, why ... because like most said, we have more & better options on PC. there's no necessity in downgrading a game because it's coming on other lesser platform, i consider this laziness, because if we have to build a game also on mobile phone, does the PC version must have only 640x480 max resolution !?

cheers!

 

[Johny47]

@the one/s saying the GTX 480 has more processing power than the PS3 and S***box 360 combined... I really doubt that(PS3 has that Cell CPU =/) but it does probably use over twice the power of them and gives off twice the heat hahahaha.

take a look at this if you want =P - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WSPqLKgnQs&playnext_from=TL&videos=3S40vORHuFE

 

[Guest]

Keep in mind that computers are "generic" devices.

Consoles are designed for graphical performance.

 

[princeton]

Keep in mind that computers are "generic" devices.

Consoles are designed for graphical performance.

Clarify this please. It sounds like your saying console graphics are superior.

 

[Burty117]

Guest said:
Keep in mind that computers are "generic" devices.

Consoles are designed for graphical performance.

Consoles are not designed for Graphical performance! they're designed to play games!

Computers are more powerful because they are "generic" devices.

No matter how hard you try to argue the fact at the end of the day is PC can, and always will have more power than any console will ever have.

I'm not saying its the best gaming experience or anything like that, it is my personal fave thanks to being able to use a mouse for FPS's.

To prove graphical power isn't everything look at the sale figures for the wii. Point is, PC IS more powerful than any console by a huge margin, but it also costs a premium.

 

[Zeromus]

Big duh on this one for some people. But due to better software engineering in CE3, this time systems that could barely run the 1st one or warhead I believe can definitely handle this one.

 

[gingerbill]

Guest said:
"Crysis 2 will be graphically superior on the PC"

Really, that's what DICE said about Bad Company 2, and I bought it (and the game). The rule (not the exception) is that multi-platform games DON'T and NEVER DID look better on PC. Get real.

what planet is this guy living on? , someone buy this man some glasses.

 

[Guest]

See, the only reason that people do console gaming is because of the static system requirements. You do not need to upgrade your graphics card every few months to play the latest games. I just need to pay for overpriced games on the PS3 which I'd rather get for free on the PC @ TPB. Once there is an exploit for the PS3 things will be much better as I won't have to pay for either hardware or software upgrades. I do agree however that console gaming holds back the development on PC games. Just because people do not have the money to upgrade their machines doesn't mean that games should be underdeveloped and with shitty graphics to accommodate the crap computers of people. Hard decision if you ask me, it seems the people need an equal balance of both worlds.

 

[ElShotte]

Guest said:
See, the only reason that people do console gaming is because of the static system requirements. You do not need to upgrade your graphics card every few months to play the latest games. I just need to pay for overpriced games on the PS3 which I'd rather get for free on the PC @ TPB. Once there is an exploit for the PS3 things will be much better as I won't have to pay for either hardware or software upgrades. I do agree however that console gaming holds back the development on PC games. Just because people do not have the money to upgrade their machines doesn't mean that games should be underdeveloped and with shitty graphics to accommodate the crap computers of people. Hard decision if you ask me, it seems the people need an equal balance of both worlds.

Wow, youre a damn disgrace man. If everyone shared your mentality games would simply not be made.
As far as PC games looking better than console games: the reason games look "the same" on both PC and consoles is because companies trying to spend less money on development. "Why would we bother creating high resolution models and textures that only PC's will be able to use when most of our sales will be on consoles.