Top
680°

[VG] Crysis 2 on X360 looks better than the original Crysis

Crytek's executive producer Nathan Camarillo play Crysis 2 on the Xbox 360, and it blew me away.

"Crysis still looks incredible some three years after its release. But that game was a PC exclusive that was pretty much unplayable on the maximum graphical settings on the hardware of the time. Crysis 2, a multiplatform game powered by Crytek's CryEngine 3, looks even better, despite running on a console that's nearly five years old."

Read Full Story >>
videogamer.com
The story is too old to be commented.
Strange_Evil2953d ago

Ya right.. More like Crysis 2 on X360 looks better than the original Crysis ON MEDIUM SETTINGS.

dangert122953d ago

but from what i hear there is noway this is true and if it is its not better then crysis on max settings

Mista T2953d ago (Edited 2953d ago )

lol this title on the article is hilarious!!! almost made me lose my drink!!!
watch link vid in hd, ;-)

http://www.youtube.com/watc...

as much as I love my xbox and ps3, crysis 1 graphics are not possible!

HolyOrangeCows2953d ago

The PR is REALLY blowing out their backends, now.

Shadow Flare2953d ago

That title is absolutely hilarious. Crysis is just in a league of its own. A league which current gen consoles can't touch. "Crysis 2 on X360 looks better than the original Crysis" is an absolute winner lmao

http://www.youtube.com/watc...

Headshot812953d ago

How much would that same exact gaming rig cost?

WildArmed2953d ago

Crysis looks great. but the textures aren't always the best.

The lighting and water effects are simply mind blowing.
Same with Physics and animations.
And the art style is very eye pleasing.

But there is room for improvement.
I'm betting on Crysis 2 (PC) to blow Crysis away.

Btw,
between Uncharted 2, Killzone 2 and Crysis.
I'd choose Crysis due to its art style, but they all look marvelous.
Uncharted is a bit too colorful while K2 is a bit too bland.
But all three (to me) are on equal grounds in the graphics department. It's up to you to decide what art style you prefer

The 10th Rider2952d ago

I built a gaming PC that runs Crysis on the highest settings without any problems for only $450.

Steve_02952d ago (Edited 2952d ago )

@skv007,
I dont know, for me, out of the two fps', I'd actually argue that Killzone 2 is more impressive. It's gritty artistic style is more immersive, and I prefer the animations (like the kills, weapon reloads). also the exaggerated lighting shows it off quite a bit.
That said, Crysis is definitely the more photo-realistic, no question. But I find it's artistic quality a bit boring as a result. Then again, I haven't had the luxury of playing Crysis at true max potential with 16x anti aliasing and all that...
Uncharted for me is the sweet spot. Awesome environments paired with a unique artistic style, real cinematic hollywood experience. Character models that are out of this world... Paired with the amazing action sequences and it really keeps you on your toes... Killzone and Crysis to an extent don't feature the same variety in action and environments, so once you've played a bit of the jungle or of Helgan, you feel like you've seen most of it.
I prefer the story and the gameplay too.

EDIT: @The 10th Rider,
Really? Either those aren't all new parts, or you're exaggerating. There's no card retailing for less than about $300 that can run Crysis maxed out with respect to anti-aliasing and resoltion (ie, 1600x1200, 16x AA). Now if you mean max settings as in texture, shaders in game, then I believe you. Even my MacBook Pro can get close to that at a decent resolution and 2x AA with some tweaks, and that wasn't remotely bought to game on. Mind if I ask the specs?

ShinMaster2952d ago

But how much for the PC in total?

WildArmed2952d ago

@SteveO

As games, I prefer Uncharted 2 over the other two.
And second place Killzone 2 for it's amazing online player.

But I understand, I have a soft spot for photo-realism.
I can see why people would love Uncharted 2 gfx, it's amazing.

I forgot to mention MGS4 (which takes the cake for me), but it has lengthy installs so it's kinda in a different league of U2/K2.

But at the end of the day, I enjoyed all 4 games. And I dont regret buying the great experiences.

+ Show (7) more repliesLast reply 2952d ago
sunnygrg2953d ago

I just had to come in and comment on the article or should I say rumor.

lol, just lol

frankymv2953d ago

Devs will say anything these days to hype their games

Nicholas Cage2953d ago

i agree. i dont even have to state which game will have the better graphics, ill let the pc gamers do it for me.

Darkfocus2953d ago

people will say anything these days without reading the article.

it wasn't a dev that said it's the person who wrote this article(doubt he's even played the original crysis) :/

ticklechamp2953d ago

Then they'll wonder why the reviewers handed out less than stellar scores.

Hanif-8762953d ago

"The most impressive thing about Crysis 2's visuals is the somewhat mind-boggling idea that you can go anywhere" Is Crysis 2 a sandbox game?

GWAVE2953d ago

This article is hilarious. Someone hasn't played the original Crysis... The size of the game world alone (not even on max settings) would make the 360 chug.

Tachyon_Nova2953d ago

Clearly the 360 can pull of Alan Wake, the game, afterall, is exclusive to 360...

shadow27972953d ago

He was talking about the original open world version of Alan Wake, if anyone is confused.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2953d ago
Sarcasm2953d ago (Edited 2953d ago )

I don't know... I've played the Crysis demo on my PC on medium settings and it doesn't even look that good. Granted it's a HUGE space with tons of effects, lighting, etc. But it still doesn't even look that good.

The only time I was impressed with Crysis graphics is on Very High settings, but my PC cant handle it and only get about 12fps.

So saying Crysis 2 looks better on a console isn't exactly saying much.

Edit: Yeah my PC isn't the greatest, but it runs every game out there at MAX settings at 1680x1050 resolution 60fps+ 4xAA, which is good enough for me. It just so happens Crysis is so damn GPU dependant.

eggbert2953d ago

your PC just sucks.

I'm assuming Crysis 2 will look around the rate of crysis on medium-low settings, but hell everyone knows the best graphics are with crysis mods.

Some of the mods you can install on crysis are just amazing (looking).

Even if it looks good, crysis 1 was a pretty lackluster game. I'm skeptical if this game is going to be much better.

despair2953d ago

@eggbert

crysis was not lackluster. Just because many FPS just throw waves of enemies at you in stupid situations doesn't mean its a good idea. Crysis actually makes you think a little on approach and tactics before you fight.

Try crysis on hard or delta settings with a COD mindset and you will die alot.Its a great game and its not over before you blink either it has meat to it.

mittwaffen2953d ago (Edited 2953d ago )

Doubt that; i've seen the comparison videos and not anywhere CLOSE.

Medium/Low, subtract resolution (resolution made Crysis look amazing IMO; seeing leaves between leaves and crystal clear for as far as you can see was an amazing thing; I doubt it'll be able to play it 720P.

This game I'll have to pass, atleast on the consoles ;)!

JsonHenry2953d ago

The throughput capabilities of the Xbox360 alone make this statement an outright technical lie if you are comparing it to the settings of the original maxed. It literally is just not physically possible.

kingjoker342953d ago

This is so funny. No way in hell crysis 2 on 360 will look better then crysis 1 on PC. maybe at LOW settings, not even medium. Hell no ps3 game looks that good on crysis high settings. Although i do think it is a matter of time until a ps3 game achieves that goal....Uncharted 3, bring it naughtydog.

zme-ul2953d ago

oh lol!
had to do it :D

sid4gamerfreak2953d ago

"Crysis 2 on X360 looks better than the original Crysis"

BS. No way can crysis 2 on a console look better than a pc exclusive, thats just not possible. Unless the 360 has skipped generations of hardware to match the pc. (I seriously doubt that)

Actually, @Strange_Evil, its more like crysis 2 on 360 looks better than original crysis on ultra low settings. (is that even there?)

ABizzel12953d ago

Consoles won't get those kind of graphics until next gen.

Shepherd 2142953d ago

Medium settings in the first Crysis were still really good, and people who played the original Crysis would know that.

Remember way back when people criticized Crysis 2 because they saw a couple gameplay screens that looked all low-rez and had jagged polys everywhere? Yea, the game was incomplete, and these screens look like theyre from a more recent build. Theyre gorgeous.

Just sayin'.

inveni02953d ago

I know I'm going to get disagrees for this, but I went back and played Crysis a few weeks ago, and I must say...it's showing its age. It really doesn't look as good as it did to me back when it first came out. Now, as for the engine, there's still no touching it. Messing with those Time of Day settings can really make some awesome graphics. But that doesn't require more power.

From a technical standpoint, Crysis was hardly optimized when it was released. This is evident by the fact that Warhead runs better on slower hardware. So, if Crytek says they've got CryEngine 3 optimized enough to warrant calling it number 3, then I have to believe them to a certain extent.

ColdFire2953d ago

LOL, I max Crysis, I still haven't seen anything on Crysis 2 to match that.

Meryl2952d ago

it looks even better on ps3 and pc still looks nowhere near as good as crysis 1:):)

niceguywii602952d ago

I'm going to believe the guy that has seen both games running on hardware. Thank you for your baseless opinion though.

pixelsword2952d ago (Edited 2952d ago )

If you think they aren't capable of pulling it off despite their vast technical skills versus the limitations of the platform, then you're justified, I guess.

If you believe that people can talk crap irregardless of what the end product will be like in the end, then you're also okay.

If you made it a point to say that they are the most skilled devs out there, then why would you not believe that the most skilled out there can pull it off, especially since the most skilled out there told you they already did?

From what I understand, there are already at least one game that was touted to be on an engine so efficient that it could run a game with incredibly good looks on the original xbox. Not that I believe a xbox game can look as good as a 360 HD game but if that's true, then it's possible, regardless of how unlikely, that these developers might be telling the truth: but if they're not, they'll fry for sure... bad enough the latest trailer looked like crud, but to put a boast out like they did will have fans and foes alike burning Crytek if they're lying.

+ Show (17) more repliesLast reply 2952d ago
madmonkey02953d ago

yeh right, I doubt even the PS3 version will look as good as crysis did on full settings.

kaveti66162953d ago

Don't know why you got disagrees. The 360 and PS3 are not powerful enough to pull off Crysis on full settings. Just not enough RAM and the CPU/GPU set ups are not up to par. High end PCs in 2007 were having problems running Crysis 1 at max settings.

Why do console owners believe that their 4 and 5 year old, closed-box, mid-level consoles can run it?

Hanif-8762953d ago (Edited 2953d ago )

Because even though your GPU/CPU might be high-end, you still have windows eating away all that power running in the background. therefore, consoles doesn't share this problem thats why you can get breathtaking graphics on 512mb of ram :-)

http://www.youtube.com/watc...

This stuff is the closest you'll get in getting what you paid for i have a ATI 5970 "not that i needed this" but it gave me an additional 32FPS in Crysis :-)

Letros2953d ago

Next time buy yourself a quad or hex core CPU, OS gets dumped to an unused core.

ultramoot2953d ago (Edited 2953d ago )

Actually, the OS uses less than 1GB of RAM and hardly more than 10% of CPU power. So, in a system having a Quad Core CPU and 4GB RAM coupled with something like a GTX260 or better, the OS doesn't exactly cause resource-shortage.

Advice - Maybe it's time to move on from your P4 machine. lol just kidding.

Hotel_Moscow2953d ago

somethings wrong my os on stand by after i ended some processes ended up at 1.6 gigs

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2953d ago
-Alpha2953d ago

Believe it or not some people are delusional enough to think that console graphics > PC graphics, despite the fact that PC models are updated constantly.

Crysis is one hell of a looking game. This sounds like an utter lie, but I can't wait to see this game.

Ocelot5252953d ago (Edited 2953d ago )

if u look at the average PC of the steam users than console graphics >>>>>> pc graphics

http://store.steampowered.c...

pc gamers logic stinks

if u would use the same logic for consoles and sony sells a limited 2000$ PS3 with 50 cores 3.2 ghz cell CPU and 4 of the latest nvidia GPU in SLI than console >>>> PC gaming, but such logic isn't fair

u need to compare consoles to €300 PC's with blu ray drives and such pc's suck

Darkfocus2953d ago

http://store.steampowered.c...

look at the percentages 90% of the dx10 GPUs are more powerful than a console and all the dx11 ones listed so around 51% of steam users PCs are faster than consoles.

I also built my PC for $460 Canadian which is less than I payed for my Ps3 and almost the same as I payed for my 360 and it's far more powerful

Sarcasm2953d ago

"Why do console owners believe that their 4 and 5 year old, closed-box, mid-level consoles can run it? "

The thing about Crysis is that it's terribly un-optimized. I'll get chewed out by some Crysis fanboys, but it's the truth. It relies way too heavily on the GPU to be ran perfectly. The only people who got to enjoy Crysis is the ones with SLI setups.

And why do I say it's unoptimized? Because it only rarely uses 60% of my CPU most of the time. Other games like Gears of War, Bioshock, and even Medal of Honor was always hittin 100% of the CPU which made the games run a buttery smooth 60fps+.

It's not unless they take advantage of the "closed-box, mid-level consoles" to maximize their CPU usage, cause we all know the GPUs aren't as powerful as today's gfx cards.

mittwaffen2953d ago (Edited 2953d ago )

Your dreaming if you think it'll be anywhere close to full settings.

Computers today still have issues ruinning it; and they can have the most powerful hardware ontop of this.

theonlylolking2953d ago

I dont even think they are trying to max out the PS3 at all like NaughtyDog,Guerilla Games, and sony santa monica studios. They are just trying to make the PS3 even with xbox so there wont be a HUGE war.

SaberEdge2952d ago

Actually, that's not true. Internally they have two separate teams working on the 360 and PS3 versions and each team is said to be trying to outdo the other team.

We should get the best version possible on each console.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 2952d ago
Wizziokid2953d ago

i very much doubt this, well maybe medium spec but not ultra high sorry.

Pandamobile2953d ago

Yeah-no.

First problem with that is the 360 lacks DX10, so you can count on all the pretty DX10 lighting effects, object motion blur, etc being non-existent.

Not to mention the large amount of RAM needed for all the high-res textures.

Crysis 2 on consoles will look like Crysis 1 on the high DX9 settings at its very best. Also at 30 FPS and 720p (lol)

Trroy2953d ago (Edited 2953d ago )

I imagine Crytek would opt to use 640p or so, to maximize the 360 framerate with its 10MB eDRAM. Framebuffer resolution is probably the major visual difference between the 360 version and the PS3 version, outside of something like MLAA on the PS3.

I wouldn't doubt that the 360 version looks stellar, even if the PS3 version looks better (according to the devs themselves), however.

z1ck2953d ago

crysis only suports dx9 they just decided to lock ultra high settings in dx9 cards so that ppl would buy more nvidia dx10 cards . crytek even confirmed this was true , if you visit crysis oficial forum you will find mods to unlock the settings .

Sarcasm2953d ago (Edited 2953d ago )

In Crysis 1, they said that Direct X10 isn't possible on Windows XP, thus Direct X9 is only available. Crytek tried to limit people with DX9 machines to the "High Settings" not letting them go to the "Very high" settings. But people found that small tweak to let us run near DX10 quality under "Very High" settings even though it's still in DX9. Granted, there may be a few effects here and there that DirectX10 may have over the tweak DX9 very high settings, but still it's pretty damn close enough. Just look at the pictures.

http://www.ngohq.com/news/1...

Ocelot5252953d ago

don't want to burst your bubble pandamobile but dx10 effects are possible on console trough software emulation

FantasyStar2953d ago

I know for sure that Object Motion Blur is a DX10 thing only. Back when I had the XP OS, I tried various .cfgs to get all the effects, but object blur wasn't one I can get perfectly. I can still get motion blur in the simple sense, but object-blur like when you hit someone in Speed Mode or when you snap to your scope.

STONEY42952d ago

Even with the whole "DX10 in DX9 Crysis", there was still a noticable difference as far as pop in, LOD, shadow quality, and motion blur, and there are a few graphical glitches as well, especially with faces and object motion blur. Proof right there that DX10 wasn't a hoax like some people say, as no amount of DX9 tweaking will fix these.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 2952d ago
Theonetheonly2953d ago

OG Crysis ate up all 2 GB of my Ram and The whole 768MB of my 8800GTX at the time. I personally believe no amount of texture compression could slim this down to a console memory footprint without, SIGNIFICANT quality loss.

I just cannot see it.