Top
140°

Crysis 2 being re-designed for GTX580? Expect delays

With the GTX480, nVidia had a massive lead in graphics processing techniques like tessellation. Unfortunately, there were almost no games in the market that utilised that additional processing power. Aliens Vs Predator included tessellation – but just enough to allow AMD and nVidia to compete on a similar playing field. Great for gamers, not so good for nVidia. Millions have been paid to create a Fermi processor with butt-mastering tessellation capability, which isn’t being utilised by game developers. What a quandary. How to fix it?

Enter Crysis 2 and a $2m spend from nVidia’s marketing team.

The story is too old to be commented.
DXM12543d ago

imo article makes no sense whatsoever. GTX 580 isnt out yet and we have to believe that crysis devs will try to optimize the game for a card that doesnt yet exist?

Maybe if NV pays an enormous amount. Guess we will see. I personally dont think there will be a change in release date.

davekaos2543d ago

I would expect delays if it were a completely different architecture BUT its not!.

IMO crysis was boring, i only used it for benchmarking.
Delay it for 5 years if you like, i will stick to KZ3

Bereaver2543d ago

Well, that's your opinion, and I accept it.

On the other hand though, I had a pretty good time with Crysis.

RedDead2543d ago (Edited 2543d ago )

I found Crysis decent enough, I also found Killzone 2 decent enough. Im hearing bad stuff about the K3 beta though. Spawming system is broken apparently and its more Cod like or something, people say you die to easily and the weapons range no longer matters...also bots and mechs are overpowered

wicko2543d ago

Well it probably does exist, just not in the retail market. I'm sure there are prototypes, weren't there articles like "GTX 580 pictured"?

Sarcasm2543d ago (Edited 2543d ago )

"GTX 580 isnt out yet and we have to believe that crysis devs will try to optimize the game for a card that doesnt yet exist? "

You do realize that Nvidia is funding for optimization of Crysis 2 (hence the article) and the fact that just because a card isn't out on the market, doesn't mean that it's not been R&D'd for awhile as well as having prototypes.

karlowma2543d ago

Well we are talking nVidia and EA here, not exactly bastions of ethics in themselves. Seems plausible enough.

I personally hate this aspect of nVidia vs. AMD. Games shouldn't be optimized by developers to run better on one piece of hardware or another. They should either work with both GPU camps to ensure everyone is getting the best experience possible, or work with industry APIs and leave the optimization to the GPU driver divisions. Just another way the console mindset is pervading the PC world.

Persistantthug2543d ago

Games haven't been working right on all PC's ever since I can remember....It's been that way for decades and has always been a major problem with PC gaming in general....no need to blame that on any console, my friend.

Nihilism2543d ago (Edited 2543d ago )

Nvidia have the TWIMTBP program...they have staff that help developers implement AA and additional features in their games FOR FREE. I hardly see it as being monopolistic or unethical. AMD/ATI owners should be glad the graphical bar is always being pushed by nvidia, unlike Dirt 2 and BFBC2 which are DX11 only in name, not in visuals, very weak sauce attempts by AMD.

The article is B.S. Crytek had DX11 features built into the engine since before they even started building the game, that's kind of how these things work, features first, games later.

They said about 8 months ago on incrysis.com that the DX11 features would be announced 'after summer'.

aka "save the best for last". They couldn't show the PC version in all it's glory then show the mud filter Crysis 2 on consoles. But given that all console games use a mud filter it will at least be on par with what's on offer now.

720p 30 frames + 3D on both 360 and PS3, = win for crtek.

Massively underrated.

I will wait for quality. I don't understand the double standards going on here, Crytek are somehow being underhanded in delaying the game yet GT5 has been delayed how many times? and people are willing to wait for it.

I'll tell you the difference, one is a multiplat, and one is exclusive, PS3 fantards are allergic to exclusives.

@Persistantthug

We know your disposition, don't try to come off neutral, console gaming is a cancer this generation. Even multiplats didn't suffer in the slightest in the xbox/ps2 days on PC, now they are missing AA, HDR, multicore optimisation, games still coming out only using 2 cores. Welcome to 2006.

@FantasyStar

"PC Version will only look marginally better."

Rofl. These are some Crysis Warhead screenshots IN DX9!!!, Crysis 2 will support DX11, yeah...marginally better my ass.

http://img708.imageshack.us...

http://img201.imageshack.us...

http://img836.imageshack.us...

http://img844.imageshack.us...

@MajestieBeast

I don't get that mindet, people think a game is somehow biased against ATI when it is optimised by Nvidia, Nvidia also runs BFBC2 and Dirt 2 better than ATI, blame the hardware not the optimisations.

You know how I feel when AMD helps with a game...I think it's a good thing...because having DX11 features in Dirt 2 and BFBC2 is better than not having them, even if they did suck. Shouldn'y ATI owners feel the same?, good tessellation> tesselation so unnoticable you barely even know it's there.

Persistantthug2543d ago

Maybe instead of blaming consoles, maybe you should be blaming WoW.

Since, to me, it seems gamers are too busy playing Farmville, Sims and WoW on LOW END computers, which renders developers with little desire to make PC games with high budgets and full out high end effects.

Blaming consoles for PC woes seems pretty petty to me.

And don't blow what I'm saying off, because if that wasn't the case, then these Crytek guys wouldn't be bringing the game to consoles in the first place.

Seems to me the "cancer" was somehow grown from within.

There's something to think about, sir.

MajestieBeast2543d ago (Edited 2543d ago )

I didnt even mean it that way, just some games have issues with ATI cards which is sad thats all i meant. So i hope i can just run this without any technical bumps.

imvix2543d ago

@Persistantthug

Maybe we should be blaming the greedy developers, It is true Consoles have been holding the industry back this generation.

"Since, to me, it seems gamers are too busy playing Farmville, Sims and WoW on LOW END computers, which renders developers with little desire to make PC games with high budgets and full out high end effects."

So console gamers dont have casuals? Wii, Move and Kinect say hi. Every platform has its casuals, PC being the largest platform will obviously be having a casual base. You should check out Steam user base more then 56% of the base has DX10 based GPUs which are a generation athead of whatever is there in consoles. Then we have atleast 5.6% with DX11. ATI alone sold 25million DX11 GPUs in the past year.

Only reason Crytek are bringing Crysis to consoles is greed. Let the games be out i assure you the differences will be Huge.

Persistantthug2543d ago

Any third party or independent developer is free to make whatever game they want for whatever system they want.

Don't blame consoles for the developers that don't want to develop for high end PC's anymore or because they half ass the job. That's totally on them...period.

And once again...no one's twisting Crytek's arm to make console versions of this game...NO one.

DXM12543d ago

No need to rage at consoles. Only reason why game devs are moving to ps3+360 is because pc gamers are pirating games like crazy.

Blame yourself.

evrfighter2543d ago

lol @ persistantthug.

mw2 on console is made for and was bought by casuals. Add up the sales. That's how many casuals are on the kiddie boxes.

Ducky2542d ago (Edited 2542d ago )

@Persistantthug
Console versions are built due to greed (that's not saying much because everything is more or less built due to greed). Publisher's can't deny the large amount of sums to be made in the consoles, so they have the devs make a multiplatform game.
The problem is that the game must now run on all platforms. They can either make a huge effort adding a bunch of extra bells and whistles for the PC version (which would be unfair to the consoles) or try making a game that gives the same experience across the board.

The latter method is usually picked, and that might be what imvix was referring to. As the PC is held back or is given a few modest settings to increase resolution and change buttons, but that's about it.

There's also the problem that most games are becoming casualized, and the "hardcore" games of today are... well... not that hardcore and quite easy.

@DXM1
Console has pirating too. That point is moot.
Also, if someone spends all that money on a gaming rig, you think they would cheap out on the games?

The only difference you could say is that since pirating is so easy on the PC, some people go with a try-and-see approach. They'll play the game, and if they like it, they'll buy it.
It means that developers that develop bad game don't get rewarded. So, when making shovelware, they decide to just forget about the PC.
Hence why EA doesn't even release most yearly sports games on the PC. :D

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 2542d ago
FantasyStar2543d ago (Edited 2543d ago )

I doubt anything will happen. CryEngine 3 is designed for MPF usage. Whatever the PS3-360 Version turns up to be, no doubt the PC Version will only look marginally better. I'm not expecting full-blown day-light differences on the PC Version.

I'll be happy if I'm wrong though. Although the GTX 580 doesn't make me happy that I have the GTX 460.

Pandamobile2543d ago (Edited 2543d ago )

If the PC version of CryEngine 3 only looks 'marginally better', Crytek effed something major up. What I'm expecting is the console version of Crysis 2 will look about as good as Crysis 1 on a mix of DX9 medium and high settings at 720p and 30 FPS.

Judging from what I've seen with the Crysis 2 Xbox beta, my prediction is looking pretty accurate.

Sarcasm2543d ago

It's probably just me but Crysis on medium settings doesn't look all that great.

So I'm not expecting too much from the console versions.

ct032543d ago

A mix of Medium and High settings may be right, but texture quality must be the equivalent of Low based on what I've seen.

wicko2543d ago (Edited 2543d ago )

Nah it won't be marginal. Crysis 2 on console won't look better than Crysis 1 did on PC. Console hardware hasn't changed and PC hardware has only gotten better, so we'll definitely see major improvements. And even if visual quality isn't leagues ahead, then performance will be.

Not to mention mods, mods will make up for whatever Crysis 2 is lacking.

MajestieBeast2543d ago (Edited 2543d ago )

This game better get equal ATI support cause i just ordered the new HD6870 from XFX so dont want crysis 2 to run like crap. Cant wait to pop that sucker in.

vault13er2543d ago

I thought Crysis 2 was being optimized for the low-tech 360/PS3? Hopefully they offer PC gamers something promising by holding out. PS, Crysis is over three years old and neither PS3 or 360 could handle it which is why the sequel is being dumbed down (mostly so people BUY it instead of pirating it)

Show all comments (38)
The story is too old to be commented.