Thanks to a recent leak of Crytek Sandbox 3 tools for Crysis 2, it can be practicly confirmed that LOW settings of Crysis 2 on PC is the same as XBOX 360 an PS3 version of Crysis 2, here is the proof.
Shit, I thought it would be atleast medium settings
well you figure DX9 medium settings is pretty much LOw end settings for the PC. DX9 Low DX10 medium DX11 High so most PC games running max settings in DX9 look better than the console version. once you get into DX10 and DX11, PC to console comparisons stop as too many graphical effects come into play. regardless of hardware it's up to the developers to get the most out of it.
Wow there's some finicky people that are disagreeing with you on this. Consoles are locked to DX9 at the time being.
That not how thing work.
Thats NEVER been the case, even with DX10. DX11 allows more headroom on a GPU, effects are minor improvements, one main effect being the free geo bump (Tessellation). WTF are you smoking making that statement? Sounds like alot of BS that has been madeup. Never read that statment anywhere and even on the heart of the crysis community (MyCrysis) no one speaks such foolishness. You sir, are wrong BY A MILE. I'd rather take DX9 maxed, over MEDIUM on any of the other direct x, and you know what end of the day the higher physical settings make the difference, very little to do with DX today. DX10 was actually one of the biggest scams in the PC industry, it brought nothing new to the table when it came to visuals that DX9 couldnt replicate just as well..if not better. And it even ran better too(DX9) , due to the mature nature of it. DX11 brings optimization that can give 10-30% extra fps to a similar DX9 area. DX9 = 1 flood gate, while DX11 = many similar gates. You have additional effects..mainly tessellation which isnt being used to great effect currently in video games, but eventually will. That is a main highlight, most effects that were used in DX10/11 were actually just "ON/OFF" switches that a simple .INF tweak would enable this on a DX9 system. I know we have other effects that are highly complex, and expensive to complete. Because of consoles they did not have a need to put millions of extra dollars into a smaller market such as making proper 64BIT software for PC gamers, which is HUGE when done correctly for the headroom it can give. But end of the day Consoles screwed technology for the PC gamers.
im pretty sure the ol station uses something more akin to opengl.... and dx is merely a software api FOR WINDOWS....
"well you figure DX9 medium settings is pretty much LOw end settings for the PC. DX9 Low DX10 medium DX11 High" Yeah, thats not how things scale on PCs at all. Going between DX9 and DX11 yields only small differences
Don't get me wrong but who's actually getting this for consoles? As a console user im not hyped at all by this game, ive seen tons of videos of Crysis and they are all about benchmarks and how good it looks, ill be very appreciated if someone could send me a link of someone actually having fun by playing this game. Still... props for PC users... i guess.
Well kids lets all calm down and be freinds here. DIREXCTX.(DX)isnt what the main source of graphics looking awsome. many PC GAMERS WHO KNOW ABOUT HARDWARE. not just about playing games will tell you. you can have a cheap VGA CARD budget under $150 supporting dx10 have a video card high end worth say $400 running dx 9 even on xp. still shine have all the physics and frame rate that leave ur budget card running on DX10 for dust.
That is only a concern if Crysis is the best looking game on consoles; since it's not by far, this news isn't really earth-shattering. The game is obviously optimized for PC.
'But end of the day Consoles screwed technology for the PC gamers.' If it wasn't for console gaming, then the gaming industry would be in tatters, and blockbuster titles such as Crysis 2 would not exist.
LOL, Crysis 2 absolutely blows every and anything on the consoles. My dual 6870's will have no problem running this game on full detail. My PC has soooo much more power than the consoles, it's sick.
Keep stroking your e-peen. I have a good computer too but I don't brag about it to randomers on a comments section.
Ditto. Ask me for my specs Agent and I'll remind you how inconsequential PC bragging rights on a console forum are.
Trouble is, your PC doesn't have the games I want to play made for it and that's important.
IM affraid (hassi94)right. there a need to brag about your video cards. in ati crossfire. other then there goof priced cards but not the best. by a long shot. and in all honistly yes you can play it on extream setting. as i its told me i can. as i tryed this early pc leak witch shouldnt got out. even on my partners ati 4870 witch now isnt good card. its not top card but still runs every game. looks solid.the engine isnt wanting to push ur video cards nore your cpu like the old crysis. guessin u did play crysis on pc. and benchmarked it.
im going to be honest crysis 2 looks eh compared to crysis 1. lol, crysis 2 dx9 (no bias) looks ok, i guess, on max settings. the gun detail looks more amazing than anything in the game though.
This article is frankly wrong. It has been confirmed from multiple other sources that the console versions run mostly at settings equivalent to medium settings on the PC. But the console "settings" as a whole can not be directly compared to the PC settings of low, medium or high. It doesn't work that way. Due to the architecture of the consoles some of the settings for the console versions are equivalent to low, some to medium and some to high. http://imagequalitymatters.... "So, just how good does Crysis 2 look on consoles, or more specifically, on the Xbox 360? Well, before we begin a proper, it’s fair to say that the game is running on the console with what looks like ‘medium’ detail settings on the PC; which means that you get most of the good stuff, but not without some very obvious pairing back of overall image quality as a result. There have also been a few added effects over and above that of the ‘medium’ setting" http://www.incrysis.com/for... "It seems that the general console .cfg uses medium as a base line, with many commands set to low, or even sub-low. However, other cfgs are set to high or higher, making an interesting balance. From the looks of it, the consoles seem to be struggling with memory, as many of the RAM-heavy commands are set extremely low. On the other hand, things related to lighting and geom seem to be set high." http://www.eurogamer.net/ar... "Way back in December 2009, our Can Consoles Run Crysis? feature saw us attempt to recreate Crytek's demos within the existing PC game, and guest contributor Nebula rebuilt a PC config based on the visual make-up of the 360 and PS3 footage. His conclusion was that CE3 on console was based on the PC game's "medium" quality setting with some elements dialled back, while others operated on the equivalent of the "very high" setting. Fast forward to 2011 and the ability to see the consoles' actual .cfg file validates the majority of his findings." "RAM-heavy features of CryEngine are scaled back to medium settings or even lower, but processing-intensive elements of the tech such as lighting and geometry are correspondingly scaled up."
Good Find gamer2010
I would like to point out that direct x doesnt exist on ps3.
Yes; how the conversion methods apply to the PS3 has to come down to eyeballing, which is totally subjective.
That above picture is medium settings though not low settings(skyline map).Judging by cfg. file consoles run on low to high settings.Lower settings are memory intense(AF,texture resolution) while high settings were post processing and lighting(global illumination).Most of it was the same as medium in Crysis 1,they use their specific cfg and do not equal any PC setting. BTW,damn MP map Skyline on medium looks meh...
sorry but i laughed when i saw the titel. i wouldnt say they use low i would say mid setting prob. that proof means nothing, the ps3/xbox aren't even checked in that picture.
You "would say"? Crysis 2 on medium beats anything I've seen, it looks ridiculously good. Consoles don't have a snowball's chance in hell of pulling this quality. To the disagree monkeys: I'll think of you when Digital Foundry's analysis is out.
I'll be the judge once i see PS3 gameplay footage. As of now the game is a no buy for me. I don't like console favoritism from multiplat devs.
Lol, Killzone :P
Mass Effect, Portal 2... I'm sure you supported all this games.
Both published by EA, just like Crysis2. Can you see where this is going?
thats only because the console versions werent optimised well(the 360 multiplayer demo confirms this)
You really believe that? Its one of the better looking games on console compared to other console games. The REAL reason is that the PC version is in completely another league as even aging PC hardware is considerably better than what is in the consoles.
care to explain why killzone 3 looks alot better????
Killzone 3 graphically destroys crysis 2 on consoles? Have you played it? Crysis 2 looks good for a multiplat but I really wasn't impressed.
The point wasn't about comparison between the console versions. I think you missed the point talltony. I have played both but this whole link is about drawing a comparison between Crysis 2 settings on console and on PC. The point was that outwar claimed Crysis 2 is unoptimised for console. Clearly its optimised rather well for a multi plat as you said so yourself talltony, it looks good, for console standards even as a multi game. However the link also shows the PC version running on a good PC. No console game touches the PC version. Thus i cannot explain why Killzone 3 looks a lot better. It does not, by the longest stretch of anyone's imagination.