Gamersmint writes: Gamers who have downloaded the recently released PS3 demo of Crysis 2 aren’t pleased. There have been reports from various sources that the PS3 demo is a pain to play through and suffers from a bevy of game-breaking issues.
PC developers,used to pc architecture 360 included 5 years in and some developers still trying to program the ps3 like a pc...the mind boggles when you see games like gow3 and kz3 there is no excuse for this 5 years in
Yeah I see what you are saying but umm gow3 and kz3 are linear. Especially gow3
What does linearity have to do with anything? Crysis 2 is a linear game with open-world backgrounds. Any one of those games - especially God of War III - are still competent enough, despite their linear nature. The set-pieces in GoW III completely belie its linear nature anyway, so it's not really a good example of the failure of linear games. Keep in mind this is Crytek's first venture out onto something other than the PC. The easiest thing to utilize - and John Carmack will agree - is a console that mirrors the PC (the 360).
You guys don't get 'choreographed linearity' do you. The game is sort of like MGS4. The dev gives you 2-3paths to choose from to get to the main goal. Each path will most likely offer a different way to play. One will allow you to be stealthy the other will put you up against multiple enemies etc.. You guys act like you can friggin leave the area you are in and grab a coffee on the other side of town. Jeez....
Please don't use common sense in this article, lest you have the fury of a thousand suns descend upon your post in the form of a disagree blitzkrieg.
fucking hilarious thread over at neo about the demo. lol! http://www.neogaf.com/forum...
I'll have to read the article, but just from the title, I can say that the game plays excellent, but getting into a Team Deathmatch game was a pain probably because everyone is trying to play that mode, but its no problem to join into a Crashsite game. Ok, here is what they say: - Framerates drops lower than 30 on many occassions. (This happened 3 times within a 4 hour period for me) - The server’s are unstable and laggy (Totally untrue) - HUD bobbles a lot. (??WTF?? I think its your head that's bobbing....but on what I don't know) - The PS3 version runs at the resolution of 1024×720 which is sub-HD and looks poor. (720p is HD LOL How can you be writing for a game site and not know what HD is? Heres a quick lesson for you.. 720p=HD 1080p=Full HD) - Some sequences causes temporary freezing issues. (This never happened to me or my friends today) - Hit detection has issues and do not register sometimes (hit detection is fine, you just suck) - Broken Melee system (melee system works as it should, you just suck even more now) - Matchmaking issues, troublesome to find games. (This is the truest thing that this guy says in his article. Its a server issue, and it only seemed to affect the Team Deathmatch mode, and not Crashsite Mode) Overall the PS3 version looks good and plays good and is most certainly one of the best looking multiplatform games on the PS3. Crytek was all hype though when they said that they had maxed out the PS3. Killzone3 still blows it out of the water.
I haven't played the demo but i think it is funny how people think that everything with 720p in it is HD. So 2 pixels width times 720p height is also HD? 2x720 = HD? The real HD-resolution is 1280x720. If a game is 1024x720 it IS sub-HD. There are 184.320 pixels missing. Not that i think it really matters, because there are plenty of games that do that and a fair amount of them for the better (higher framerate - more effects) but please don't call other people fools when you are the one who has no idea what you are talking about.
"Yeah I see what you are saying but umm gow3 and kz3 are linear" You say that like Killzone 3 and GOD OF WAR FREAKING THREE didn't have massive sense of scale at points in the game. And for that, I offer this hardy LOL: LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL GoW 3 and Kz3 both had huge sense of scale at points, and never stuttered a bit. Oh, and unlike any console version of Crysis 2, they did it with anti-aliasing. If Kratos can climb around Kronos like a flea, and I can blast a massive robot (can't remember name) like the one towards the end of Kz3, I should be able to play those tiny Crysis 2 MP maps with a few rendered background objects with at least an HD resolution (Again, something both console versions lack).
"You guys act like you can friggin leave the area you are in and grab a coffee on the other side of town. Jeez...." LOL. Crysis 3: The Search for an Orange Mocha Frappuccino
@Sven *Looks at InFamous 2* You were saying??
I don't think it's that games like GoW3 are linear, but those games are being built exclusively on the PS3 so there is a lot of time to develop solely on that one platform. Multiplat devs have to work with building it the usual way on 360/PC, and then have to struggle on the PS3, so they either don't bother, or do a bad job and realize the sales are never as good on the PS3 so they don't care to work it out
what about Alan Wake?
I think this is the best reason of all! The PS3 version runs at the resolution of 1024×720 which is sub-HD and looks poor. I find that hilarious as near every exclusive 360 game is sub HD including the big hitters like Halo and Gears. Madness that because its sub HD its poor but when it comes to 360 games they look amazing. Which is it?? This kinda crap annoys me in the end as one minute people say one thing then the opposite just to try and win a non existent arguement.. Sub HD is fine for most games especially shooter I mean COD is sub HD and that gets a high graphics score all the time.. Stupid, Stupid reason.
I'm really disappointed in Crytek - and a bit surprised actually! I thought they were geeks enough to do this right. My respect for 1st party studios just increased now, it's awesome what they can do with the PS3. My respect for some other studios increased as well - some can make great looking games across all platforms, for example Criterion Games, DICE..
Crytek have a lot of explaining to do but have been keeping very quiet since we have seen the Pc and PS3 versions.... Explain why you hyped this so much for PS3 when it is clearly an inferior version? It would not have nearly been as bad if you had just kept your mouths shut. Explain why the PC version has just a handful of settings, barely looks better than the console versions and supposedly has only DX9 render path on launch? Why does the original title on PC look far better than this sequel years later?? They won't. They'll sit there quietly and launch the game, make sure it sells and then try to ignore these awkward questions. As a Pc gamer its fair to say i have become increasingly annoyed with Crytek's decisions and silence regards this game, PC has been treated like crap. There is no way i will buy this game next week.
@BattleAxe According to you, 1024 x 720 resolution is hd, right? I'm sorry to say but you are greatly mistaken. Just because it has the numbers 720 doesn't make it 720p. HD is to do with the number of pixels on screen. 720p is 1280 x 720(=921600 pixels/frame) where as crysis 2 has a resolution of 1024 x 720(=737280 pixels/frame). For a resolution to be labelled hd, the MINIMUM required resolution is 1280 x 720(921600 pixels). 1080p is 1920 x 1080(2073600 pixels). Plus, there is a hit detection problem (go play the demo again). There is a constant framerate issue (go play the demo again). And the melee system is broken but I think its more in the same lines of bullet hit detection. The head bobbing problem can be solved by going into options and controlling the amount of head bobbing wanted. Matchmaking is only a slight problem but once you get into a lobby, all games run fine, as long as you stay in that lobby. Overall I'm really disappointed with Crytek and turns out that their promise of "Best looking game on any platform" was just plain BS. Guess I'll cancel my ps3 preorder and get it on pc instead. Sigh.
I personally thought the Killzone 3 demo was terrible on the 360. For those that don't understand what I'm saying: Yes, the PS3 demo is inferior to the other versions. There is at least the choice for those that care. People with a PS3 will get to try the demo just like everyone else... And Crytek sucks at console developing.
While PC and PS3 are very similar in brightness and contrast levels. Exhibit A: http://www.videogameszone.d... Exhibit B: http://www.videogameszone.d... And I'm not just talking about Crysis 2.
Checkout the lack of textures on the wall to the right and the bricks on the floor have no shadows in the Xbox version. Dude the PS3 version IS the better looking game out of the two. lol http://i55.tinypic.com/jb7d...
I played on the 360 and the PS3 and can't hardly tell any differeces, on the PS3 it seems to take longer to find a match but the game looks pretty much the same on both consoles but actually either version is very far in visual quality from Killzone 3, this looks just a little better than COD and not as good as Bad Company 2 EDIT: hit detection is a big problem but that happens on both versions
@KUV1977 You'll find the PS3 version is proper 720p as the PS3 can't display a 1024x720 resolution. The only res a PS3 can display that isn't proper HD is 572i and p
There is an excuse because they're first time PS3 devs and PC is still their major platform, and it's not like rival devs will be helping them out that much. Like you though, i'm not exactly surprised.
Except that they were bragging about how awesome they were going to make the PS3 version. They talked the talk, but...you know the rest.
That's a sensible excuse. Still, it sucks that the PS3 version continuously gets screwed like this. Of course, the best way to play this is on your PC, but they better fix some of the issues come launch
Is this there first game or have they got the old Free Radicals team working on it?? Who have already made Haze on PS3.. I get where your coming from but they are capable devs and if its poor at release then it's down to lazy developing. Also the demo is a multiplayer demo. I dunno about you but most games dumb down multiplayer gameplay so they can fit more into it. You got a lot mroe going on in multiplayer so they cut out things like HD resolutions to fit 16 players or whatever on the screen at once shooting.
Since ps3 fans don't care about mp games. Why not let sony make the games for the ps3 and all the mp games can go to 360 exclusively. Sony devs seem to be able to make the ps3 look good but the games have not been my cup of tea. And with kz3 they have taken a huge step back as that game is not very good even in the graphic dept mp games are looking as good on the 360 as the ps3. Since sony fans don't care about mp games and only exclusives that is my proposal.
wait a minute, slow down...is this happening? Since when can a fps be judged on its multiplayer now?...if the PS3 multiplayer has problems...so what...we aren't supposed to care about that... The way I understand it is that a first person shooter is now judged only by its single player prowess (this changed some time between when black ops released last year, and Feb 22nd of this year)... in this case crysis 2 may be in trouble on all versions...as the AI is about as good as a chick on her cell phone... but don't fret about these multiplayer problems...the reviewer will simply have the review up for the entire game before these servers are even online yet...they'll look at the on paper specs of its features, ignore them, and right up a 3 page review accordingly...chances are Crysis 2 will be heralded as the best fps of this generation, if the only problem is the AI...
anyway they should have left it on PC we already have enough FPS on consoles
This. No one I know is buying it for either console. Why argue over which console got the less sub-par game? Both versions are a let down. Let's be honest here.
^ PC Gaming... LOL
Having a kick ass PC along with the PS3 and 360, I can never see myself getting crysis 2 for either of the consoles, PC gaming FTW...
I've just recently got myself a little beast of a PC, I just can't bring myself to play games on it... It just feels too nerdy hunched over with mouse in hand. I will one day break those shackles and give it a go though :D
You can use a gamepad on the PC. It's not that much of a disadvantage, I played the Crysis 2 demo on PC with a 360 pad, and I was still near the top in every match, I played it with M&K and was still the same. Obviously I had aim assist on with the pad but my point remains.
Crysis 2 actually compensates for gamepads with some autoaim and it has a variety of other mechanics setting it apart from games that are as simple as point and click. I placed #1 pretty consistently with a wireless 360 pad, with my pc hooked to a TV. I hope more pc games add compensation, because stuff like unreal 3 is just ridiculous to try and Team Fortress 2 could be made alot more playable with a gamepad... Still, I'm sure hunched over a good monitor with a razer mouse is the most deadly. But it's nice to have options.
This goes to show you how talented Sony 1st party devs are. Cytek are only good on an overpowered PC. Let the same Sony Devs work on the same type hardware Cytek does for PC it would be no competition. They did run their mouth saying going for best looking FPS on consoles.
No, it goes to show that practice makes perfect. If all you're devving for is one platform, you're either going to get good or not get anywhere. All this shows is that the PS3 is still hard to develop for if you haven't done it before, and I don't know why anybody would be happy about that. Fyi - Crysis 2 on the PC is running way smoother on older PC's than the original. As I said, practice makes perfect.
Well true this is their 1st game on consoles but they should have never made a claim that bold.
What's wrong with having ambition and trying to be the best at something? It looks like they've probably fallen short - but to roast them for trying is ridiculous.
Naw its not ambition its arrogance.
man I heard so much about this graphic king. now we wait for rage, then battlefield 3. now they say cause it's open world. ff13 is open world at that play where you fight the adaman turtles. open world or not graphic is not the strong point of console Crysis.
meh i'm sooo backlogged with a bunch of games that this can be placed on backburner for quite a while. if a PC developer tries to develop a on ps3 like its a PC game then they are going to fail.
I'm almost certain I've read this exact comment word for word here before. Either I've been to the future or you guys creativity is starting to fade
The Playstations programming difficulties are a detriment to the playstation either way you look at it. If it wasn't so hard then you would have even more great games to play at the quality they should.
Well kurt I have more then enough quality games to play on my PS3 whether they are exclusives, or there multiplatform. Besides I don't freak out about missing pixels, or a flat texture(s) like everyone else does. I jumped into the demo for a few to see what it looks like and doubt it was ok. Oh and fail please don't assume im trying to bash crysis because im not. I was talking to my friend yesterday about how many games I still have to play or continue from LBP2, NFSHP, DS1&2, GT5, ME2, Sly Cooper, ACB, Homefront, and KZ3. Plus with the amount of OT im pulling at our job there's not enough time in the world to play these games. So yes I will play crysis 2 when I can but it will be sometime later this year. I freaking wish people would stop assume on this GD site without knowing what someones situation is.
Sadly, I canceled my preorder about 3 weeks ago. Can't take a risk on this. Thanks Crytek.
Sensible. As the hype war continues, it reeks more and more of bird c**p.
Agreed. With less than 7 days to go and you decide to release a demo that is half baked (but still good), you are really doing something wrong.
"5 years in and some developers still trying to program the ps3 like a pc...the mind boggles" im sure if they had 4years of development, unlimited budget with no set release date like the games you listed it might look a bit better
Well said, Seth. I'm not unimpressed by this demo. There's a crowd on here that only wants to play ps3 exclusives, and I pity them because they're not allowing themselves to see the big picture. I don't want to live in a world where Crysis is an ugly game. Because it's just not - that's the simple truth. There's a lot that this engine does well, regardless of how many pixels it uses. It's a very admirable first attempt at coding for the ps3, and one of the best looking multiplats of this generation. True gamers - you know, the ones who play games for fun - would be offering congrats and encouraging Crytech to do better next time instead of shitting on them. And let's not forget, as others have said, we're judging a MP beta. Not even the finished game. And that line right there was sacred to most of you when the KZ3 demo hit - "B-b-but it's teh beta! You can't judge it yet!"
@IcarusOne - No gamer would offer congrats to a dev that delivered a subpar version of a game to a platform that has been shown to be capable of better visuals, particularly when the dev goes out of their way to claim they maxed that platform out, and even goes so far as to challenge people to tell the difference.
I'm having a hard time just trying to find a match, keep getting disconnected. :( Reserving my judgment for later but it's not looking good.
i normaly dont even get in to these topic ( as any one can see in my history ) but here http://n4g.com/news/722844/... just dont think any one can say anything about ps3 looking worst after that but what ever
still want it and to me mp demos dont ever play as well as the retail release. i know the diff between a beta and a demo but kz3 beta played horrible but the actual game played better. crysis2 demo is fun for me and i like it so whatever
If PS3 gamers don't play the sales game, they absolutely excel at the pixel counting game. Instead of comparing multi-platform games to their PC and Xbox 360 counterparts, maybe each game should be judged on it's own merits independantly. I don't know anyone that plays the same game on multiple platforms on multiple screens at the same time and stops to count pixels. If the game looks good while you play it and its fun, does anything else really matter? It really is beyond ridiculous how people make spec comparisons to make their purchase decisions. Play the damn demo and if you enjoy it, buy, rent or borrow the game and have fun. -Death
It seems to me that it's the 360 folk that obsess over an extra pixel or three in a multiplat. No one on my friend list thought anything less of Red Dead Redemption because it was "inferior". PS3's GTA4 supposedly looks worse than 360's, but you wouldn't know that from the reaction a (at the time) 360 owning friend of mine had when he saw it on my PS3. He was actually angry that he didn't wait to get a PS3, and he traded in his 360 soon after. Your point about playing the games instead of peering at screenshots is absolutely true. The vast majority of multiplats look virtually identical on both platforms, though both consoles have a few that look noticeably better than the other version. According to people on this site, the 360's multiplats are head and shoulders above the PS3's broken ones, and that's just plain fanboy BS.
LOL. Crytek had all three version of Crysis 2 on display at GDC, side-by-side. It was painfully obviously how much the 360 struggled to run this game. And the number of people watching each version told a clear story: PC > PS3 > 360 They're just trolling with this article.
i'll take killzone 3, thanks.
. There is no or very, VERY little difference between the console versions of the game...here's the proof... http://www.youtube.com/watc... I don't know what the PS3 guys are crying about. This game clearly is better than anything on PS3...case closed.
Crytek's have gone from the best looking PC game devs to utter trash in no time. Atleast, they shouldn't have claimed, they aim to make the best looking console shooter. This looks just about ok and suffers from so many issues. Bargain bin title for me, at most. Also, will delete the demo soon, it's a pain to play.
The game went from a maybe 1-2 day to a '9 months later when it costs $25-30 at best buy'
More like $5 during a Steam sale.
Lol this is ridiculous. You people said that Crysis 2 would be nothing special but would be the best thing on 360 and now that it has happened exactly like you predicted you're all sour about it. You should be happy, you called it
Who's sour about it? I'm severely disappointed in Crytek. Call it what you want I guess. Oh yeah, it ain't all that on the 360 either I'm afraid.
Yep, It's true.. From what I've played of the newly released PS3 demo, Crytek have managed to get all the effects & graphics looking the same as the 360 version of the demo.. but in doing so, performance is not so good. One thing I've noticed is the god ray effect you see when in the ship is much more.. what's the word.. ummm, Vibrant on X360.. It looks really awesome on the 360 version whereas on the PS3 one, it's sort of lowered, less vibrant.. it's still there.. just not as impressive looking. S'alright though.. I was planning on getting the Xbox 360 version for this game anyway so.. Let's just hope that this isn't Crytek's best.. and the final retail build of the PS3 version is much more stable.. or they release a new patch/update for the demo soon..
That god ray effect you speak of was also completely abscent in the PS3 version of Bulletstorm. I wonder why a small effect like that would be hard to program for the PS3. It can't be too taxing on the hardware. Anyways, I didn't like the mp demo at all. It's too messy having to constantly use cloak and heat vision, and the map design is pretty poor. Can't say PS3 gamers are missing out. KZ3 seems to be a much better choice in all areas.
God of War 3 has the "god ray effect" that he speaks of. and look how beautiful that game runs.
Agree about the demo. I thought it was incredibly mediocre. Maybe put an hour into it on PC. Well... about a dozen hours if you count the time it took to get an account through at MyCrysis.
360 version it is then