Digital Foundry Face Off: Crysis 2

News that Crytek would be embracing cross-platform development and working with Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 was met with concern from its fans: would the PC game be left behind as Crytek refocused its resources on technologically outdated consoles? Could the Microsoft and Sony platforms be cajoled into running code designed for massively more powerful hardware?


Digital Foundry has updated their article stating that the Xbox 360 version of Crysis 2 renders at 1152x720, not 1280x720 as they initially claimed. The PS3 version renders at 1024x720.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
Shanks2556d ago (Edited 2556d ago )

I'm sure the PS3 can do better than that.
Why not use MLAA? not only it's the best AA solution on consoles, it frees a lot of GPU time. Crytek could have done better.

ProjectVulcan2556d ago (Edited 2556d ago )

PS3 gives away a bit of resolution but it does get back for that some instances of better effects. In either case the article identifies major, performance crushing areas of both versions anyhows.

I was pleasantly surprised how well it runs on PC, higher end stuff like 6970s and GTX570s have no problems with it on extreme and 1920 x 1080, most of the time averaging 60 frames a second and up if you have no vsync or a 120hz monitor like moi.

You can bet this topic is gonna get smoking reality the article is fairly well balanced.

MegaMohsi2556d ago

I'm getting 35-40 fps on my i7930 and gtx 460 on extreme settings at 1920x1080

ImHereNow2556d ago (Edited 2556d ago )

inb4 all the ppl that said they were waiting for the DF compare b4 buying the best version of Crysis 2 pretend it doesn't matter now

zootang2556d ago (Edited 2556d ago )


I'm looking at builing a pc and I bet that cost no less than £600/$800. So you can't compare for price. On topic PS3 version for the 7.1 surround.

StanLatMarveldotCom2556d ago

"On balance, 360 has the edge in terms of visuals and general performance, but PS3 more than holds its own, bettering the Microsoft platform in some areas."

Like I said in previous articles, each version seems to take advantage of each hardware's strengths and you find advantages to both with minimal differences in each version.

ProjectVulcan2556d ago (Edited 2556d ago )

@ zootang

You can get a fairly good PC for 600 pounds these days. Certainly something that would run Crysis 2 far beyond the 720p/20-30 frames a second range the consoles do. You can find good guides online. This for example still works fairly well today.

This is about 360-380 quid in UK prices. Toss in a copy of Win 7 64bit and even some bits and bobs peripheral wise and you are still shy of 500 quid. It manages the original Crysis in 1680 x 1050 with everything on in standard configuration, you will not find much more demanding than that, Crysis 2 is less demanding if anything.

Overclocked it is even playable @ 1920 x 1080. Talk about bang for buck.

The Modern warfare 2 bench shows it doing a magnificent 77 frames a second in 1080p. The consoles manage around 50-60 frames @ 1024 x 600. So that PC is managing a considerably higher framerate, while running nearly FOUR times the resolution with better in game settings and anti aliasing. That is what is called a chasm in performance.

malandra2556d ago

"The unavoidable conclusion we came to is that when frame-rate does crash in those affected areas, it's actually Crysis 2 on PS3 that holds up better."

"however, close up, it's clear that shadows are somewhat more blocky and unattractive on the Microsoft console."

"Bearing in mind the limited nature of the 3D support, it doesn't really factor into the purchasing decision – but the PS3 undoubtedly gives the better picture here."

"this makes Crysis 2 one of the most inconsistent performers released in recent times. In these situations, it seems that it is the Xbox 360 version that has the most difficulties, though there's no mistaking that both platforms seem to lag badly in much the same areas"

darthv722556d ago

Those cherry picked quotes makes it out like the 360 is actually the 2600 trying to run this game.


zootang2556d ago (Edited 2556d ago )


I'm not trying to rain on your parade but it is still double the price of a PS3 or 360. You can understand why people stick with consoles. I'm getting a phenom x2 555 with a GTX460 for about £400. I'm going to build it myself. No bubbles so I can't reply again :(

ProjectVulcan2556d ago (Edited 2556d ago )

It is of course double the price but its also at least quadruple the performance as a gaming machine zootang. Its also a fully functioning computer with a copy of the latest windows slapped on it. Multi format games are also on average 10-15 pounds a pop cheaper.

I can see why people would buy a console for its initial lower cost and for its simplicity, but nonetheless, a PC for games costing that amount and having that much performance is an attractive proposition. Even if its just for multi platform titles- these make up the majority of games and time spent on games these days.

Its worth it alone in my experience to be above the fanboy console arguments! There is no real reason then to argue over which console version is best when you own a machine that slaps them both silly for titles like this.

Pixelated_Army2556d ago (Edited 2556d ago )

It's more or less the same except that the PS3 has better lighting and better gamma levels.

"Another aspect that lessens the impact of the resolution difference is CryEngine 3's chosen anti-aliasing technique. Halo: Reach-style temporal anti-aliasing is being used on objects a set distance away from the camera, with an edge-detect/blur mechanism in play for elements close to the player. Both of these techniques add further blurring to the visual effects chain, and again serve to make the resolution gain on Xbox 360 less noticeable in the heat of the action. More resolution is obviously a good thing and there is an overall feeling that the image on Xbox 360 is cleaner and crisper, but only with a direct A to B comparison do you actually feel you're missing anything on the PS3 rendition of the game, which still looks very impressive."

Pixel_Pusher2556d ago

"Is this the comparison that some here were waiting for? I'm sorry, but Digital Foundry's writeup always seem to be skewed to the 360's favor, regardless of the results. His articles are always seasoned with a bit of bias, so it's hard to take him seriously. In this very article, Leadbetter goes on and on about any advantage the 360 has, take for example what he said about the lighting, he said the 360 has better lighting, however the screenshots he used to indicate that prove that the PS3 has more light sources over the 360."

Pixel_Pusher2556d ago (Edited 2556d ago )

PS3 maintains a consistent yet lower fps during intense action scenes and there for runs and plays smoother.

PS3 has better gamma and light levels


So all in all where it counts for gameplay the PS3 tops the 360. Enjoy those few extra pixels while I'll enjoy the gameplay.

YodaCracker2556d ago


"The reason here is fairly straightforward: while Crysis 2 runs at 1152x720 resolution on the Microsoft platform, PS3 operates at a base resolution of 1024x720."

"In short, then, Xbox 360 benefits from a 12.5 per cent resolution boost over the PlayStation 3 version of the game. While it is true that the action generally looks clearer and not quite so blurred on the Xbox 360"

"More resolution is obviously a good thing and there is an overall feeling that the image on Xbox 360 is cleaner and crisper"

"However, there do appear to be some isolated instances where lighting appears bugged or flawed in the PS3 version, as the brace of shots above demonstrates."

"Shadows appear to have some offset issues in places on the PlayStation 3"

"In addition to a higher base resolution, the Xbox 360 appears to outperform the PS3 version of Crysis 2 in like-for-like comparisons."

"Performance is variable but in the majority of the scenes we do see an advantage to the Microsoft console."

"The increased performance and resolution indicates that the Xbox 360 is the preferred platform for Crysis 2"

"There's a performance hit on PS3 there, but the 360 version is remarkably solid, adding some weight to Crytek's claims."

"There's little doubt that the Xbox 360 is the cleaner, crisper experience and for the most part it commands a small but significant frame-rate advantage and fewer little glitches; especially outside of combat scenarios, the game just seems to run that much more smoothly."

"On balance, 360 has the edge in terms of visuals and general performance"

HolyOrangeCows2556d ago

I guess the people who claimed Crysis 2 has the best graphics on consoles because of some lighting effects - despite being sub-HD, poor AA, not keeping up to 30fps, having a poor latency, etc - will LOVE the PS3 version (lol, like those persons have one).

Snarky comment out of the way, Crytech did a decent job. I mean, look at some of the disasters other developers release. This is certainly above average.

BubbleSniper2556d ago

this is great!

now i can get ps3 ver. without feelin true gimpness of usual multiplat bs that go on with every other release!

i not even touch my retail Crysis 2 for PC yet... when DX11 release is when i tear open package.

i have more than enough game to keep me occupied till then. HAPPY!

DaTruth2556d ago

I'm not a PC gamer, but it's not like anyone is gonna be living without a PC of some kind and that will set you back a bit! So if you're buying a mid performance PC and a console, that is practically the same price as a high performance PC!

I have two 7 year old PC's and they work fairly well for surfing the net and downloading crap so I don't really need to upgrade; but I plan to upgrade eventually, and when I do, I will be going high performance!

Although, I will always need a Sony console because Sony games are just too amazing!

MaxXAttaxX2556d ago (Edited 2556d ago )

As usual.
Not a good attribute, really.

JRobes2556d ago

oh god... ps3 gamers make me laugh. over the last couple years xbox has been given so much crap over not having as high native res as ps3 games but now its all about gameplay huh pixel_pusher?

BloodyNapkin2556d ago


Well i can get cheaper games on consoles by using gamefly then you can on your little steam, and getting it on day of release not waiting 2 months down the road.

Funny how all the Pc guys come in touting in Multiplatform game articles how awesome it is. But where are they when it is Uncharted 2 or 3 articles or God of War 3 or GT5 and i can sit here and go all day and slap the PC silly with PS3 exclusives, Pc's have very few good games.

Not everyone cares soley about graphics it is more about quality games which the PC lacks. If i was strictly a PC gamer i would have missed out on some of the best games in the last 5 years.

AndrewRyan2556d ago

I actually have an i3 processor at 4.0 ghz and a gtx 560 ti MSI that is overclocked. The game runs easily at 40 frames on extreme. Looks great.

MaxXAttaxX2556d ago

I think PC fanboys need to shut up. We all know you can have better graphics on PC by upgrading.

Why are these PC elitists so insecure? It's sad.

jjohan352555d ago

Not many ppl on my friend's list (80+ friends) bought Crysis 2 for PS3. I think Crytek really hurt their marketing when they released that absolutely crappy demo build for 24 hours. Graphics were horrible and the network instability was utter crap. Everyone I know who bought retail version (myself included) agree that the retail version is much much better than the demo build, but I think the damage has already been done to keep people from buying it.

jeseth2555d ago

This game basically looks the same on PS3 or 360. Some things look better on 360, some better on PS3. But to say on definitively looks way better than the other is just BS.

Whenever one says
"Well PS3 looks better here" someone could say "Yeah but, 360 looks better here". And vice versa.

I swear. Do people actually even care about playing games anymore? Cold me old fashioned but this gen has created some of the most whiny and critical "gamers" I've ever seen.

ProjectVulcan2555d ago (Edited 2555d ago )

I would say most PC gamers have consoles too @ Bloodynapkin, and gamefly rentals or whatever it is called is not available outside the states, so your point is kinda moot there for the other 6.6 billion people on the planet or the people that want to BUY their games.....

I am really unsure why you just ranted about PC gamers in this topic. Honestly i have no idea whatsoever. PC gamers enjoy their PC games, the wide array of titles that are out there, as well as the higher profile multi plat titles out there too like this game :-)

+ Show (21) more repliesLast reply 2555d ago
theonlylolking2556d ago

KZ3, KZ2, resistance 3, and some others prove the PS3 can do better but fora multiplatform dev they did just as good as criterion games does on PS3.

Graphics2556d ago

KZ2, KZ3, Resis3? Last time I checked Crysis 2 looked better than all 3....

Kurt Russell2555d ago

Shame KZ3 is poor, KZ2 even more so and Resistance 3 doesn't even exist yet eh?

Crysis looks great when you view it without your nerd fanboy goggles boys.

Ju2555d ago (Edited 2555d ago )

Yeah, Graphics, sure..if you haven't played it yet. Go get it. You'll change your mind.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2555d ago
BK-2012556d ago

Actually its lower res because of a 14 mb of RAM issue which makes me facepalm on what Sony were thinking with the XMB using up so much ram.

BrianG2556d ago

Fortunately Sony has drastically reduced the footprint of the OS while still implementing new features that were not available at launch.

I don't think they are doing a bad job, and I'm sure they will reduce the RAM usage further.

HeavenlySnipes2556d ago

But I swear the SPU is divided into 8 (or 6) on the Cell Processor and one of the cores is dedicated to the XMB, one is left unused and the rest are free to be used by the developers.

BubbleSniper2556d ago

an you forget performance of the ram inside PS3 tidalwave over that of the 360?

strength and weaknesses in both.

move along.

Ju2556d ago

I doubt it's because of the lack of those 14MB. If at all Crytek needs 4ms (per frame). Next step, please look into a (more?) deferred rendering solution. That should give them 30fps with headroom and full 1280 res.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2556d ago
TBM2556d ago (Edited 2556d ago )

Cool now I can play the game on my PS3, and not lose any sleep/s

These comparisons are f*cking pointless they're only for those people who are insecure about the system they purchased so they need reassuring that they made the correct choice.

Since I own both consoles I can chose whichever one I want to play on, and since I refuse to pay for Live just to play online I know which console i'll play this on.

TBM2556d ago

lol i guess the people who disagreed with me fall under the category of what i said. sad, sad people.

DigitalAnalog2556d ago (Edited 2556d ago )

The 360 actually has a NATIVE resolution of 720 + vsync? As opposed to the 1152x720 on the demo? Meanwhile, the PS3 gets the same damn resolution with no noticable improvements.

In regards to DF take on 3D:

"In short, Crysis 2 in 3D is no Motorstorm: Apocalypse or Killzone 3"

That throws Gamesradar's "opinion" out the window. That site is notoriously anti-PS3.

Other notes include:

- "a variable 15-20FPS update in an intense fire-fight is hugely disorientating, and this makes Crysis 2 one of the most inconsistent performers released in recent times."

- "issues the game has in terms of bizarre glitches, performance drops, geometry pop-in and such-like are hardly exclusive to one platform"

To wrap it all up Crytek has:

- Failed the "no difference" challenge by making the 360 running smoother and SHARPER in NATIVE 720p.

- Failed to had a steady 30FPS as they claimed.

- Failed to "revolutionise" 3D.

- Failed to have the "most advanced" AI as they claimed.

- Failed to have a solid engine.

- Managed to succeed spewing garbage talk.

I was right not to hype this game up.

- End statement

SCW19822556d ago

Gamesradar is not notoriously anti- PS3. In fact they are my most trusted site to visit on the Internet for all reviews. And yes I am a PS3 fanboy.

Rayansaki2556d ago

Well they did do one thing right. They made the best looking game on the x360. It's still not the best looking console game, but for a multiplatform game to look better than the console's exclusives is no easy fit.

joab7772556d ago

I agree w you and it isn't an opinion. It goes back to this. Imagine if crytek built specifically for the ps3 & at release it was superior to Xbox and much closer to PC. All hell would break loose and the majority of fps gamers, which happen to b on Xbox would b in a state of shock; this would hurt sales, which is the bottom line. It appears to me that crytek used shortcuts to but was very specific in their desire to build a version that appeared to b equal to the Xbox. Well i guess,congratulations to crytek. Actually, no. This would have been acceptable a year ago, but too many builders have proven what can b done w the ps3. Right now, each time i switch between crysis 2 and k3, i have to change my display settings from 1080p to 720p. Really, the console w a blue ray player must b played on 720 to get Max settings...cmon...i am so damn tired of it.

socomnick2556d ago

why ? because the ps3 maybe can't run mlaa and the cry engine.

Perhaps the ps3 isn't as strong as people tend to believe.

pixelsword2556d ago

maybe Crytek can't run mlaa and the cry engine.

just like everyone said:

This is the best looking 360 game

This is a okay looking PS3 game

NukaCola2556d ago

So unless Gears 3 steps up the 360 Graphics Award this year is going to Crysis 2, while the PS3 will get it for Uncharted 3.

NewZealander2556d ago

yeah but MLAA causes awefull artifacts, in all honesty the only game where its looked good was god of war.

Tony-Red-Grave2556d ago

because MLAA wouldnt work on 360 im sure theres been an article stating that the 360 with MLAA becomes ustable

+ Show (7) more repliesLast reply 2555d ago
bartender642556d ago

I guess that the 360 version isn't sub hd then.

coldfoot2556d ago

Actually, it is, DF had a brain fart.

hennessey862556d ago

the ps3 is totally missing shadows on the bodybags but overall they look about the same but im going with the 360 version.

hennessey862556d ago

the proof is right there for all to see

Beefstew4u2556d ago

The first screenshot also shows off the lower resolution of the PS3 version. Probably the only pic where the two versions look completely different. Hence the disagrees.

darthv722556d ago

are because you said you were getting the 360 version.

I generally base my multiplatform choice on my friends and what they get it for. If my buddy gets it for the ps3, so shall I. Same for the 360.

A game like this is just an example of how it should be done when it comes to appeasing both ps3 and 360 sides.

hennessey862556d ago

you know what fook it im going to get the ps3 and 360 version then i please everybody, oh wait i cant get the pc version because my pc wont run it damn now im a console fanboy

Snake-eater2556d ago

credit to crytek for keeping the difference to minimal

Convas2556d ago

At long last, the only pixel counters I trust. Crytek should be congratulated. They did an EXCELLENT job.