Crysis 2: Xbox 360 startlingly weak, PC very promising

At Gamescom 2010 PC Games Hardware had the opportunity to try out the multiplayer portion of Crysis 2 on both the Xbox 360 and the PC.

Following the presentation of CryEngine 3 on a midrange PC, the 360 version looked particularly ugly. While the final output is 720p at 30fps, it is obvious that the geometry natively renders at sub-HD and gets scaled up to 720p. Paired with a lack of anti-aliasing, Crysis 2 was a flicker fest that failed to impress with its rough shadows, blocky fog effects, blurry textures and pre-calculated physics animations.

The lighting, reflections and camo mode were nice to look at but couldn't rectify the overall weak visuals. Previously published "bullshots" are nowhere close to how the console version looks.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
4553d ago Replies(28)
swiftshot934553d ago

Bubbles for everyone then!

Newtype4553d ago

I never liked Crysis, probably getting Rage over this. Crysis was made to fry your gpu out.

dosgrtr4553d ago (Edited 4553d ago )

far better than this and that's at 60 frames meaning this looks nowhere close to being the best looking game on consoles as claimed by crytek , far from it

nickjkl4553d ago (Edited 4553d ago )

we will see

@tdrules :its id software not john carmack one person doesnt automatically make the coding better for an entire team

Nihilism4553d ago (Edited 4553d ago )

You don't seem to know much about John Carmack...the technology used in MANY game engines was created by that 1 man. See developers put new dot points on the features of their engines each gen. Ambient occlusion for example...but do you think epic games etc invent these things? no they don't. J.C is one of the few innovative programmers in the industry who actually pushes technology forward rather than latch on to the flavour of the month. Ambient occlusion, although by another name...was used first in Doom 3. There is a rendering technique called 'John Carmack's Reverse' and rightly so...he invented it.

The guy literally builds rockets ( he competes with NASA engineers ) IN HIS TIME OFF. I believe he won last his victory speech in front of all the NASA tech guys...he said without the slightest hint of ego...that designing rocket tech was easier than creating graphics tech... The video is on youtube I suggest you go take a look.

"The stencil buffer implementation of shadow volumes is generally considered among the most practical general purpose real-time shadowing techniques for use on modern 3D graphics hardware. It has been popularized by the computer game Doom 3, and a particular variation of the technique used in this game has become known as Carmack's Reverse" -

A quote from the youtube clip, and the clip summary.

"It still really isn't that complicated, it is simple compared to a lot of things that we do nowadays in the modern world, in the work that I do in video games is actually far more complicated than the aerospace work" -J.C

"John Carmack of Armadillo Aerospace accepts his $350,000 Prize for winning Level 1 of the 2008 Northrop Grumman Lunar Lander Challenge. The Prize purse was put up by NASA as part of their Centennial Challenges and the competition was administered by the X PRIZE Foundation.

The Challenge is designed to accelerate commercial technological developments supporting the birth of a new generation of Lunar Landers capable of ferrying payloads or humans back and forth between lunar orbit and the lunar surface. Such a vehicle would have direct application to NASAs space exploration goals as well as the personal spaceflight industry, including the Google Lunar X PRIZE competitors. Additionally, the challenge will help industry develop the operational capacity to launch quick turnaround vertical take-off, vertical landing vehicles, which will be of significant use to many facets of the commercial launch procurement market.

The Competition is divided into two levels. Level 1 requires a rocket to take off from a designated launch area, rocket up to 150 feet (50 meters) altitude, then hover for 90 seconds while landing precisely on a landing pad 50 meters away. The flight must then be repeated in reverse—and both flights, along with all of the necessary preparation for each, must take place within a two and a half hour period."

nickjkl4553d ago (Edited 4553d ago )

dchal you went overboard with that

im just saying john carmack isnt the only one at id software its the exact thing jaffe was talking about when people talk about rage they bring up john carmack like when people brought up twisted metal it was david jaffe other people work on these things to and its like gamers just leave them out

and i know about the rockets thing he didnt do tha tby him self he had a team with him which leads to my other point its like the team doesnt get any credit just that one person

tdrules4553d ago

I am inclined to agree with you.
I mean John Carmack will always be better at coding than Crytek its no contest

ChronoJoe4553d ago

It's interesting everyone forgets what happened to IDTech4. It flopped, basically. So to say something developed by Crytek will always be worse than something developed by IDTech, doesn't seem quite right since Cry engine 1 was clearly a superior engine to IDTech 4. Hell, unreal 3 was too.

IDTech 5 looks impressive though, but seriously John Carmack isn't a god, as some of you seem to believe.

Hoje03084553d ago

I defense of Crytek, at least Crysis 2 doesn't have static environments with low poly count character models. Rage on the other hand...

PotNoodle4553d ago

I'm not a big crysis fan, i adored playing around in the engine and consistently being blown away by it - but as a game, it wasn't all that exciting for me. So while I hope it is a better game this time around, I'm also hoping they don't scale back such support on the PC version this time around - because much of the fun in crysis was messing around with the engine.