GameSpot: Crysis 2 Graphics Comparison

GameSpot takes a look at Crysis 2 and compare it to the original Crysis and Crysis Warhead in this video feature.

[theonlylolking]

They should have just made a improved cryengine 2 while adding PS3 and 360 compatibility. Not backwards and allowing PS3 and 360.

[i_like_ff7]

They did....People don't realize what a game engine is. All it a game engine is is a tool to make games. Like Photoshop is to art. Gameengine is to Games. Cryengine 3 is far more advanced then CryEngine 2.

The assets imported into CryEngine 3 are console limited. There's no magic in Computers. Crysis 1 texture and polygon numbers would never run on a console (yes we've seen a video of the level but its missing half the rendering in the game).

A game engine does not determine the texture resolution, polygon numbers and alot more. If you were to import a blocky piece of shit into CryEngine 2, it isn't going to look any better than putting it into the Source Engine. Same idea as if levels are small in CryEngine 3, importing it into CryEngine 2 isn't going to make any difference.

[DrVosknocker]

whoever disagreed with him is a moron. He's totally right, cept people don't understand...not realize. hah. But yeah, they showed a lot of destructability in PC tech demos in the past for Cryengine 3 and stuff, they might implement a lot in the rumored upcomming patch. Also the reason there's not so much destructibility is simple, Consoles have 256 MB system ram(360 splits 512 between System and GPU). Computers can affordably have 2-16GB, and much faster RAM too.

[hoops]

Crysis 2 for the PC was a let down because Crytek made comprises so it could run on consoles. Still a greta game, but it could have been better of not for consolitus LOL

[plb]

Or you could say they made it more accessible to people who complained the first one couldn't run on their system. Either say don't blame consoles blame crytek.

[Darkfocus]

If their comp could run crysis 2 it would run crysis 1 just not necessarily on max moron....

[nickjkl]

how about we wait for dx11 patch until then shut up

your basically comparing dx9 to dx10
which has improved shaders and textures over dx9

[NateCole]

I actually agree with you on this one. What it could have been. Cyrtek sold out. While C2 is the best looking multi-plat on console by far. The compromise is the PC version.

Cyrtek focused on money more than pushing the graphics boundary with c2 which dosn't make sense. C1 sold at least 3 million of PC.

[plb]

Yes but the majority of the sales came later when the hw needed to run it was significantly cheaper. Initially it didn't sell very well. You can disagree but the facts are out there if you want to search for it.

[NateCole]

But it still sold 3 million. I bet 95% of games in existence didn't reach that.

My only explanation is that Crytek wanted c2 to sell even more like current console top tier shooters as well as developing an engine for consoles.

I don't blame them for wanting more but i am kinda disappointed for not seeing real life graphics this gen which will benefits all of gaming. Thats just me.

[DrVosknocker]

Yeah, hard for me to say, but I'm slightly dissapointed to, but I still really enjoy the game. Also all I can say is just be patient and hopeful. Who knows, they might be saving something special for E3..by way of PC update. Then again, maybe not but whatever.

[dirthurts]

I feel like Crysis 2 is a much better game overall (except the ending).

The game runs better, it's just as fun, more people can play it, the mulitplayer is better, and admit it or not the graphics are better. Not necessarily more impressive (the draw distances and detail in the first game was/is mind blowing).

[Frak]

just like games are compromised on the PS3 to make sure they fit and run on the 360.

360 should have blu ray by now but it shows how much micro cares about customers

[despair]

If there wasn't a Crysis or Warhead then Crysis 2 would've been impressive but its blatantly obvious to anyone who has played all the games how much of a difference the first two were tech wise compared to Crysis 2.

I was definitely disappointed with Crysis 2 in the graphics department and what made it even worse is that they removed the open world setup of the first as well. Anyone who thinks that this was not done because of the console versions is fooling themselves and as a Crysis fan its insulting that the devs would shortchange their loyal fanbase like this.

Its like what Infinity Ward did with the COD series when it started on the PC and later versions were clearly designed with consoles in mind and the PC version an afterthought.

Saddest part is that the gameplay of Crysis also loses some of its identity in Crysis 2 and it feels so much more like a generic shooter than something made with tactics and freedom in mind.

Crysis 2 is a good game when compared to others of the genre but a poor sequel when compared to its own predecessors and that's from a massive fan of the series.

[kevnb]

they made it for three platforms instead of one, it has to work on all platforms. Its not about one platform or another being an afterthought... what you and other whiny pc gamers are doing is asking them to forget about consoles completely. Besides, I dont want devs designing games that wont even work on most gamers computers... blizzard and valve have proven that isnt what gamers want time and time again.
Im more than happy with a game I can run at 60 fps and 1080p without spending 2000-3000 on release, heck even now it would cost around 1000-1500 to run crysis 1 on max settings and 60 fps... ridiculous.

And yes I know you can lower the settings in crysis, but then it doesnt even look all that great anymore.

[despair]

clearly you don't know what you're talking about, firstly its not about prioritizing the PC over the consoles, its about getting the best out of every system that you can. Secondly you are very much mistaken if you think that you need such an expensive machine to run Crysis 1 on max.

On top of that Crysis is a very scalable game, you could run it on medium to low setting on most budget computers and it still looks better than most other games, its only the higher more impressive settings that tax the system so much, also while I agree Crysis 1 was not very optimized for lower end computers, Warhead was a little better.

The devs said it was made to run with future tech and the highest settings would be more accessible as the technology evolved, its a great system for anyone who wants a great looking game years later.

Also there are many games out there where the PC version gives all the options and extras that won't work on the consoles while still keeping the console version at a high standard. Simple things like button sets for leaning left and right are easy to add for a PC and many FPS games include it on the PC but its no on consoles, also not having an advanced settings option in graphics is ridiculous especially when a modder made one in a couple days.

Oh and Blizzard and Valve are good at optimizing their games for PC but you are mistaken if you think they focus only on lower cost PCs for best results. Sure you could run them on the budget PCs but when Half Life 2 first came out I couldn't run it on anything but low-medium settings and it still looked great, but for the higher end PCs it still had the high settings that looked amazing. BTW Half Life 2 was the benchmark for graphics for a number of years.

Blizzard's only game released in recent times has been Starcraft 2 and if you played it you will realise its a power hog at highest settings, you need a very capable computer to max it but lower settings usually runs on the budget comps easy. When Warcraft 3 was released it chugged on my system at higher settings as well, same with WoW back then.

Educate yourself before spouting nonsense, if you check my comment history you would see I'm not a PC only gamer but that does not mean I will ignore clear signs that PC games are getting shafted because of consoles. Its not fanboyism its a mere observation with many examples.

[buckley]

Do you know how hard you would have to try to build a computer that costs $3000? Even if you reached $2000, you're taking on all sorts of aesthetically pleasing things to get it that high.

You can easily build a powerhouse computer for $1000, and you can make a perfectly strong system for well under that. How do I know? I played the original Crysis when it first came out on a rig that cost less than $1000 at the time. If you actually had played it, you would know how ridiculous it is to say that lowering the settings made it look "not all that great." It still looked better than anything at the time on medium settings.

Actually, the truly crazy part is playing the original Crysis with everything turned all of the way up looks better than anything out TODAY, years after its release. That's quite an achievement.

I love consoles, and I love PC as well. But it's just blatantly obvious who the gamers out there are who have not spent adequate time on all platforms, because they say things like this.

[kevnb]

clearly you are just ignoring what I said altogether. Show me a system that can run crysis at 60 fps at even high settings that was built in 2007 for under 1000... You would of needed one of the best cpus out, sli 8800s, a beefy power supply, a case to hold all of it etc... A single 5850 only gets an average of 37 fps paired with an i7 at 1680*1050, without aa. and dont tell me crysis looks good on medium. Moders did alot to fix the first crysis, crysis 2 will be no different.

http://www.youtube.com/watc...
far cry looked better and played better than crysis on medium for goodness sake. Yes I know farcry was more stylized and wasnt quite as ambitious with the physics etc... but it was damn well nicer to look at at previously mentioned settings.

There is a pattern though, every crytek game is worse than the last..

[despair]

@kevnb

Unlike you I don't need a youtube vid to show me crysis at different settings, I actually set it at lowest to see what it looked like(to refresh my memory) before I posted before and It still looks great, and thats lowest settings. The average gamer back in 2007 could run it at medium settings at least.

I know one 8800 GT could get upper medium settings(a $150 card then), remember its not limited to just low, medium, high and Ultra High, you can tweak each part of it to your preference(AA,AF etc).

And I did not avoid your point, I said that the game was made with future tech in mind, it was not meant to be played at maximum settings by the average gamer but at around medium settings and it was better looking at that setting than anything out or that came out for at least a year.

You are thinking that it has to run at maximum and that crytek made a mistake for having the highest settings that killed almost every comp back then, but you don't realise that they could have released the game with highest settings being around medium and it would still be rated the best graphics at the time and still be an amazing game. But they decided to push all they could out of the game engine and let those who are true enthusiast get a treat with the ridiculously gorgeous graphics at the high and ultra high settings.

Crysis 2 did the first thing I said, they limited the tech and basically ommitted things to get it to work properly on the consoles and instead of putting all that as options in the PC version with a push to the boundaries of graphics like the first Crysis did, they kept that limited tech and used it for the PC so that all 3 versions would look similar to each other.

The main thing that changed from the first game to the second one is that its available on consoles and thats when we see all the limitations they put on a game prided for its open ended approach,open world feel, plus its gorgeous graphics. Yet they basically either gimped or removed all 3 of those things.

You have to be naive to think that when it comes to consoles the game series cuts back on what its most know for, graphics and open world, but its not related to the limits on the consoles.

Far Cry looked better than Crysis low settings HAHAAHAHA.

[buckley]

The points being disagreed with here were these: "devs designing games that wont even work on most gamers computers..."

and

"And yes I know you can lower the settings in crysis, but then it doesnt even look all that great anymore."

Kinda funny you accuse me of ignoring what you said when you're now asking for me to provide for you a computer setup that could run the original Crysis at 60fps at high settings in 2007 for less than $1000... when I said I was running it on medium on my sub-$1000 rig in 2007. And yes, the medium settings looked better than anything else on any platform at the time. If you wanted to run it on high, you'd have been encroaching on enthusiast terrority, and you'd have to spend some cash for that.

This is also assuming that you did no tweaking whatsoever to the settings and just stuck with the presets. And anyone even slightly enthusiastic will spend some time tweaking, certainly. But this is another area where consolization took its toll on Crysis 2.

And I'd have to sharply disagree that Far Cry looks better than Crysis on medium settings. To each his own, I guess, but that's borderline preposterous.

[PS360PCROCKS]

Absolutely despair, you're 100% correct. I built my PC in January and was stoked for Crysis 2. I downloaded Warhead and played through a bit of it before Crysis 2 came out. When I played the demo of Crysis 2 I immediately noticed the static environments, awful textures, lame physics and non destructible environments. i bought the game hoping it was just a demo on low settings to let everyone try.

Boy was I wrong, while Crysis 2 is pretty it took steps back in many regards and that's disappointing. With the DX11 came improved performance, tessellation and so on and it's a shame at launch it doesn't utilize it. Crytek ruined their own reputation for graphic kings by releasing a lame duck PC version.

That coupled with the glitches, the flickering on my SLI setup and other issues i've found myself going back to Warhead. I even downloaded Crysis to mod it and play through it as well because unfortunately for me Crysis 2 isn't playable with the flickering. Everyone keeps screaming "PC CRYBABIES!" but if they played Crysis/Warhead and than Crysis 2 they would all be doing what we're doing, scratching are heads and thinking "Wtf?"

[Wuu]

Crysis 2 have a lot more problems then they showed in this video. Still good game!

[dreamoner]

pff.. enough with the comparisons...

[tepkisiz]

LOL at the last scene. Poor guy literally disappeared. I sometimes felt for the koreans in the Crysis and Crysis WH. I dont think they deserved what I did to them :)

[kevnb]

thats all true, but crysis 1 doesnt even look good unless you have a beefy rig... even today nearly 4 years after release.

[kaveti6616]

No, a midlevel PC of today can max out Crysis. Metro 2033 is the problem.

[i_like_ff7]

8800gt is a card that came out in 2007

[kevnb]

you cant max crysis with an 8800 gt...

http://www.tomshardware.com...

just to give an idea how much crysis chews up even modern cards. And no, 16-25 fps at 1024*768 isnt playable.

[llMurcielagoll]

Is it likely that when Crysis 2 gets its DX11 support on PC, would it look better than it is now?

[Wuu]

It's all depends how they will implement DirectX 11 features, if they just slap on some light effect and not use all DX11 functionality, there will be no difference.

Dx11 cant bee upgraded from Dx9 easily, they actually have to make new game from begging.

[tubers]

Direct X11 is now officially announced but they said it will be available later on indefinitely.

Direct X11 CAN/MAY add visuals to performance ratio OR they may even add a texture pack along with it.

AFAIK, textures, physics and amount of object destructibility ISN'T BOUND on current APIs (like DX11 or 10). These are the main problems with Crysis 2 PC other than gameplay.

But surely the devs may release these along with a DX11 "patch" just to push the API.. not because it's exclusive with the DX11.

[PS360PCROCKS]

All I want is a texture pack and tessellation and i'll be happy. That's it, tessellation is beautiful and I built my PC for the latest and greatest and no Crytek game shouldn't be utilizing it. The games still gorgeous, just very static and consolized.

[llMurcielagoll]

Thanks lads for clearing this up, in conclusion when DX11 support arrive it will look somewhat better but of course not completely.

@Disagree, it is kind of uncalled for disagreeing with someone who is trying to know what will happen when DX 11 support. Its not like I was with or against at this point to have a solid agree or a disagree.

[xtremegamerage]

Well alot of you are going to be pissed, because CRYSIS 3 is set in LONDON.

[RockmasteR]

Imagine Crysis 2 will have the same requirements as Crysis 1 by today's measures
Crysis needed a 6800 GT but it will look so ugly
with a 8800 GT you can play Crysis 2 with high resolution and it will look great, for anyone who needs more just wait for the DX11 patch

[kevnb]

I think crysis 2 is much more in tune with the rigs people actually own. And the gameplay is more in tune with what gamers want to play. COD4 wooped them good in 2007 for a reason.