Crysis 2: Extracted gameplay footage from PS3 & Xbox 360

Cynamite has posted a video showing just the Crysis 2 ingame scenes from the latest episode of GTTV in HD. These scenes are from the console versions of the game, showing what is supposed to be "the best looking game on any platform" (Crytek). Enjoy!

[gamingisnotacrime]

as of late i dont get into hype frenzy, i will rent this game, play it for myself and see if it is worth a buy. meanwhile i will play what is already released and proven to be great

[Conloles]

Console gamers arent because theres nothing to see unless its on PC!

[t850]

Console gaming is like a religion. When Sony or Microsoft say something(which obviously they do to sell their product), it is considered to be the hard truth.

Console gamers are fed all sort of crap. Every other Dev will come out and say oh we have maxed out the *insert here console* except when they release the next game they will spout the same crap. Crytek is doing no different. Devs need to feed console owners such crap to make sure their games sell.

[gamingisnotacrime]

lol at the religion reference. Im a console gamer and i can see what you are saying. Even if the developer is humble like ND or SM they always go for the maxed out comment, or only possible on ____. Well as i said, i dont grt into hype trains anymore just deliver a great game and i will buy it

[seinfan]

If that's the case, PC gamers are like fundamentalists. They don't need to be told anything, they'll just come up with anything to defend their platform and attack others. They will never come to reason.

[AtatakaiSamurai]

a lot of butthurt PC fanboys this gen. Awwwww lol

yes ofcourse you have a pc you built out of sticks and berries that run all your games at max settings.

10yrs ago you'd never catch a pc fan even talking to console gamers. their noses were so far up their own butts it was ridiculous but now they troll console forums like mad trying to get gamers to still believe they have the ultimate gaming experiences and get mad when console gamers say they dont give a crap about pc gaming.

all the time "maxed out settings, maxed out settings, maxed out settings" how low have pc fans become when they always use the 'we get the superior version' fanboy rantings all the time lol

only what 10% of pc gamers actually have high end pc rigs that can push those 'maxed out settings' but they want you to believe 90% of them do. console gamers just have to buy a console for $299 and get graphics the like medium high on pc and that more that satisfactory for console gamers. wait, i thought graphics dont' matter its only gameplay O.o lol

sorry we don't care about starcraft2 or wow as much as you think we should but we'll take crysis thank you very much even though the gameplay doesn't remotely match the graphics :)

butthurt ftw! lol

[Strikepackage Bravo]

Correction, when Sony says something it is considered hard truth, everything Microsoft says is supposedly a lie.

[t850]

Sony said:

ALL PS3 games would run in 1080.. never happened (this is how kutragi marketed the PS3).

Further he went on to say the PS3 shall play games in 1080p and have 120 fps again another lie.

They promoted the PS3 to have BC for PS2 and PS1.. where did that go?

Though the fans will belive them with whatever they are told. Specially with remarks like.... "oh we have only used 50% the PS3 power fo XXX game"..

Lol if you have s much power left over, are your Devs retarted that they didnt use the remaining power? or why not give us better fps, why are most of your first party games running in 720(let alone 1080p), and still running at a mere 25-30fps. Anyone with Basic PC knowledge will tell ya if so much power is left over the game shuld be running at much higher FPS. While some of Sonys first party games are good i personally love uncharted, i wouldnt fall for the pack of lies Sony generally feeds its fanboys with.

[shazui123]

No
Only crysis and warhead look better than games like uc2, kz2, GT5, GOW3, KZ3... So far crysis 2 isnt topping any of those games visually. Maybe alan wake or splinter cell conviction look worse than some multiplats when ran at max, but not games like uncharted 2, GOW3, KZ2/3, GT5 etc. This is from my personal experience on my asus G73JH and my desktop (q9950, gtx 2950) every multiplat is outdone graphically by UC2, KZ2, GOW3, GT5 etc. The fact is that the ps3 gets all these multiplats, albeit looking slightly worse, but also gets the highest rated (better) exclusive games than the pc. If you only own a pc you can only play the overall much lower rated multiplats. Jus' saying.

[Chewy102]

Im a mild PC gamer and let me tell you about a trend Iv seen with PC games for a long time now.

It's almost pure FPS shooters! Everyone in my friends list on steam plays almost nothing but shooters. Some play WoW and maybe the odd indie game but for the most part of the day, all I see is them playing L4D2, L4D, Killing Floor, Gmod, CSS, TF2, and MW2.

What exactly does the PC have over consoles that's not a MMO or FPS? Oh, and please don't try and bring Crysis into this. Even though it's one hell of a graphics power house. It's still just another FPS.

p.s. IF you want look me up on steam. Id is Chewy102.

[nycredude]

t850

Oh come off it with your BS. You wouldn't know the difference between 720p and 1080p if it bit you in your ass. I have a pc that runs Crysis on High settings in 1080p and while it looks great it's not miles ahead of the best Ps3 games, which runs in 720p. There is more to graphics than resolution. Besides there are low res textures in Crysis all over the place and there isn't nearly as much going on like in Killzone 2.

And what first party games run at a mere 25 to 30 fps. UC2 and Killzone 2 is locked at 30 fps and looks way better than pretty much every pc game not named Crysis on very high and 1080p. GOW 3, which looks just as good runs between 30 to 60 fps. Rcchet and Clank, which looks gorgeous, runs at 60fps, as does GT5.

Oh btw did I mention you can't play any of these games on the PC no matter how powerful or how much money you pump in.

Also you talk like every pc is capable of running games on very high and 1080p with 4Xaa at 60+fps. How much do you think it would cost for that PC. The average pc can't run games better than your consoles can. It isn't because it isn't more powerful, that is obvious but developers don't optimize as much on pc cause by the time your brand new Graphics Card is broken there is new one out.

I have had every console at one point or another and now I have a beast of a laptop. I see clearly enough to know that PC graphics are hyped up a little too much just to put down the consoles.

[Chris_TC]

<<Only crysis and warhead look better than games like uc2, kz2, GT5, GOW3, KZ3... >>

Are you kidding me? Check out some of those in-game galleries of multiplatform titles pushed to the max.
http://www.flickr.com/photo...
http://www.flickr.com/photo...

[iamgoatman]

Looks like the idiots have come out to play again.

Every Crysis article is starting to look exactly the same, a handful of people stick to the topic at hand, and the rest start some arguing amongst themselves.

And by the looks of things, the typical Sony trolls have moved onto hating PC gaming, showing what a bunch of insecure, misinformed morons they really are. The need to put down any platform that isn't their preferred is getting rather pathetic. Not to mention their knowledge on hardware and technology is worse than my Nan's.

Some of the other PC gamers aren't helping though, provoking them any chance they get. You're not helping.

@shazui123

Again with the nothing apart from Crysis looks better than PS3 exclusives, when will you stop talking such bullshit? Loads of multiplatform games look better than anything a console can produce, it's the advantage of constantly improving technology. Bad Company 2, Metro 2033, Stalker: Clear Sky, all with DX11 effects. Far Cry 2 and Arma 2 to name some more.

Your preferred console is now 3 years old, and uses aging technology. You seriously can't expect it to produce anything on par with newer and more powerful hardware. Your PS3 exclusives may have the best visuals on consoles, but PC's are in a different league. You PS3 fans repeatedly claim nothing on the 360 can look better because it's hardware is weaker, but somehow that logic doesn't apply to PC's? Hypocrisy at it's finest.

Your exclusives are not the pinnacle of graphics capabilities, but does that distract away from their quality? No, of course not, so stop spouting nonsense because you feel the need to defend them. I play games that are 5,10 or 15 years old all the time, do I expect their visuals to still be top of the line? No, that would be stupid. Are they still fun, definitely. So give it a rest.

[IdleLeeSiuLung]

Nothing comes close to PC when it comes to GPU power. New technology is coming all the time and it is rolled into the latest and greatest couple of hundred bucks graphics card. No console can compete with that!

However, console games tend to be much more efficient at using their resources as the PC market is somewhat fragmented. You code for the most part as a baseline supporting the odd chip here and there.

I still prefer my console, mainly because of the interface and seating position. I also don't want to constantly mock around with drivers, adding new hardware (or feel compelled to) and you pretty much have to use mouse/kb otherwise you get creamed which means no leaning back on the couch comfortably.

With that said there is more to graphics than resolution. In fact, it tends to be the art style that affects the graphics the most. I still think Prince of Persia is one heck of a good looking game, although game play was wise it was blah.

[n4gno]

T850 like others fans (from ms mostly) invent sony's promises, and after tell us they are lying..ridiculous :)

i've always been a pc gamers (even now : it's great to play the 1 or two xbox """exclusives&q uot;"" with better quality and free online) and even with a perfect pc, we can't play games like uncharted2, ratchet, etc and graphics on ps3's exclusives are on par, or even better then pc games on a tv screen.

[SOAD]

http://www.youtube.com/watc...

http://www.youtube.com/watc...

These videos prove to me that Crysis on max settings with the Photoreal Mod, which is free, looks many miles better than any game on consoles.

Many many many many many many miles.

[frostypants]

Actually, the Cell could smoke the RSX in most graphics processing tasks. The original PS3 spec was to have a 2nd Cell acting as a dedicated GPU. The only reason they didn't was cost and, to a lesser extent, the aforementioned learning curve for developers.

The best looking PS3 games actually offload a lot of the traditional GPU tasks from the RSX to the Cell itself instead. The RSX really is pretty weak, and it's a testament to the Cell architecture that some of the PS3 games look as good as they do.

If you want another superficial example, look at the Folding@Home numbers (if they still publish these). The PS3/Cell architecture destroys the traditional CPUs, and is more in line with PC GPUs. It's the same way with games. Most PC games are far more reliant on a powerful GPU than on the CPU. The PS3 is the opposite. It relies primarily on the Cell, and the RSX is used for mop-up duty (at least, for the better games).

Comparing the Cell to, say, a typical quad core Intel chip or the 360's PowerPC procesor is like comparing apples to bricks. The old assumptions don't apply.

[failsoles]

@frostypants

Stop falling for sonys PR crap. If the Cell was so powerful, then Sonys first party games would be running at much higher resolutions AA and FPS. Clearly thats not happening.

Sony spends alot on their games, I guess they must have terrible devs who cant code to save their lives and therefore are unable to take full advantage of the Cell... NOT

Also if the Cell is so complicated to code for then its not an advantage for the end gamer asides just.. PR Bull(which does no good for a gamer). Cell being powerful yet no multiplat developer taking advantage of it, So when will they take advantage of it when the next gen starts? oh wait wont that be a bit too late?

[nycredude]

SOAD

For real youtube vids. I don't need it to tell me what I know. I am playing Crysis right NOW on my computer! I know how it looks like. I never said console is more powerful than pc. I said that pc developers don't take advantage of the pc power cause they don't optimize. Not only are the current crop of the best console exclusives as good looking but they play better than most pc games.

Your vid proves my point. The photoreal mod is a MOD.

This below is not directed at you SOAD:
And what is the deal with retards who come here is call out Sony Trolls like if you own Ps3 and like Ps3 then you don't have any other console or pc. GTFO. Like I said I have owned just about every console this gen at one point or another. I have since gotten rid of my Wii and 360 cause frankly 1) I don't have time for all five platforms and 2) Ps3 and PC give me all the options I need atm.

[DaTruth]

Scientific benchmarks are PR crap now??? The stats don't lie!

Stupid 360 fanboys finally faced that their console is crap and now they troll as PC fanboys and don't even have capable PC's!

[Ryudo]

Now change what you said about PC fanboys into PS3 Fanboys because it apples just as much to them as see if you get as many agrees.

In reference to this post.

"lol, oh dare
a lot of butthurt PC fanboys this gen. Awwwww lol

yes ofcourse you have a pc you built out of sticks and berries that run all your games at max settings.

10yrs ago you'd never catch a pc fan even talking to console gamers. their noses were so far up their own butts it was ridiculous but now they troll console forums like mad trying to get gamers to still believe they have the ultimate gaming experiences and get mad when console gamers say they dont give a crap about pc gaming.

all the time "maxed out settings, maxed out settings, maxed out settings" how low have pc fans become when they always use the 'we get the superior version' fanboy rantings all the time lol

only what 10% of pc gamers actually have high end pc rigs that can push those 'maxed out settings' but they want you to believe 90% of them do. console gamers just have to buy a console for $299 and get graphics the like medium high on pc and that more that satisfactory for console gamers. wait, i thought graphics dont' matter its only gameplay O.o lol

sorry we don't care about starcraft2 or wow as much as you think we should but we'll take crysis thank you very much even though the gameplay doesn't remotely match the graphics :)"

[peowpeow]

10% is alot though..especially if 5 million ATi 5xxx cards were sold a while back. Count in the rest and you have a preeety big crowd :)

[arny]

since when do consoles have 'medium' pc graphics the graphics consoles have are what the pc had in 200 i would rate consoles as low end pc's

[R6ex]

Console gaming is value for money.
Can't say the same for PC gaming.

Console's for the masses.
PC's for the rich & elitist.

[champ21]

Not true.

Gaming PC costs a 150usd upgrade to the PC you already have at home. A new one wil cost you 500usd that will run games at 1080p.

Consoles while they initially cost you 300usd, over time you pay alot extra for the games. Which is why consoles are costlier in the long run (which is about a year if you are gamer) more if you dont buy as many games).

In the end which one of us doesnt have a PC now adays at home? the point is moot since the PC already needs a GPU to outperform a console multiple times.

[Biggest]

But what if the PC you have doesn't have extra slots on the mother board? What if the power supply isn't strong enough? What if you only have 2 RAM slots? Call PC cheap all you want. Everything isn't upgraded at the drop of a hat for $11 and change. Enjoy your PC. I'll enjoy my console and its inferior version of whatever game that we both get to play. How's that Uncharted 2 working on Windows?

[shazui123]

does not cost 150 dollars to upgrade your average household pc. To run games at 1080p, lets say no aa, all effects on the very highest, you're going to need at least a 9800gtx+, dual core @ 2.6ghz and 4gb ddr2 ram and even then a few games will not run more than 10 fps with all the settings enabled at 1080p (no aa). My old laptop struggled to run quite a few games at max @ 1600x900, this was using a core 2 duo @2.9ghz, gtx 280m (equivalent to a desktop 9800gtx) and 6gb ddr2 ram. The thing is spending all that money on a computer will let you play crysis on max and multiplats at max. With the ps3 you get to play games like UC2, GOW3, KZ2/3, GT5 which all look better than any multiplat even when ran at it's maximum settings, the only thing that trumps them visually is crysis and even that falls down when it comes to gameplay which is why its not up there with the very best of them on metacritic and in opionions not belonging to pc fanboys

Interesting, In half a minute (yes I time :P) I went from having 0 disagrees to 4 and looking at people saying exactly what Im saying they seem to have spontaneously achieved exactly four disagrees, there's a sour multi-account pc fanboy here that only likes to hear his own opinion voiced.. Lets see who replies to these comments first.....
edit: failsoles, who would've guessed lol. He also spontaneously got 3 agrees so assuming he agreed with himself and both him and his other accounts were disagreeing... the math works out, 3+1 = multi-account fanboy

[Ju]

It's not even that.

It's more like who buys a Ferrari and want's to work on it on his/her own garage?

PC gamers like to batch up their "rieegs" at least once a year (don't tell me you don't, or you wouldn't run to any tech forum to read about the latest brand spanking new graphics board - you can't wait to save up money to replace it once every quater).

I wouldn't even call "them" elitist. They are not. Maybe some are, doubt most of the rich kids build their own (and the few who go an buy a brand new Alienware box are a minority). But the rest are "home constructors" having fun playing with some tech.

Heck I did that for years but you can do that for just so long...

[failsoles]

@R6ex

What does a console gamer do when the next gen console is out?

Usually they would unplug the ageing old machine out and insert the new generation of consoles. Since its a multi console trend. Most console gamers will have all the systems onboard. Leaving no space for the old machine.

Result at the end of the generation use probably lose the ability to play any of your old games, and now must run out to buy new games.

Software purchased over a gen is the most expensive asset a gamer does have. I am sure most gamers buy 15-20games a year.

59 X 20= 1180usd worth of games a year, times that by 5. You get about a 5500usd worth of investment on games all lost when a console gen ends. Start of the gen you must run out to buy any game that is out since you have no games to play on the new system.

PC side of things, most PC gamers by now have 100's of games in their collection. Most playable.

See all the console folks begging their respective console maker for the remake of such and such game. Looks sad that they must repurchase wht they previously could play on their last system.

Software losses alone on consoles make them the most expensive platform to play on, nevermind the other disavantages.

[lve2playbball]

I agree with Ju...PC is definitely not for the "rich & elitist"
I grew up with Macs (is what my dad used), and I remember when I decided that I wanted a Windows PC. I was in 7th grade and some kid brought the original Rainbow 6 to school. I saw him planning his mission, setting waypoints, loadouts, etc. I thought that was the coolest thing (and it was at the time).
I got into building computers in the next few years and worked many crappy jobs. The first job I had, besides mowing lawns, was as a telemarketer (I was 16). I worked for one month--making $8.50 an hour--until I had enough to buy the parts, and built my first PC. After that I was constantly looking to upgrade my "rig" with whatever money I could scrounge. I've never met a 'rich' PC gamer...ever. I know they exist, but like Ju said, they buy Alienware.
It's funny seeing the fanboys (most of them PS3) reaction every time someone mentions the graphical capabilities of a high-end PC. WE GET IT GUYS--you love your PS3, and more specifically "UC2, KZ2, GOWIII, GT5, etc" ...

Another thing...It's ridiculous how PS3 boys always include KZ3 and GT5 (and before its release, GOWIII) in your PS3 propaganda. I know they will look good, we all do, but they AREN'T OUT YET.

btw I have PS3 & 360 (& a decent PC)...I actually didn't enjoy KZ2 at all. But UC2 is one of my favorite games of all time...as is GOW.

CMON disagrees

[kevnb]

the ones that realize what they are actually buying.

[ProjectVulcan]

Everyone stop arguing about PS3 or PC. Pc + PS3. Its the perfect HD combination, PS3's exclusives and a lot of the ultimate versions of games on 360....

[MNicholas]

There's no per-object motion blur, only the generic, cheap, camera blur that so many games have nowadays.

Learn about rendering motion blur on a GPU:
http://http.developer.nvidi...

Killzone 2 had incredible motion blur but then again their engine was built to utilize the Cell processor.

The cinematic quality of the motion blur in Killzone 2, which requires recalculating vertex transforms from the previous frame (basically doubling polygon calculations) then finding the differences, required less than 10% of a single SPU but can be prohibitive on GPUs.

Sadly, this kind of compromise is common in multiplatform games and it goes both ways.

[raztad]

This is off topic:

Hey, I got a honest question for PC dudes.

I want to built a CHEAP but powerful enough PC to run STALKER:Call of Pripyat at 1080p (plugged to my TV through HDMI), 4xMSAA, v-synced and 30+ fps. I need some advice, I'm on a budget and cant expand more than $150 on a graphic card.

Thanks.

[YouAndSpaghetti]

CHEAP? won't happen, Call of Pripyat is a system hog, un-optimized pos, your going to lag one way or another, be it spikes or stutters, $150 won't get you 1080p 4xMSAA and 30 fps+. Save up.

[Theonetheonly]

depends on if you want DirectX 11 enabled or not. :)
let me know I build Pcs for a Living.

[ChozenWoan]

I got my 5850 for less than $150... but that was back in Nov. You still should be able to get one near that price.

[E46M3]

You could go for a single 5770 atm. which should cost you about 125usd.

later on when you have the money add a second 5770. Crossfire both of them. Thats gonna give you performance around the level of a 5870gpu which costs around 400usd ;-)

good luck

[nycredude]

Do you have 1,700 to spare. Get the Asus G73jha-1 laptop. Plays just about everything on high at 1080p and has hdmi out. Gpu is Ati radeon 5870 Mobility.

[solar]

Crysis 2 will be a dumbed down version of the first. which is 1) bad for the progression of PC gaming, and 2) bad for the progression of console gaming. console gaming is 4-5 years behind PC gaming to begin with, but a complete stop to progression is not good for PC or console gaming as a whole.

[beardpapa]

the player needs lasik done. Every thing a block and a half away looks blurry.

*squint*

[thewhoopimen]

@ChrisTC

Great High res shots of Mass Effect2 and MW2 for the PC, but neither of them have higher poly NOR higher res textures than the PS3 titles you are working to discredit. Sorry dude. 1920 x 1080 on a 20k poly charc is still 20k. What we should really be looking at is the 50+k poly charcs on Uncharted 2 blown up to 1920 x 1080 to see if having double the poly makes any difference at higher res.

Also, while we're talking about multiplats, why don't we compare mocap between the ps3 exclusive vs. multiplat PC titles. I guarantee you killzone2 or uncharted 2 look better in motion than ME2/MW2 and certainly even better than the vaunted Crysis, especially between transition moves, like landing jumps, going from running to climbing a ladder, etc.

I'm curious because at 720p, it does seem like the 25k poly charc from GOW3 isn't noticeably inferior to Uncharted 2s, but I think most of the poly is wasted on reproducing hair.

[N4g_null]

This is what direct x 11 is for. Make a 20k-40k character and then use tessalaton on the pc. It works perfecly and we don't need the remake every thing. This is the only reason you don't see giant jumps n pc Polygon counts unless your just filling the screen with static meshes like ut2.

Every thing your complaint about is art related and not powe related. We've had cgi quality animation tools for a while yet we don't always get great returns. So what you see is cost cutting measure mostly also. Yet mostly a lack of skills. I hate to say it but most game artist can not hang with movie vfx guys even f gaming tech can get close to real time cgi.

See the difference. I can buy a cheap laptop that puts avid workstation to shame now. The power is there yet the funds are not always. Cost is getting out of hand and the returns are narrowing.

[dirthurts]

As a huge fan of the original I'm amped about the next Crysis. I'm just glad the console gamers will get a piece of the piece.
Here's to hoping the PC version doesn't suffer for it!

[iamgoatman]

Same here.

Quite a few of my friends were interested in the first game, but never had a PC capable of running it. Just so long as they don't limit the PC version to cater to the console crowd, I'm all for more people enjoying the game.

Roll on later this year!

[Fireseed]

Yeah i doubt it'll sell well on consoles, PC gamers have different tastes than console gamers kinda the reason I see Portal and TF2 as amazing games as my console biased friends think they're steaming shit piles. Besides $ony fanboys are still in love with the idea that the PS3 is more powerful than a gaming PC.

[sourav93]

and I think that only idiots would say that consoles are more powerful than pcs in terms of gaming. Its to be noted that I do not have a gaming pc nor do I play pc games. My favourite game currently is Uncharted 2. However, my dream is to own an Alienware area 51 alx to play crysis and other amazing pc games. The point of this comment is that please do not blame all sony fans for something only some idiots believe. That is all.

[Fireseed]

I would never blame a gamer. I blame $ony, M$, and even PC fanboys the difference between a gamer and a fanboy is a gamer doesn't like a game, while a fanboy thinks anyone who likes the game is retarded. My favorite game at the moment is Starcraft 2 (Mac), but can't wait for inFamous 2 (PS3). So don't feel bad you're a true gamer not a fanboy.

[BloodyNapkin]

Steaming piles of @#$%, huh? I like the way you manifested that comment. But anywho i knew alot of people that was mad the first 3 months of the game cause TF2 did not play very well online. And i just gave up on it and said i would never buy another valve game again. Sure they got it fixed and working good later on. Sure the Ps3 isn't as powerful as a gaming PC. But for dollar for dollar the PS3 wins hands down.

[DA_SHREDDER]

Okay, do you idiots realize that the ps3 has a 3.2 Ghz cell processor? The only thing that is limiting the ps3 is the RAM memory. The ps3 could mop the floor with the competition if it had more than half a Gig of memory. I wonder what you pc dudes are gonna say when a new and improved cell comes out with the ps4, that not only is a cpu, but a gpu and with 3 gigs of RAM. You pc guys are a dying breed.

@ Winter Soldier

Community huh? PC community is even worse then console community, hackers are 1 million times worse on pc then on consoles. Which is why i dont play on pc anymore.

[champ21]

@shredder

Lol shredder so if the cell is so powerful then why did sony at the last moment decide to go for a dedicated gpu(PC tech)?

Also Ghz has nothing to do with how powerful a chip is. Remember the old P4 it used to run at 4ghz before it was discontinued yet the dual core cpus of today running at 2.6ghz will outperform that old cpu by miles.

[raztad]

@champ1

My guess is The Cell BE is a nightmare to code for, so a more standard GPU obviously help to soft the learning curve. The SPUs are the principal workhorse behind PS3 exclusives no the RSX.

[DA_SHREDDER]

Im sure there are many reasons why they put a crappy GPU on their system. For one, dbag devs who aren't familiar with console architecture can at least try to make a game. BTW, if the gpu is such garbage then why are there games that look as good as Uncharted 2 and God of War 3 on the system? Its obviously not that shitty.

Oh and I agree Champ. My single core lap top is alot faster than my 2.8 ghz dual core I had last year. Maybe the ps3 being powerful has something to do with multi threading, which leads to less bottle necks when transferring information from one side of the chip to the other. Ive seen documentary about the benefits of Cell computing. And I guess one of the perks is how smooth and fast the data transfer rate is. Regardless the cell is still in its infant stage. I see it taking over core computing considering core computing is almost maxed out. More than a quad core and computing turns into a cluster fuck. So engineers say.

Why did I get a disagree. Almost everything I just said is a fact, besides my opinion on why there is a crappy GPU in the ps3. Its opinion because you said it was, i was just trying to speak your language. Personally anything more than a 9800 GTX is over kill imho.

@ Sourav 93 Your dream is to play a 3 year old game on Max settings on pc? Wow, if thats the case I wanna play Dragon Warrior 4, in 1080p with online and full destructibility. lol. Now thats really dreamin huh?

[t850]

@shredder

Dude had they not put the crappy GPU in there, RSX for that time really was crappy i agree, The PS3 would have been a PS2.5

No way the Cell can compete with a GPU like RSX when it comes to Graphics. Having 2 Cells in the PS3 would have botched the performance of the entire machine. Sony would have loved to use 2 cells since they wouldnt have to deal with nvidia then.

[n4gno]

gamers are gamers ! and today they are buyin more consoles then hi end PC, it's a fact (pc gaming is not dead, but less powerfull than before : because online where only for pc)

ps : T850, why would you whant a more powerfull ps3, when even the most powerfull pc, costing 3, 4 times more don't outperform a ps3 (not maxed out !), and don't offer the same game quality...if you had to buy a "cell" for your pc in 2007, it would have cost 5 or 10 time the ps3 price (by the way, don't forget that super calculator are often made with multiple ps3)

[dirthurts]

Fanboys are funny. But they really miss out on so many great games.

[Fireseed]

I know one thing that can never be beat on PC besides graphics is the community so many great games live on for years, and all the mods and community updates give the games new life that you can never get on consoles. Best examples are the Unofficial Elder Scrolls 4: Oblivion Patch which fixed like over 3,000 bugs, and Starcraft an age old game that I still play online.

[mal_tez92]

I like how its on consoles now, seeing as how I sold my PC

I'm liking the graphics and destruction, hopefully the shooting is fun

[nickjkl]

in a darth vader voice : the fan boy is strong in you green

[I HARLEM I]

............

[Moonboots]

But talk about an understatement.. I think that looks amazing and if that is truely running on a console then I am impressed.

It seems like Crytek are going to deliver on their console talk and it's not even finished yet. I'm going to have to get this one on PC however, but I am going to give the console(s) version's a solid look and will be watching to see how this engine does.

[BYE]

Gameplay seems exactly the same as Crysis 1. So nothing special...

As for the graphics to be honest they don't look as groundbreaking as the hype suggested.

[dirthurts]

It should be similar to the first Crysis. The first Crysis was fantastic. If they can take that same gameplay and make it work in a city on the consoles that's pretty impressive.

[Gamester101]

Crysis was hardly fantastic. Aside from the visuals it was an average shooter.

[hoops]

Actually Crysis was a great shooter. It just not the linear corridor shootler like KZ2, Gears of War etc. so it does not appeal to console owners. Since this site is so concerned with scores, Crysis scored 91% overall. Games with just graphics alone do not score that high.
If you actually played the game you would know this.

[Gamester101]

Butthurt fanboy much?

I played through the whole damn game actually. Aside from the visuals it was an AVERAGE shooter.

Not good. Not bad.

So stop trying to change my opinion and get over yourself.

[BYE]

It should be similar? I don't think so.

I'm more a fan of sequels like Uncharted 2 or Assassin's Creed 2 rather than playing the same game on different maps.

Edit @ failsoles:

Well, given it's Crytek's console debut there's no way around people comparing it with the best looking console shooter, Killzone 2. What we've seen so far of Crysis 2 doesn't look nearly as good, unfortunately.

[failsoles]

Sure the graphics on the console versions wont be ground breaking. What were you thinking? they need to tell you how good it is or else why will you buy it on the dated hardware?

[DigitalAnalog]

Which is PC on Max settings.

-End statement

[Letros]

Hoping I can run this 16:3 eyefinity style, might have to go crossfire!

[iamgoatman]

What would you run in crossfire?

I only recently upgraded to a 5850 and I already want another one! If only I had money to burn.

[frankymv]

not even close to KZ3

[D4RkNIKON]

I agree, I can't wait to see screen comparisons from in game Crysis 2 vs KZ3. Also I can't wait to see lens of truth for Crysis 2 on Xbox vs PS3. Killzone just looks absolutely fantastic and Crysis hasn't proven itself to me yet as I have not played it on PC and I am curious to see how the console versions come out.

[bobdog626]

Yes i Said it.Oh i Better Hide Now LoL Might get Stomped to Death

[hoops]

We have not seen actually gameplay of KZ3 to make that assumption. Moreover, KZ3 will have to have that same type of destruction and physics as Crysis 2.

[WLPowell]

there are screenshots and videos of KZ3. And no I'm not gonna post it for you, you're on the internet, find it yourself or live in your closed off little bubble where KZ3 footage doesn't exist.

[Bhai]

Yeah but what physics and destruction??? The lack of vegetation is vivid and the cut down trees just roll like poles on the ground... pillars break? yeah that was sooo KZ2 2 yrs back, can you destroy a concrete building? don't know yet but yeah Mercenaries was doing it wayyy better 3 yrs back, and free running? Infamous says Hi:) with the 2nd one coming in... so what you are left with is a game that offers "Nothing New"... but might be fun like "Many Others".

For Crysis2 to topple KZ3, has to bring on variety in environments, a "Proper 3D" just as its doing and yeah, a storyline to begin with. Ciao!

[Moonboots]

Sorry man. I've played the heck out of KZ2 and there was nothing even close to the level of environment destruction even this short game play video shows. Sure, there was some canned stuff like "blow building up" but you weren't cutting down trees and blowing chunks off the side of a building..

Heck, in the demo level you are in a warehouse full of plywood and I can throw a grenade and the wood doesn't even budge, no physics, etc.. It's all throughout the game. There were some however so I'm not disagreeing completely with you.

I LOVE KZ2 and this is not a knock on it at all and I am day one KZ3 but I am going to call it like I see it at this point.

Still need to see some solid game play video of KZ3 to see where they are at now since KZ2 is a couple years old and I will wait till the final build of Crysis 2 before I judge more on it but right now this game looks excellent. It sounds like GG was stepping up environment destruction so I expect much more than what was in KZ2.

No need for this to even be a competition, I will enjoy both just as much.

[LTC]

Probably the 360 version although PS3 version wont look much better considering its mutiplatform.
After all that hype the graphics are average at best.

[astar123456789]

i'm a big ps3 fan (fanboy) but the pc will look way better then on the 360 or even the ps3 so lets just end this bs.

[Moonboots]

Was that even up for debate? Of course the PC version is going to be able to run at the highest specs but it's great now that console gamers can enjoy this. It looks like Crytek took their skills and are doing good things for consoles.

Just as long as PC gamers get a game that flexes their power I think this is a good thing for everyone.

[hoops]

Why are people even considering getting this for the PS3 or Xbox360 if they have a half decent PC????

[AtatakaiSamurai]

lmao, bu bu bu teh max settings lmao. try as hard as you may, console gamers are not going to go buy and built a 'half decent pc" for crysis when it's on consoles anyways.

wow, the butthurt is strong on this forum. if starcraft is ever announced for consoles i really believe pc gamers would slit their own throats lol

[belal]

but that is not the best looking game on the ps3 thats for sure, gow3 and uncharted 2 looks better. and lets just wait for actual gameplay for killzone 2 to compare ;)

[Bhai]

Yup, you mean KZ3... well actually I'd go for a KZ2 head on vs Cry2 as well but lets not be too cruel on the PC fanboys, lets give them chance to save some self-respect they've left after knowing and finding every six months that a fixed hardware console that came out 4 years back and is wayyy cheaper than a basic PC gets a game thats pure technical innovation and that breaks award-records, while for all those years in the past they've only had Crysis and now the mediocre-shooter Crysis2 to represent their new 300$-500$ GPU that can texture-map the same basic old style game with well, just some hi-res textures HaHaHa :)

[die_fiend]

To be fair, I can't see how people can judge from that small video. It may be a lot more detailed that you can see. To me it does look pretty damn nice, but I can't compare to those other games cos it's not on a massive screen. Whether or not it'll be better than Killzone 2 remains to be seen, but why would all these people say it's the best looking game ever if they didn't think so? Personally I doubt it will be quite to that level being multiplatform but surely if anyone can do it it's the people who made the game with the best graphics 2 years ago...

[wong3233]

I know this is N4G but whats the point of hating on PC gamers? I don't have a rig to play PC games, but why can't a gamer simply appreciate that another gamer has an amazing experience. ie. I am an xbox gamer, and think that Crysis on the PC looks amazing, and only wish I could play the UCs on my box.

Conversation here always just tends to boil down to a bunch of superiority complexes. Long story short, just comment on the game, "hey it looks great, and want to see more".

Lol, although if you think about it, in this post I did take the "high route" and label the rest of you as fanboys. I think it's just the reasonable gamers out there are just unrepresented in online discussion, not enough incentive to comment I guess.

[MysticStrummer]

I can't speak for everyone else, but I hate on PC gamers because they feel the need to troll console articles and talk about their PCs. I was once a PC gamer and I will never go back, but I don't feel the need to troll their articles and tell them about it.

[xg-ei8ht]

Look at it this way.

Orange box for PS3, wasn't great, ran ok most of the time. Used only the main ppe. 1 core. And it still didn't run great. Coding for PS3 is harder. Because HL2 ran great on older hardware anyway.

Just like L4D1&2 Can run them on a very old system at very high FPS.

Some Facts i'd like to share and i'm sick and tired of hearing about.

Bandwidth wise from CPU TO GPU. PS3 is higher then PCI-16.

Bandwidth wise from GPU/RAM PS3 is not high enough for running decent systems with AA. The same reason why QAA is used, the same reason why mlaa is being adapted, the same reason why 360 uses tiling and EDRAM.

PS3 is about many things.

Blu-ray. High quality sound and picture + space.

High Quality games.

Streaming from PC to PS3 is nice.

HD is always welcome. as is a hard drive.

We all have pc's, well most do.

And some of them are not powerful enough to play crysis1, 1.5 or 2.

But it's one game. A shooter and not everyone is into them.

Talk about graphics, some games look crap on PC, Some look great.

Depends on developer and where they want to go etc.

Same with Halo Reach, played the beta, look at the water, does it even look like water, nope looks awful. Do the people playing the game care, nope.

They love the game for what it is, i'd love uncharted 1&2 even if they were not as nice graphically, because i like those types of games.

The first tombraider is one of the finest games i've played and that was along time ago. Because it's my type of game.

Just enjoy the games and do be aware that graphically, all 3 systems have some excellent looking games.

[Ju]

Let's say it that way. The PS3 is a monster - in it's constraints. That is the limitation of memory and the aged GPU. But it runs vector code faster than current PCs (unless they can use a latest (!) gpGPU with complex shader code) and it has more bandwidth than most (if not all) current PC multicore cpus. There is no current CPU which can run 8 HW threads without bandwidth impact, cache coherency troubles or synchronization issues. Sure, OOP are faster, raw scalar operations are faster, etc.

But, and that is the interesting part, SW can offset a lot of those issues if done properly (that's like, if you leave it to the HW to fill your cachelines properly vs. you do low level optimization to fill SPUs SRAM manually. The first will always introduce latency, which the later simply does not have).

And of course, the second is much more work, but pays off in the sense there is currently no HW which can actually compete there (you can just make it faster and faster until you can't notice that overhead - the way PCs work).

What holds the PS3 back is the GPU-memory performance and VRAM bandwidth - which is simply 5 years old. The rest of the system has yet to be matched (guess which part is outdated: the things they "borrowed" from the PC).

But overall, accepting the limitation which is 720p, whatever you can do in those constrains pretty much matches what todays gaming PCs can do.

[ps3ftwin]

So why did they borrow the part from the PC? If the overall setup was so good then there wasnt a need to go with a GPU. Clearly They needed a GPU, had they not gone for that part PS3 wouldnt have even been in a position to keep up with the 360.

[Ju]

Sony messed up. They missed the shader train. They tried to build their own GPU based on the GS (PS2), kind of a super rasterizer. But it didn't work. Not in time. They turned to NVidia and added the RSX. Yeah, that is a misconception on their end. And maybe it was naive to believe they could compete against the GPU specialized companies. None the less, the rest of the specs can still stand its competition, even today.

The idea was what Tesla is today. A very powerful, free programmable render core. We'll see if somebody can realize these visions in the next generation. For the PS3 the technology was not there at the time.

[N4g_null]

Ju it's alway fun talking with you. Yet intels new core and even the lastest i7s are a beast. I think 12 or more streams can run at the same time.

The tesla part is old also the new stuff is exactly what the cell should have been. Even intel fell to nvidia and ati. Great ideas for the larrabee yet they just could not get it done or at least in a console.

Hell some devs are thinking of run ai off the gpu now. Line of sight coding.

The cell was a great start but they could see they where just trying reiventing the wheel. Lots of chip design arguements where settled in the last few years. Life goes on though.

The cell reminds me of the g4 where it made Photoshop sing compared to other chips. Then all of a sudden it was getting pasted because it could not do a majority of things better. Chip design can't be so narrow mined or the software will cripple it since it wants to do even more.

Another thing is you can't just ask an industry to start over just because you want them to support your ideas. Sony should did a better job on shader support and code optimizing rather than tell devs to basicly figure it out.

Sure 1st party got some cool code working yet that sh!t doesn't fly with publishers unless it's in your contract. I think big pubs went along with because they knew smaller even more talented guys could not run the money bag marathon.

Yet there are some extremly good things about this. Hardcore ps3 fans will stay with gaming due to their hate of ms. Before people just casualy left gaming. Example is the ps2 yet something tell me you guys really do love these games which good.

I guess pc gaming died when they offically killed apple or mac gaming by stealing halo. What would be funny is if bungie brought apple back.

I'm think that even crytek would follow since the new open gl spec is a beast, I've always liked it better too yet dx11 is one of my many dreams coming true.

[Ju]

Look at this. We got 4 bubbles. Might as well spend it here :)

I agree with you, and yet, when the PS3 was born, unified shaders were a theory. Well, ATI pulled them off a bit faster. Right in time for the 360.

But vector cores in a console was and still is a great idea.

The implementation is different today than it would have been 5 years ago. Who would have imagined back then, that you can run massive vector code on GPUs at that time ? Sure, the vision was there, but it was impossible to build something with that vision in 2005 let alone design it in 2002 (when the CELL idea was born).

The latest trends in the shader department do hide the fact that you run a GPU, though. That said, it doesn't really matter what HW you have below. What you need to run shader code is, however, is massive vector performance. A GPU from 2005 can never compete against a GPU from today - if you are only dependent on the shader units.

A flexible core, however, can expand what is missing in that relatively fixed function set of a 2005 design with additional SW. Not saying it makes it on par with a Tesla or something, but at least the programming API could be ported to run parts of it - what the HW can't do, you can emulate, to some extend, in SW.

I am sure, this was one of the visions of Sony at the time. Knowing, that of course tech will improve over time, but putting what they thought is a flexible piece of high tech in their machine and trust what worked in the PS2: Let the SW guys figure out ways how to push it hard. First party games show this works. UC2 was a massive improvement. We thought it has to end at some point, right ? Then GoW3. ... now KZ3 showed there is still room for improvements.

Sony needs to build an API to hide all that away and make that available to 3rd parties. Their shader implementation would need to be transparent in the sense it would schedule shader code either to the SPU or GPU based on the load available. This would be the ideal solution. Some sort of smart interface. You will always get more performance out to do those things manually, but it could push performance a level above the RSX, at least for a while. And it wouldn't necessarily require a department full of MScs to build render backends to optimize the graphics pipeline for the SPUs by hand.

Pixel pushing is still just math. You just need to do it fast find some piece of HW you can throw it at.

[N4g_null]

Ju what you speak of about Sony hiding all of that away was ibms job and they sort of finished it yet they didn't.

Sony has never made a compiler or really great high end tools for there systems, it was always an out sider that did this. The ps2 had about three tool makers that cracked that puppy.

It really was a weird time because intel had just hit the ghz wall and every one was trying figure out what to do next. The game cube was the last hope for fixed function setups.

The cell is what the current gpu lines are now minus the network pooling. It's a great idea that is way before it's time yet it's used locally in the ps3 only and had some set this system up right you could actually run two ps3 in sli and get doubled the streaming data , network bandwidth and prefomance along with more pc like funtions like console based fps private servers with mod support.

Well I need to get some sleep for tommorrow it's going to be a day that last 3 weeks lol.

[jhani]

if true how did they do pull this out?

[Alcohog]

Not expecting much from this. Crysis wouldn't even fall into my top ten FPS' of the past ten years. The gameplay just wasn't that good.

[i3eyond the Circle]

Fanboys in denial as always.

The game looks awesome one of the best I've seen yet, full of color, destruction, physics and lots of scale......not full of color and scripted imagery.

Besides the screen tearing how can you not say this game is one of the best you've seen.

When that building gets torn apart by whatever that was...you can see the beastliness of this engine.

Fanboys just stuck on stupid and the myth that no game on 360 can reach heights...stuck on stupid indeed.

[Denethor_II]

Maybe there's something wrong with me, I don't know, but I couldn't care less about this game.

[mookins]

Looking good.

[Ronster316]

I grew up playing consoles like Atari VCS, NES, Master System ect.............

Gaming on a console with a pad in my hand and my tv a nice distance away just seems more natural to me.

Come home, switch on console, no hassle.

Im sure PC gamers have the time of their life playing PC's, i have the time of my life playing consoles, apples & oranges i guess.

[Dsnyder]

But Killzone looks way better.

[cmrbe]

Still getting it for PC.

[gamerzBEreal17]

fyi ps3 has the most hd full 1080p games dispite comeing out a year later then 360 ps3 has well over 50 full 1080p games and xbox360 has...get this five

[E46M3]

PS3 does about 5% of its games in 1080p rest are either 720p or sub 720p just fyi and yes we know the xbox doesnt do 1080p thanks for further proving the point that consoles are outdated.

[Theonetheonly]

One who noticed the "CUBE"-Glass breaking. That stuff looks cool I guess.
like a ton of cubes when the glass breaks.

I think im gonna make a video of Crysis 1 and outline some of the under appreciated physical stuff that goes on. Like Interactive wind and smoke and vegetation to name a few. Vegetation really made that game.

the level of interactivity in the given game environment. now that its in a concrete jungle id expect the same level of interactivity. like breaking concrete, glass, .... one of the things im really hyped to get a shot at is the bendable stuff. like barrels half smashed and cars and walls that dent and stuff. i hope that makes it to the final product.

I loved crysis, it was intense when it needed to be and just down right fun to F%$K with the engine and physics at other times.

i remember following the OG crysis before there was any actual gameplay footage and only shots of comparisons between real life and jungle scenes, and not believing it could be done, or not believing the faces could look as real as they turned out to in the end.

Or looking at the ground textures in dx9 and noticing the vertex/poly mesh rivals today's dx11 Tessellation in terms of @the screen image quality.

that engine truly blew me away.

it was one of the first to use SSAO and RT motion Blur. And global lighting, Volumetric clouds, day night cycle that still effectively puts today's attempts to shame.

I expect nothing less, from this. If so crytek have made a step backwards.

Respect.

[keysy420]

everyone is talking like sony lied but in reality if the ps3 grows like the ps2 did you may see 120 fps and 1080p. im just saying if you told me when the ps3 first launch that i would play a game like uncharted i would have said your lying

[yamzilla]

I think it is time for
THE NEXT GEN of consoles now!!!

Bring it baby!!!

By virtue of almost all console games running at 720p or less we should be clued into the fact that these machines are not capable of 1080p with the visual fidelity inherent to the games we are playing.

I love my PS3 and my 360 but I am beyond ready for the next gen.

I can't wait to fully utilize my 50" 1080p plasma to the fullest on something besides bluray or my PC.

lol...by the time the new consoles roll out(2011 for the xbox 720 and 2012 for the PS4) I'll probably be rocking a 2560x1600p plasma....consoles are always playing catch-up.

I've spent more on my consoles than my PC

$600 launch PS3
$400 launch 360
$99 wifi adapter 360
$99 HD for 360
$100 for 2 extra controllers for each console
$10 extra for each game times 30 or more games = $300

lol over $1600 on my consoles at least
plus my $2000 plasma

my $1100 PC eats them ALIVE!!!

Timeshift -maxed on PC looks BETTER THAN EVERY console game ever made....

Hellgate London- maxed on PC looks BETTER THAN EVERY console game ever made

Just Cause 2 maxed on PC looks BETTER THAN EVERY console game ever made

Metro 2033 maxed on PC looks BETTER THAN EVERY console game ever made

The Witcher maxed on PC looks BETTER THAN EVERY console game ever made

Unreal 3 maxed on PC looks BETTER THAN EVERY console game ever made

I'm bored of typing now....hope you get the point.

[kraze07]

It's funny, only three of the games you mentioned are FPSs and yet some guy said those are the only games we PC gamers care about. Shows how much he knows. Shooters do shine on the PC, but so do MMOs, WRPGs, RTSs, Simulation games, and Indie games.

[faraany3k]

HAHAHAH lolololol... MAn show me some good rtses or MMOs or simulation games on you consoles.

[moe84]

Crysis 2 is looking good.. so far. Some of the debris is looking pretty cheap in the video.

What I'm more worried about is the story. If we're in New York, I take it there won't be a journey back to the island(that was infested with Koreans and aliens?), to help Prophet and finish off the icey-foes? It's going to suck to not know how Crysis ended up. Hell after all, Nomad did say "we're going back" so... yeah
Also, don't dumb down my visuals!!!! If one version doesn't look quite as good as another, that's fine. Give people the best experience possible on their platform, imo.

[Pandamobile]

Gaming platforms are a lot like cars. (yes, it's a car metaphor)

You've got your Wii, which is like your little cheap-ass Honda.

Then you've got your Xbox 360 which we can describe as your average Sedan.

Next you've got your PlayStation 3 which, in my opinion would be like a pickup truck. Not much faster than the Sedan, but when loaded up properly can carry a big load.

Finally you've got your gaming PC's. These range from a typical sports car all the way up to a top fuel dragster (with lots of stuff in between)

It all depends on the amount of money and effort you put into your machine. A lot of people are perfectly content with their sedans and their trucks, but I like having a lot more power to play around with, so I can justify spending more money on a powerful system.

Everyone can rationalize their purchase. Stop fighting, kids.

[moe84]

Couldn't agree more. Besides, wtf does it matter how much someone else spends on their hobbies and entertainment? Personally I can't really justify spending more than 500-1000 dollars on a TV. Mostly because I don't watch a lot of it. Mostly because I don't play consoles that often. I'm much more of a pc person. 99% of the entertainment and news you get on the TV, I get too.
...
... That is, until GT5 hits.. *cough*

[4lc4pon3]

Cant wait

[mttrackmaster38]

The only reason to get Crysis that I can see is because of the graphics. Is the gameplay even any good or do people just not give a shit because it looks pretty?

[Tehdaza]

It's a fantastic game. I really have no clue why it gets a bad rep for "having no gameplay".

If you want to know what actual gameplay is like watch some videos or something:
http://www.youtube.com/watc...

One of the great things about Crysis is that it was open to what ever style of gameplay you want. If you want to be a bullet absorbing tank man, go for it. If you want to get up close and personal and take people out with your fists, go for it; if you want to be a stealthy ninja, sneaking around in the bushes in cloak mode methodically prioritizing your vicitms, BY ALL MEANS, GO FOR IT :D

[mttrackmaster38]

Hmm. I might try it out. Its just that in reviews all the reporters seem to talk about is the graphics.

[Tehdaza]

That's because in a game like Crysis where it set the bar for graphics back in 2007, and still holds that today, it's hard not to talk about the graphics in a review.

[moe84]

The game-play is nothing special. It's an average fps. The visuals is all the game really has imo. Especially some of the backgrounds on a few levels. Like rolling up in a tank to a crumbling mountain, things great really, really sexy.

One plus I give the game though, is even with the futuristic suits and stuff for the most part the weapons stay pretty normal. One thing that has always ruined most fps(imo) is the weapon selection. Having a "normal" pistol, and 9 other weapons that are so far out there, it's silly....
yeah, makes no sense. But then again, it is just a game.

[HDgamer]

Lol it's all about looks now but they can't say squat about gameplay. Sorry you lose

[Tehdaza]

And I suppose you're one of the people that thinks KZ2 has awesome gameplay because if feels like you're moving through molasses, right?

[XactGamer]

I know console money is the most important money but show us some more PC love. I'm getting more console content and this is a PC franchise.

[xg-ei8ht]

There are excellent parts in crysis, and some average ones, i think that was the problem.

I think the city fight as this is will be better, they've done LOST to pieces.

To yamzilla.

Timeshift -maxed on PC looks BETTER THAN EVERY console game ever made....

Hellgate London- maxed on PC looks BETTER THAN EVERY console game ever made

Just Cause 2 maxed on PC looks BETTER THAN EVERY console game ever made

Metro 2033 maxed on PC looks BETTER THAN EVERY console game ever made

The Witcher maxed on PC looks BETTER THAN EVERY console game ever made

Unreal 3 maxed on PC looks BETTER THAN EVERY console game ever made

Just no in so many ways.

See your talking AA/Texture i'm guessing.

That does not make every game look better then another game without, if the other game, has better lighting, better shadows, better animations, better a.i.

Also panda.

Used correctly, the PS3 is alot faster then 360.

But as they both have 512mb ram, and most people just look at slight texture differences.

The fked trees in BF2 BC2 in the 360 version was horrid, got a free pass though.
The water in reach look like a ps2 game, free pass i'm guessing.

Just like New super mario bros, terrible problems with that game, 2-3 play together, one gets killed, pauses other two.

Alot of games have good graphics, some have great graphics, but also have the gameplay to match.

[yamzilla]

I talking about crispness of graphics, smoothness. Polish.

Consoles lack all of those qualities on anything beyond 2d games.

720p or less looks weak on a 1080ptv

if i had a 720p tv maybe it wouldn't look so graining muddy and blurry...i don't know...

like i said...i love my consoles....they just do not look as good as my pc games....those examples i listed are just a few games i saw on my shelf....there are many many many more

[xg-ei8ht]

Not sure tbh, graphics don't look muddy on my 42inch at all. If anything they are crisp, and of course on a pc if your running native rez, it will look sweet.

Yes maxed out, a PC game will look very good, but some games on PS3 etc, look very good as well.

Obviously an upscaled game from a poor rez will look muddy, same can be said of a poorly textured game.

And as i've said time and time again, QAA hurts image quality, it's either goto be x2aa or MLAA. Or not at all.

I am a PC gamer and know where your coming from, but i only buy quality titles on the PS3 anyway.

And you know, if a game stinks in gameplay, a higher rez and aa plus higher textures doesn't really mattter, it still stinks.

http://www.videogamer.com/p...

http://www.videogamer.com/p...

I think those games speak for themselves.