Tech Comparison: Crysis 2 PC

By Richard Leadbetter Published 26 March, 2011

Maximum Game... over?

Page 1 of 2

Has Crytek "sold out" to the console audience with its first triple-format release? Or is Crysis 2's new vision for the franchise a necessary shift, fundamental to the continued existence of the world-renowned German studio?

Some say that the company's "Maximum Game" ethos has been compromised by building something that simply must run well on five-year-old console hardware, while others point to the technological leaps being made in the core functionality of the new CryEngine 3 - features which are more refined and enhanced in the higher-end graphical presets exclusive to the PC game.

Behind the argument lies the uncomfortable reality that life for a PC-exclusive developer isn't easy in the current climate, and AAA development costs can only be recouped by shifting to a multi-platform strategy.

There's no doubt whatsoever that Crytek's priorities have changed and that supporting console has helped to shape and mould Crysis 2, perhaps in a somewhat different direction than it might have considered for a PC-only release.

Back when the Frankfurt-based developer envisaged the original Crysis, it created an engine spec so advanced that current-generation hardware couldn't run it (in a playable form, at least) on max settings. It was a game built to scale up as graphics technology evolved and became more powerful. True, there was also a level of unoptimised code holding things back (partly addressed in Crysis Warhead) but the intention was clear to see: this was a game that was technologically forward-looking in many ways.

Compare and contrast with Crysis 2. While CryEngine 3 scales up to next-gen specs, this first CE3 release is definitely designed with the hardware of the past in mind rather than the technology of the future. This is good news for the console audience, getting its first taste of Crytek's cutting edge visuals (read more about that in our Crysis 2 console face-off), but what of its traditional PC audience? What do they get out of the deal? Enhanced performance on present-day hardware for starters, but there are other bonuses too.

The abundant power of the PC is used to streamline and improve the existing gameplay experience, and to add to the quality of the visuals. In this sense there's no doubt whatsoever that Crysis 2 on PC is the best version of the game you can buy. However, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that it could have been significantly better in some key areas, and perhaps too much of the core console DNA has filtered its way across to the PC version.

Before we go any further, let's break out our first comparison video: Crysis 2 running at 1280x720 on Extreme spec, up against both console versions of the game. In addition to this is a full-on triple-format Crysis 2 comparison gallery for your considered perusal.

Crysis 2: Xbox 360 vs. PS3 vs. PC. Use the full-screen button for 720p res, or click on the link below for a larger window.

Surprisingly for a studio with such a rich PC heritage, graphical options and settings in Crysis 2 are pared back to the absolute minimum. Players can choose the target resolution and whether to engage v-sync or not, with graphical quality limited to High, Very High and Extreme settings - an absurd simplification of a massive gamut of different visual settings.

Crytek says that the console versions operate at the High level, but in truth it seems that even at this setting the PC is running with more light sources producing more dynamic shadows, an effect that scales up still further as you move on up through the higher graphical levels.

The main issue here is that the base quality level is very good already, and further visual refinements are subtle and difficult to notice, especially in the heat of the action. Probably the most impactful change is in lighting and geometry LODs, but the actual visual payback PC owners get beyond better frame-rates and higher resolution isn't the night-and-day different you might hope for. That said, there's little doubt that the PC game manages to power past most of the more annoying aspects of the console versions' performance.

For a start, geometry and texture pop-in are (almost) completely eradicated in the PC version, and this instantly makes a positive impact to the quality of the experience. According to Crytek, the streaming system used on console isn't implemented on PC, with the larger system resources on tap used to hold everything in memory. More importantly, the performance flashpoints that brought the frame-rate crashing down on the Xbox 360 and PS3 renditions of Crysis 2 are all but gone.

Interestingly, while playing the game through at 720p60 for the purposes of the comparison video, what was immediately apparent was that the slick, smooth feedback made it a hell of a lot easier to progress even when using the joypad. The interface between player and game was that much more responsive and enjoyable to use. Higher frame-rates and superior visual consistency also allowed animation and physics to really shine compared to the 360 and PS3 versions. The subtlety and refinement of Crytek's effects work truly finds its home on PC.

On the minus side however, texture quality on the PC version is fairly uniform with the console SKUs. Some environmental artwork looks blocky even at the target 720p resolution, and the deficiencies of these textures become much more apparent at 1680x1050 and beyond. While the additional visual refinements afforded by the engine are very welcome, it's difficult to believe that higher-resolution versions of the base art assets don't exist.

'Tech Comparison: Crysis 2 PC' Screenshot 1080p1-360
'Tech Comparison: Crysis 2 PC' Screenshot 1080p1-pc
'Tech Comparison: Crysis 2 PC' Screenshot 1080p2-360
'Tech Comparison: Crysis 2 PC' Screenshot 1080p2-pc

Upscaled Xbox 360 1080p output up against the PC's native 1920x1080 res... It's fair to say that improved temporal resolution in terms of smoother, higher frame-rates is just as important as the number of pixels in the framebuffer.

Page 1 of 2

Comments (85) Latest comment 11 months ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • RobTheBuilder #1 11 months ago

    Frankly the specs of the original were ludicrous for the time. It paid off in a sense because it gave the game notoriety and ensured a long tail of sales... but to release Crysis 2 at the same type of base spec would have been insane.

    You still need a meaty PC to get smooth rates at the highest settings, although I have no idea why they have been so limited on options. I hate it when games decide for you what each setting should be, especially given the variance in performance between types of card on different areas of output.

  • bad09 #2 11 months ago

    I picked it up yesterday and it is clearly apparent consoles are where the prority was in terms of the sequel. A sad shame but you know what who cares it still looks beautiful with some amazing detail in the city and it's a lot of fun. (and we still get the best version I suppose!)

    Not a worthy sequel to the legacy that is Crysis IMO but it's shaping up to be a great ride already. So now Crytek has lost it's crown what is the new PC benchmark we all turn to at times of upgrade? GTA4 was my first port of call after Crysis on my last card upgrade, some claim Metro 2033 is the new benchmark.

  • TheTrueSpin #3 11 months ago

    Surely we should be thankful that Crytek released a game that is fun to play, rather than a very expensive benchmark tool? In many respects, this is what the original Crysis became... although since most PC gamers pirated it, it was only expensive for the developers.

  • ISmoke #4 11 months ago

    Shame it doesn't work correctly when I use both of my GPU's. Getting around 55FPS @ 1920x1080 on a single 5870. So that should improve somewhat.

  • Grim #5 11 months ago

    Enjoying the music on the comparison video's......who is it?

  • Darren #6 11 months ago

    Good read.

    I have the Xbox 360 and PC versions and while the latter is definitely the best one for the silky-smooth 60 fps framerate and 1920x1200 resolution alone, I'm still stunned by how good the game looks and runs on the console. Personally I think the game looks amazing on all platforms and is a lot of fun to play so I'm not bothered that it isn't making my PC graphics card sweat like Crysis and Crysis Warhead did. Restart times are quicker and there's virtually no pop up or LOD issues so they're nice bonuses. I can forgive the odd pixelly texture but those mirrored textures on doors, where the text is backwards, are unforgiveable on the PC IMO! :o

    Maybe Crysis 2 will get a DX11 patch but, really, I won't care if it doesn't. I doubt DX11 will add much to the game anyway, since it wasn't built from the ground up for it, at best we'll get some performance sapping tessellation that will halve the framerate for a minimal visual upgrade, at least based on other DX11 games I've played.

    I've no complaints about the game other than an appalling lack of graphical options, a cardinal sin for ANY PC game but more so when it comes from the developer of THE cutting-edge Crysis. Still, that can be compensated somewhat by downloading a user Advanced Graphical Setting editor that creates an Autoconfig file that runs with the game and tweaks the visuals and FoV (field of view) among other things. Those options should have been included in the game though.

    The Editing Tool, current at v1.5, can be downloaded from here by the way: http://fo rums.steampowered.com/forums/sh...

  • nick_f Verified Senior Producer, Microsoft #7 11 months ago

    Given the high piracy rates for the PC-exclusive original, who can blame Crytek for focusing on console? I'm sure EA was also pushing them heavily in that direction.

    The (legitimate) PC market is simply not big enough to support the kind of investment required to build a game like Crysis 2.

    PC owners should blame pirates for forcing Cryteks hand.

  • bladdard #8 11 months ago

    I got the pc version and it looks great to me running on high settings. I've only played the 360 demo and looks wise it's not massively different but it's far smoother and I've not seen any texture pop in anywhere.

  • womble #9 11 months ago

    @ nickf

    "Given the high piracy rates for the PC-exclusive original, who can blame Crytek for focusing on console"

    +1

    Edited by 1 at 26/03/11 @ 10:00

  • UncleLou #10 11 months ago

    Surely we should be thankful that Crytek released a game that is fun to play, rather than a very expensive benchmark tool? In many respects, this is what the original Crysis became... although since most PC gamers pirated it, it was only expensive for the developers.

    The original was fun to play, and Crysis 2 still feels very much like the same game when it comes to mechanics, just very scaled down in the levels. The "tech demo" comments have always been idiotic, mostly brought forward by people who've never played it.

    although since most PC gamers pirated it, it was only expensive for the developers.

    It also sold more than 3 million copies...


    Anyway, very good game, this, but I sure do miss the "open world" feel the article mentions.
    Edited by 1 at 26/03/11 @ 10:02

  • mkreku #11 11 months ago

    Crysis 2 didn't really need a DF article to see what has happened with the PC version. Smaller levels and a DX10 to DX9 regression are all the facts that are needed.

  • Chufty #12 11 months ago

    The excessive system requirements of the original was exactly the sort of bullshit that was holding back PC gaming at the time. Now the obsession with 6-monthly hardware upgrades has gone, PC games are all the better for it.

    I think Crytek have made a great PC game here; and trust me, I'm a bona fide PC gamer. I can no longer be arsed to spend the first 20 minutes in a new game tweaking the graphics settings.

    They'll patch in a DX11 version and people will realise that there's almost no difference. The fact that this is the best looking PC game out there despite only using DX9 serves to highlight just how crap DirectX is.

  • PearOfAnguish #13 11 months ago

    Was going to reply to TrueSpin's retarded comment but Lou has it covered.

    It's a good thing that Crysis 2 is less demanding, but no idea why they've removed the advanced graphics options. Could have just left them as an advanced setting for people who want to tweak it a bit further. The game still looks great (on all platforms) but it would be nice to have the option to turn it up on higher end hardware.

  • themerlin13 #14 11 months ago

    From a business sence you can see where they were comming from, but considering the original was a much more "sandbox" experience this feels restricted, and have to agree the texture quality is very poor, I'd go so far as to say lower quality than the original.
    Still an enjoyable game, fingers crossed for a "propper" pc update to dx11 and and face melting visuals.

  • oi #15 11 months ago

    "Interestingly, while playing the game through at 720p60 for the purposes of the comparison video, what was immediately apparent was that the slick, smooth feedback made it a hell of a lot easier to progress even when using the joypad"

    Whilst the above is true more often than not my experience with Crysis 2 is the complete opposite, and I find Crysis 2 much easier to play on 360.

    As for the graphics...I actually find the 'grungier' look of the 360 version more appealing than the super-clean PC version. I came to the 360 version after first playing the PC one and honestly Crytek have worked miracles with the console versions, and imo Crysis 2 makes a mockery of practically every other console fps out there. Not only is it the best looking 360 game but it does all that whilst not being pathetically linear like Call of Duty and Killzone.

    It's just a shame some reviewers don't recognise what an achievement it is both in terms of visuals but also gameplay...

  • infernox1 #16 11 months ago

    @thetruespin. i enjoyed the original crysis and the mods for it. most of the fun was playing around with the physics ingame, punching cars into wooden buildings for example. crysis 2=maximum dx9 for now, the best looking dx9 game ive seen for sure. very impressive in that respect.

  • infernox1 #17 11 months ago

    @nick_f read this.

    [link url=http://www.computerandvideogames.com/295327/news/h ow-do-you-stop-piracy-try-giving-hackers-a-job-and-make-bett er-pc-games/
    ]http://ww w.computerandvideogames.com/295...[/link]

    and this.

    [link url=http://software.intel.co m/en-us/blogs/2010/04/19/hear-that-knocking-sound-its-pc-gam ing/
    ]http://so ftware.intel.com/en-us/blogs/20...[/link]

    and watch this.

    [link url=http://www .youtube.com/watch?v=_T28llgLTQk
    ]http://www .youtube.com/watch?v=_T28llgLTQk
    [/link]

    and to a lesser extent this.

    http://www .youtube.com/watch?v=WdWnNgTLbKw

  • Machiavellian #18 11 months ago

    "Given the high piracy rates for the PC-exclusive original, who can blame Crytek for focusing on console"

    Of course piracy doesnt exist on consoles!!!!


    I guess you missed the part where he said high piracy rate!!!

  • Lord_BeeJee #19 11 months ago

    Sad. Not buying this insult crytec, this should have had a different name as its a disgrace to what the first game was.

  • MrE26 #20 11 months ago

    So Crytek have made a great game that looks stunning and plays brilliantly regardless of what hardware you own. Result.

    To the moaning few who claim Crytek have somehow personally slighted them by daring to make their work accessible to a wider audience, get a clue.

  • local_celebrity #21 11 months ago

    Crysis? What crysis?

    Those graphics look pretty good to me. Plus, you don't need a Cray supercomputer to run the cunt - so it's now within most people's reach. You PC kds should be laughing.

  • Andeus #22 11 months ago

    Shame really.

    DF doesn't get it. Not having pop-ups or LODs are "bonuses" ? Really? They shouldn't even be there in the first place. Lack of DX11, no art assets for >720p resolutions (by the way for those that don't know, no one plays @ 720p on PC, DF just tested that for console reference) etc. Also the whole "Crysis 1 future hardware" claim is somewhat quirky. It wasn't that it was built with hardware 2 generations ahead, it was the simple fact that Crysis 1 was badly coded, The moment they released Crysis Warhead with all the fixed code, the game instantly went from unplayable to playable with 40FPS on a 8800.

    It's funny because if you read the hardware benchmarks of these years from sites like tomshardware or anandtech you would see their frustration on Crysis pretty much not supporting half the new hardware features, be it extra cores or balance in CPU/GPU usage. Eventually they just dropped it from their benchmarks.

    Bottom line, I wouldn't care for any of that if they had kept the original's open world setting, which partially served as a sandbox. Now it's just another FPS game.

  • Dizzy #23 11 months ago

    Why only Temporal AA? Why not proper AA?

  • dsmx #24 11 months ago

    Crysis wasn't badly coded, the strain of rendering an island full of trees with a massive draw distance was what killed the frame rate in crysis, there's a very good reason why they went to the city in crysis 2. Buildings take less system resources to render and they cut down how far you can see, it's as simple as that.

    Warhead basically just cut down the view distance and it was insane to see trees and rocks pop in less than 30 ft in front of you, or how about you could see an enemy in the distance but when you brought your weapon up to the telescopic sight a tree would appear in front of the enemy. Warhead did run far better but it was plainly obvious at every moment you were playing that game how they did it.

  • ExplodingClown #25 11 months ago

    If there's one thing they really should include in multiplatform releases, it's higher res textures for the PC version. Would cost nothing more than some space on the DVD, could be provided as an option on installing, and would reduce the howls from buyers of expensive new hardware who felt they were being shafted. Otherwise what's the point of the co-development money from hardware manufacturers? It's not like brand-exclusive features are a regular occurrence in games anymore (I remember buying a Matrox card specifically to get bump-mapping in Drakan and Carmageddon TDR 2000. At least Drakan was fun).

    There's already a persistent rumour on the net that DX11 was held back from Crysis 2 to push the newly released NVidia 590 - overlooking simple and easy ways to add value for what is generally a loyal (albeit sometimes fanatically so) and vocal market just makes such mumblings in the ranks more likely.

  • TheNinkyNonk #26 11 months ago

    Y'know, one line in the Gametrailers video review did what you have taken two full articles to say (in ADDITION to a review): the game looks best on the PC but the console versions hold their own.

    Oh. My. God.

  • streetmagix #27 11 months ago

    For those blaming piracy, the original Crysis sold over a million units (by Feb 2008, http://goo.gl/uZlkU). Considering the fact it had basically no advertising campaign and was a PC exclusive it did very well.

  • Ingram85 #28 11 months ago

    Right, i have just watched that comparison video from the first page of this article and while yes the pc version is the best looking, its not by the massive margin i was expecting, whats even more startling is how what differences there are between the two console versions are that minor i would hesitate to call them differences at all.

    Having not paid much attention to this game apart from the odd preview here and there, from reading the comments on here and on other boards you would think that the developers had personally killed all the family members of those who own sonys machine. Seriously, it look stupendous on both and about 5-10% better on the pc.

    I will be picking up the ps3 version next week fully knowing what i am about to play is a technical powerhouse BUT regardless of which platform your buying for, just enjoy the damn game you fucking stupid nitpicking plebs of the highest order.

  • dsmx #29 11 months ago

    The main reason the PC version is better is not the grpahics it's the frame rate, something which screenshots don't convey.

  • Goodfella #30 11 months ago

    @ dsmx

    You beat me to it, it's extremely solid and never dips anywhere near unplayable levels.

    There's other things too like draw-in/pop-up which is pretty much non existant.

  • AlistairUK #31 11 months ago

    Playing the PC version on a 5850 - looks fantastic, runs smoothly and, more importantly, plays really well :)

    Personally I'm glad to be spared the need to fiddle with graphics options and only want DX11 if it includes NYC as an open world. Is that likely? Otherwise I see no real point in it. If the distant buildings could be higher res, that might be a visible improvement. Overall seems like a very successful transition to multi-platform.

    It's a shame the high-end PC market isn't being served any more, but there you go.

  • Walkerj #32 11 months ago

    I've never see a better looking game that actually ran. They talked a lot about Crysis 1 and Cryengine 2/3 but never compared the two games, waste of time.

  • DrStrangelove #33 11 months ago

    I'm actually glad they optimised the game for current hardware, because I have fluent HQ graphics even with my medium-spec PC.

  • koopa #34 11 months ago

    I never understood the problems with the original Crysis requirements, even though it wasn't perfectly optimized... If they released it with medium settings as max, it would still be a fantastic looking game and nobody would whine about the frame rates. Instead, they added the options to make the game look better in the future (I wish every PC game had that) and for hardware enthusiasts, but everyone wanted to play at the highest settings at once...

  • japstersam #35 11 months ago

    Just for anyone put off by this bit in the article:

    "while 1080p60 at the Extreme level really requires a Radeon HD 6970 or GTX580."

    i have a GTX460 and it is absolutely perfect on Extreme settings. Not getting 60FPS or even close but it is eminently playable at around 30 I would guess. Looks incredible and runs perfectly on my machine, and my machine struggles with the original Crysis. Also much more going on in the background, in the sky etc, and even though its all in a city there's a lot of variety in the graphics. And overall, the most important difference...it plays muuuuuch better!

  • thesonglessbird #36 11 months ago

    Good game looks good.

    And that's all that matters to me.

  • loboMuerto #37 11 months ago

    This games looks great as it is, and I'm sure most of the problems will be addressed with patches. For the third installment I hope they take the graphics for granted and concentrate on telling a great story... for God's sake, Crytek: hire a professional writer.

  • MrE26 #38 11 months ago

    for God's sake, Crytek: hire a professional writer.

    Ummm... <a href=http://e n.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Morgan_(author)>they did.</a>

  • ExplodingClown #39 11 months ago

    @loboMuerto & MrE26

    I'm just about to start on Crysis 2 tonight. I like Richard Morgan's books, but I wonder how much of his actual input wound up in the game? I imagine his stances on religion and politics are a little too radical for the epitome of mainstream US corporate behemoths that is EA, at least without severe dilution. He may have something to say on the subject on his blog if his NDA has expired, but it's rumoured he was tied into a 3-game deal, so we may not know for some time.

    I suspect it's much like when Warren Ellis was revealed to have worked on Dead Space (yay!), but that almost none of his contributions made it into the game (boooo). EA still threw his name around to get us comics fanboys excited though :p

  • knightmt #40 11 months ago

    Looks awesome on the PC, can I get a wireless controller and program the inputs. I will get a console version later for friends but it is so smooth on the PC I would like to play it all the way through with a joypad. I will definately not be going online with the pc version as I will get roasted sideways. I think the console compromise has probably increased the number of PCs that this can be played on.
    Loved Far Cry, enjoyed Crysis, and so far Crysis 2 is a treat.

  • hahayou #41 11 months ago

    I'd like to check this out for myself but they've turned the demo off! In the launch week! What The Fuck?

    Are they gonna pull the same trick when Crysis 3 comes out? Kill the multiplayer servers like they were 2-year-old FIFA games to force an upgrade?

  • beatwolf #42 11 months ago

    "while 1080p60 at the Extreme level really requires a Radeon HD 6970 or GTX580"

    No it doesn't - I'm doing fine with my GTX 570.

  • byron_hinson #43 11 months ago

    Tried it on GTX 295 and 280 and it runs perfectly at 1080p in extreme

  • Philip46 #44 11 months ago

    Ironically, even though i have a decent pc rig(I7-930,9GB DDR3, GTX560 2GB) to run Crysis 2 on, i opted to just buy the X360 version, as this no matter how this is spun, Crysis 2 looks nearly ideenticle to the pc version, on max settings. Sure with 16XAF/8X FSAA and a bit crisper textures, the pc version is the no brainer, for best graphical version, but buying the pc version would be like buying a Xbox1 game for the X360.
    Also, i'll have to admit i do prefer to lay online over Live, as i'm a gamepad(a pc gamer using a x360 controller? oh the horror..lol) user, and i'd rather play on a level playing field over Live , rather then against mouse/kybd users on the pc. Having said that, using the X360-pc controller, i usually came in 1st or 2nd with the demo version over and over..lol

    Also i need a showcase game for the 360. to really show it off. Also i rented the PS3 version, so i can find out which is really the best console version, to my eyes.

    Here's the reason why i did'nt pick up the pc version:

    1) I heavily modified GTA:IV, as it was a terrible port over, to the point now when in 1080p the graphics are mind boggling better, using a combo of Ultimate textures/Realizm/ENB(w/dx10&11 effects)..ect, as well as playing in FP view, using the incredible FP mod. (it's so heavily modded, it uses 1.6GB at 1080p and still runs at 40fps in 2D and 30fps in 3D

  • Goodfella #45 11 months ago

    @ Philip46

    Your choice but it seems strange to get the 360 version with a rig like that. I've played the PS3 and PC versions and while it looks good on console (apart from aliasing) it's the frame rate on PC that is a no brainer for me, it's just vastly superior.

  • Subquest #46 11 months ago

    @AlistairUK It's a shame the high-end PC market isn't being served any more, but there you go.

    It's being served by 3D, which effectively doubles the workload to maintain the same frame rates. I'm running i7 and twin 470s, and it's the minimum spec for smooth 3D imo.

    EDIT: Smooth at 1080p max detail, of course ;)
    Edited by 1 at 26/03/11 @ 20:19

  • CamberGreber #47 11 months ago

    The Lack of MSAA and Graphical Options is blasphemy!

    Crytek is screwing over there PC base who paid there checks for the last 4 years.

    And purposely holding back Higher Res Textures so the console versions look less bad is just plain wrong.

    Shame on Them.

  • Philip46 #48 11 months ago

    @Goodfella

    'Your choice but it seems strange to get the 360 version with a rig like that. I've played the PS3 and PC versions and while it looks good on console (apart from aliasing) it's the frame rate on PC that is a no brainer for me, it's just vastly superior. '

    Yeah, and i fully understand that on my rig, i can run it maxed @1080p at prob. 40fps in 2D(Heck Crysis 1's demo benchmark runs at 34fps). And i know i can prob. get around 25+fps in 3D as well in 1080p...and i love to play sp games in 3D..

    Having said that, i'll prob. get the pc version, once the DX11 textures are released. Heck, i'll get it anyway, once it drops to say $40 or lower.

    My point is, at $60, the pc version just is not worth it, considering it's not taking full advantage of any modern day GPU, save for the fact of playing in 1080p(over 720p..upconverted to 1080p on the consoles) with some shaper/higher res. textures, and and a higher playable frame rate, of course.

    And it gives me a damn good reason to actually boot up my 360, until the release of LA Noire and Gears 3.

    Crysis 2's release was hit and miss for me, as it gave new life to my 360[or PS3, as i rented the ps3 version as well, to compare for myself], but i can only imagine how sweet it would have looked if optimized for the newer GPU's of the pc, using heavy tens. and DX11 features.

    Heck, playing GTA:IV heavily graphically modified(using vers 1.0.4) on the pc makes the 360&PS3(i have all three versions, as i'm a GTA fanatic) look like last gen. consoles.

    However, that's only because of the mod community, as R* released a terrible port over, with so many bugs. Sure it looked better then the console version, but not by very much, and it had so many bugs, such as lower ped. on streets and major hiccups in performance.(as in hiting 40fps then dropping to 12, the next frame)

    These days, it's all about developing on the consoles, as that's where the major $$ is at these days. And priracy is not helping the pc market, as we all know.

    Good luck selling the GTX590's for $500+.

  • Subquest #49 11 months ago

    Nobody who played Just Cause 2 on the consoles would say that they can't handle great looking open world games. Also, Just Cause 2 was lovely on PC - beautiful graphics, lots of TLC and stuff like being 3D vision ready. Why Crytek haven't had the confidence to retain the open world in 2, well it's a shame.
    Edited by 1 at 26/03/11 @ 21:03

  • bluetoothion #50 11 months ago

    some one said crysis 1 sold over a million with piracy being a pc exclusive with limited adventisment.....so without piracy where would that sales mark really be.....lets say not a million +1. in general piracy never raises sales so i don't see any reason bashing this argument.

    Then again crysis 1 was a far fetched dream in full settings for ps2 and xbox so i guess Crytek forced herself into giving too much in the first place only to tone it down to what all developers ( or most of them ) do as to make their products as appealing and as accessible as possible to wider audiences and consoles. The wouldn't immediatelly want to destroy console versions with a full power pc version of crysis 2 and i see this as only natural....

  • Buran #51 11 months ago

    Crysis 1, Warhead and CXrysis Wars crushes Crysis 2 in all technical departments except in illumination. But Global Lightning and more lightsources aren't enough to compete against 3 year old games that have better wireframe, larger scale, much higher resolution in the textures, better water shaders and environment interaction, and day/night cycle supported in real time.

    What I don't understand is the 720p comparison in this article: I'm currently playing Crysis 2 in a Dell U2711 display, at the native 2560 x 1440 (which means 720p X4) at 30 fps in Extreme (i720, 5870, 6 GB under W7 U64) and if the game looks worse than Bad Company 2 in PC is hard to understand how low end must be in console. And another thing: in PC the .cfg to disable smooth mouse and mouse acceleration is a must. The game is almost unplayable in PC until you tweak the controls...

  • Negotiator #52 11 months ago

    I feel a little sorry for the PC owners as its plain to see that the console versions have held back the PC version some what, but I'm glad they did. Playing a PC game on the 360 is a real joy as I haven't played a FPS'er quite like it before, huge wide open enviroments, amazing physics and incredible graphics (yes there are texture pop in issues and frame rate problems here and there, but when it looks as good as this you can forgive it), the best I've seen on any console.

  • tankboi #53 11 months ago


    CRYSIS 2 issues.

    - No quicksave. which wouldn't be a problem if you go it like Rambo, but I don't. I like stealth...so spend 20 mins in one 'autosave' section trying to sneakily kill all of the overpowered aliens only to be killed by the last alien and have to start back 20 mins ago...what a waste of my time. So I end up running past all the aliens and miss all the useful pickups that I so meticulously harvested in my prior attempt, because there is no way in hell I am doing all that again. Sometimes there are huge areas between autosaves, and given the fact that the aliens are tough as boots (and the heavies are f*cking ridiculous...two charges of C4 ffs) makes this is a bad design decision. Very bad...it even made me walk away from my PC at one point.

    - PC options menu. Quite frankly this was insulting. I am a huge fan of the previous Crysis games, and also am an avid PC gamer. Never have I played a game (created by a company that previously only made PC games) where I cannot choose what graphics setting I want to use, nor will it even show me what options are being used when I select either 'medium' or 'extreme' or whatever crappy console naming convention it was. I do not appreciate graphics dictatorship. I spent alot of money on my PC and I should be allowed to choose the options I want. Given that the options can all be hacked in with command lines in the shortcut exe, just shows how lazy the PC version was. Who ever made the decision to exclude EVERY option from the menu really needs to have a mental evaluation...they have caused forums to explode, and rightfully so.

    - No female nanosuite voice, or voice options. As a matter of fact the entire game lacks a lot of options. The male voice is very annoying, not being able to turn it off or down, is an incredible fail in the options department.

    - The motion blur. In Crysis 1 Im pretty sure you could turn this down or off, but again, no option in Crysis 2. It makes me feel sick and its hard to spot enemies so I hacked it off with a startup line and the game feels much better to play now. I also recommend changing the FOV and disabling the mouse smoothing which made it feel sluggish like your running through porridge.

    -The aliens. I thought the original squiddies where cool, but now they are bipedal...so they go from being cloaked flying giant death squids to bipedal jelly transformers. I would say that is two steps back in terms of evolution. People didnt dislike the aliens in Crysis because of their design, it was simply because people didnt want aliens. We wanted to kill soldiers with stealth in a believable tropical setting. I thought the lesson from FarCry would have been enough. The heavy aliens take so much damage its a joke.

    -the story and pace. I could tell you the absolute basics, but anything beyond that has flown straight over my head. loads of army generals and private generals shouting at each other and some old guy that invented the suit ( i think!?), and soldiers constantly switching sides...all at 100mph...way too complicated. Plus there is never any respite...its just constant assault after assault. In Crysis I loved taking my time and scoping out the best route and tactics to use...no such luck in 2. Its all very linear and even has 'invisible wall' only a few metres from where your fighting!

    Dont get me wrong I am enjoying it, but lets just say its a 'FarCry' *ahem* from the beauty of Crysis 1 and Warhead. It feels like this should have been made first. I played Crysis 1 over and over, I dont think I will be playing Crysis 2 over and over, unfortunately, which really does make me sad. :(

  • Walkerj #54 11 months ago

    In this video, at 5:13ish, when he opens the doors, the PC version shows no AF on the lines in the road, this is NOT how the game looks on extreme on the PC. At ANY resolution. It is clear that this is NOT the PC on extreme settings

  • Walkerj #55 11 months ago

    @Buran

    Day night Cycle was a mod, so were increased textures.

  • orangpelupa #56 11 months ago

    @tankboi

    wondering, can the savegame be forced from the console menu? (the ~ key)

  • womble #57 11 months ago

    @ tankboi

    I liked that there is is no quicksave. To me, quicksave is basically an exploit, or a cheat. It makes the game too easy. I prefer checkpoint systems for this reason.

    Regarding the aliens, I like them, but then I prefer sci-fi shooters over military shooters. (And, in the case of Crysis 2, you spend most of your time shooting the exact same soldier over and over and over again.) So the squiddies were a nice diversion.

    Gotta say: the AI in this game just blows.

    Also, I think the game needed another 6 months worth of polish. There are many obvious glitches that we shouldn't be seeing.



  • Paul_cz #58 11 months ago

    I do not really mind absence of quicksave, but function "save and exist" should be in EVERY game.

  • tankboi #59 11 months ago

    @ orangpelupa

    Im not aware of any console quicksave, but it would be nice, just because some of the areas are so large between autosaves. Sometimes there are 2 major battles involved, which is just unfair as your almost guaranteed to die first attempt.

    @ womble

    Yeah the squidies were cool in Crysis 1. I wish I was fighting them instead of the jelly transformers. Enemies with such obvious weakspots seems so oldskool. They are an advance race, and the leave their backs totally un-armoured?? Hmmm.

    If they didnt want to add quicksave then they should have added more autosaves really.

  • tankboi #60 11 months ago

    Also there is a bug where when you die and start last checkpoint, your melee attack stops working all together. You have to restart the game from fresh. Considering its so easy to die in this game, this makes for an unbelievably annoying bug.

  • tavaris #61 11 months ago

    I am still amazed at how many people give lazy/greedy companies the excuse that they focus on the console market due to PC piracy. Just like the music industry, the PC game industry isn't hindered tremendously by piracy. Xbox360 and PS3 (more so) are pirated just as much. Console piracy is just a better hidden market.

    Crytek just took the easy road this time and it literally paid off. It only takes one look at the multiplayer aspect of the game and compare it to Crysis. The multiplayer leeches all the 'good' aspects of BLOPS and tries to incorporate it into their game. And why not? This lazy approach sold at a record high for BLOPS. This lazy approach shows they'd rather take the easy road and go with what makes the big bucks in the market rather than be the leader of the pack.

    Piracy on PC's isn't the excuse you're looking for when it comes to the lack of PC attention. Even if companies state it... it's just the same as my excuses for being late to work. 'Oh I was late in traffic'. It's well known that morning traffic is hectic thus they have a higher chance to accept my excuse.

    If you're still skeptical, just look at Witcher 2. They are releasing it on PC with a *possibility* for a console version. But what about piracy? Shouldn't they do the same as Crytek and shy away from the evil piracy on PC's? Nope. They want to make a game that has far more depth and graphical features than a lazy console port.

    Stop feeding everyone with unsupported piracy excuses. This has nothing to do with the idiotic PC pirates. It's all about what makes more money for the company. The PC market requires more time and money to ensure the game is top quality. When releasing a game for console... all they have to do is make sure Auto-aim is on and the game plays like a re-hash of BLOPS and you've got a high selling game.

    Even with all that being said... Crysis 2 is a good single player, if you take away from the obvious console port.

  • tankboi #62 11 months ago

    Yeah piracy is the scapegoat. People who pirate games do not pirate INSTEAD of buy. If they can't pirate it, it does not mean they will go out and buy it, so it is not a sale lost if someone pirates. I should know, as I used to be one. Also demos seem to be on the decline, so its not unreasonable for people to want to try before they buy. I always bought the games I liked even if I had pirated them. Sometimes it would be months after (when money was flowing) but it always got bought in the end. I think Steam is a massive incentive not to pirate nowadays anyway, having all your games stored box-free and server-side is brilliant. I just wish they would keep prices lower than the boxed copies...which i thought was the point of digital downloads! Steam sales are sometimes the only justified buying time.

  • Haloboy #63 11 months ago

    Holy grail pc patch arrives tomorrow?

    http://ww w.pcgames.de/Crysis-2-PC-213107...

  • craziii #64 11 months ago

    meh, they all look the same. kudos to crytek for making all 3 versions the same. as a pc gamer, I cried a little.

  • MattyD #65 11 months ago

    It looks nice and all, but the crown for PC benchmarking has unquestionably moved on to Metro 2033.

  • womble #66 11 months ago

    @ tankboi

    "Yeah piracy is the scapegoat. People who pirate games do not pirate INSTEAD of buy.'

    Sadly, this is completely untrue.

    See jailbroken iPhone stats for clear, unambiguous explanation of what happens to SALES when apps are instead pirated.

    Piracy greatly harms developers, the vast majority of which are small to medium size, totally dependent on single-product sales.

    Everything else is pro-piracy spin and excuses.

  • Drygore #67 11 months ago

    @oi

    I have both the PC-version and the 360-version. My focus is on the PC-version though. Crytek really did a good job with the 360-version (and PS3), but i find the framerate to be very poor, sadly :-(

    Mostly staying between 15-25 fps, especially in bigger settings and/or with action going on. Too low for my taste, and it effectively makes it harder to play it on console. If the framerate somehow could have been capped at at least 30 fps i would actually have focused on the 360-version (m8's play it there, plus achievements etc.). But 60 fps at max settings simply make it so much more enjoyable. So, basically, shame about the generally low fps on the console versions :-(

  • drxym #68 11 months ago

    I don't have Crysis 2 but I have Crysis / Crysis Warhead. One thing that struck me was how retrograde the experience felt compare to Far Cry. I don't mean the graphics, which are obviously more advanced but the sense of freedom in the levels. In Far Cry many of the levels were completely open with objectives suggested by wide open spaces and multiple routes to achieve them. It was fun being able to climb up a hill and snipe out a tower over the other side of the valley. Or even glitch the AI so they'd swim over to a little island to get you while you took them out.

    Crysis just felt a lot more linear. Yes you still had beaches and hills but it felt like window dressing since often you had to follow a particular path, wound up in an "arena" (basically a wide open space with a bunch of triggered enemies), kill them and repeat so on. It was still wide open spaces, but not the sense of go anywhere do anything.

    I hope people get what I mean. I worry about Crysis 2. It's set in a city, so does that mean its even more linear? Are we getting to a point that an engine that delivered wide open play has almost boxed itself back down to a corridor shooter? I hope not of course, but I really feel corridor shooters are a retrograde step. Forcing people down a path and hemming them in with conveniently impassable rubble, doors that don't open etc. is not acceptable. When are we going to see the FPS equivalent of something like Arma II? An entire country to fight over.

  • drxym #69 11 months ago

    @tankboi, Far Cry had the same issue with quick save turned out you could bring up the console and do a save at any point. Some bits of it were so frustratingly difficult it proved to be invaluable. Worst bit by far was a section where you were stuck in a room of exploding generators and bunch of enemies with shields abseil down. Even with quick save it takes about 10 goes on hard.

  • Goodfella #70 11 months ago

    @ drxym

    Unfortunately that's pretty much precisely what Crysis 2 is, save for the 'arena' sections on every level it's basically a corridor shooter, except the corridors are quite wide.

  • zuul #71 11 months ago

    Having played both the Xbox360 version and the PC version, I'm quite surprised the way sharper, crisp image quality - due to higher resolution - of the PC version isn't valued higher here. While Crysis 2 sure looks good on console, the lower resolution, even if scaled up, is very visible from the very beginning. The PC version looks way better due to this.

  • sneetch #72 11 months ago

    @Philip46
    My point is, at $60, the pc version just is not worth it, considering it's not taking full advantage of any modern day GPU, save for the fact of playing in 1080p(over 720p..upconverted to 1080p on the consoles) with some shaper/higher res. textures, and and a higher playable frame rate, of course.

    Wait, so although the PC version is graphically better than the XBox version (and that's apparently the criteria you decided on) the PC version isn't worth it at $60 but the XBox version is worth $60? That doesn't really make sense.

    Good luck selling the GTX590's for $500+.

    Oh they will sell, they'll sell a whole lot more in about 6 months when they're about $200 though and even more in about a year when the price drops further.

  • intpleeus #73 11 months ago

    I don't know why traditional PC gaming is struggling; piracy, competition, and cost are all potential explanations. But whatever the reason, publishers and developers are increasingly turning their attention to consoles, and I am quite sure they aren't doing it to piss off PC gamers. It seems to be more profitable for developers to concentrate on consoles, and since profit is a prerequisite for their continued existence, that seems the most likely reason for the shift. We are constantly reminded about how much bigger the PC installed base is, and how much more money is spent on PC gaming, yet somehow this isn't helping developers like Crytek enough to continue ignoring consoles. The people whose livelihoods depend on these matters are fleeing traditional PC gaming in droves (or relegating it to secondary importance), and I'll trust the judgement of those who have the most specialised knowledge and incentives to make these calls.

    I am not saying it's a good or bad thing: it just is.

  • tankboi #74 11 months ago

    @ womble

    Surely comparing apps to 7GB games is not a good comparison? Its so easy to pirate an app compared to a massive game that you need to download, install, patch, tweak, and crack, etc, no?

    Im not saying its not a bad thing, but everyone I know who pirates most certainly would not buy a game if they could not pirate it. maybe its just the people I know. Who can ever really know!

  • sabbede #75 11 months ago

    Wow, this is waay to forgiving of the betrayal of Crytek's core PC audience.
    I feel screwed over in favor of console kiddies. Again.
    Second EA published game in the recent month that has done so.

  • womble #76 11 months ago

    "Surely comparing apps to 7GB games is not a good comparison?"

    Why?

    The same principle exists. And the stats speak for themselves. The overwhelming majority of people who pirate iApps never go on to buy the app.

    Yet we're supposed to believe that the widespread torrenting and usenetting and rapidsharing and sneakernetting of a 7GB game is somehow different? Why? Are PC users somehow more virtuous when it comes to stealing and then buying?

    FWIW, PC purchasers account for 14% of Crysis 2 sales thus far...

  • tankboi #77 11 months ago

    @ Womble.

    Excuse me if I sound a little sceptical, but do you mind showing me these stats?

    What proof do you have that anyone who jailbreaks their phone will go and buy an app if they are unable to pirate?

    Also, its not solely just about the principle is it. I wouldnt hesitate to buy an app for 59p even if its only half good, so if I couldn't get it for free then its no big issue, its only 59p! But a £45 game...now that is a serious investment. If a pirate can't pirate a game he/she is not that interested in, but is trying to pirate it for the sole reason that its free and wants to try it, do you think they will go spend £45 on it if they reach a pirate blockade? I really doubt it.

    If it were totally and utterly impossible to pirate any games what so ever then I would have thought there would be a slight increase in sales, but I would bet it wouldn't be as much as everyone thinks. All the pirates I know would just find free internet and flash games to play out of 'protest against the consumer machine' lol

  • tankboi #78 11 months ago

    p.s. BTW I'm not trying to be argumentative, I just like to see evidence that has been referenced, that's all ;)

  • StooMonster #79 11 months ago

    Dear Digital Foundry

    You didn't notice that SLI and Crossfire is broken in Crysis 2, lighting is shagged and makes worst screen tearing ever seen. :(

    KTB

  • rykars #80 11 months ago

    Stunning look at Crytek's compromises in making the "sequel" to Cryengine 2
    http://ww w.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/03/...

  • womble #81 11 months ago

    @tankboi

    Sure, here you go:

    [link url=http://iphoneroo t.com/piracy-iphone/
    ]http://iphoneroo t.com/piracy-iphone/
    [/link]

    "only 0.43% of pirated apps lead to purchase of the legitimate paid version."


    Good luck arguing against the validity or conclusions of these statistics, by the way. The stats are quite comprehensive and revealing.

  • tankboi #82 11 months ago

    @ Womble.

    Thanks for the link, but I do not see anything conclusive evidence there. I see that a lot of people that pirated the apps did not end up buying them. So does everyone who demos a game go and buy it afterwards? What if they pirated it and hated it? There is no evidence there to suggest that the users would buy the games if they were unable to pirate, either.

    Also, I really think 59p apps and £45 games are incomparable, as I wrote in my previous post.

    Shall we just agree to disagree on this? Otherwise we will be going back and forth all day. You think piracy is incredibly harmful, I think it is over exaggerated. Lets leave it at that yeah? :)

  • tankboi #83 11 months ago

    @ rykars

    That is an interesting article! It made me really want to play Crysis again. You know, the good one.

  • vegard #84 11 months ago

    Game still doesn't work properly with two GPUs:(

  • Dogstar060763 #85 11 months ago

    "...i have a GTX460 and it is absolutely perfect on Extreme settings..."

    I'll second that. Admittedly, I have the 1GB version of the GTX 460, but Crysis 2 runs (on Extreme) as smoothly as a very smooth thing from Smoothville. Frame rates are perfect and visuals and FX are glorious. I dunno where DF get off on suggesting you'll need a GTX580 card to see things properly. Patently untrue in my experience.