The Making of Crysis 2

By Richard Leadbetter Published 16 April, 2011

Digital Foundry talks with Crytek on Crysis 2, CryEngine 3 and beyond.

Page 1 of 3

It's been just over three weeks since Crytek released its first proper game in three years. With Crysis 2, the Frankfurt-based developer has delivered a technically excellent, graphically superb shooter that is groundbreaking in many respects. It delivers state-of-the-art visuals, effects and physics onto five-year-old console architecture, and in stark contrast to its predecessor it manages to run extremely well even on relatively middle-of-the-road PCs.

The original Crysis scaled up to challenge the future of PC hardware, a hugely rich experience that could only be savoured at its best by enthusiasts pushing their kit to the limit. In many ways it was a game that evolved in line with the advances in PC hardware. In contrast, Crysis 2 delivers a more targeted, finely honed product that somehow manages to deliver the firm's "Maximum Game" ethos to mainstream gamers.

But why kick off with Crysis 2? With the power of CryEngine 3 at its disposal and two games' worth of pre-existing assets and gameplay available, why not bring the original Crysis and its Warhead spin-off onto console?

"We wanted to move on to our next game and come up with a fresh setting to further develop the Crysis franchise," explains CEO and president of Crytek, Cevat Yerli. "A port to consoles wouldn't have been easier or cheaper necessarily and we always want to innovate and thus offer improved and refined gaming experiences."

There is an argument that the setup of Crysis 2's environments might have made life a little easier for console architecture, but R&D principal graphics engineer Tiago Sousa reckons that tech didn't come into the equation. This was all about taking the game - and the developmental focus of the company - in new directions.

"It was a game design choice to move away from jungles which we have been doing for almost 10 years," he says. "This decision was completely unrelated to any technological issues. But from a technical perspective it was a nice change to go out of our comfort zone."

This is not to say that the migration of the franchise across from PC to multi-platform did not have a profound effect on the make-up of the game, however. There's budget, for starters. By delivering three SKUs to the market, a project of the magnitude of Crysis 2 becomes much more viable from a financial standpoint, and the resources are there to include all the features the audience demands.

"We could not have created a game with the scope, scale, and multiplayer features of Crysis 2 if it were a PC-only title," Sousa tells us, before going on to address accusations that the company sold out its core fanbase.

"The PC market just does not support that cost of development, but going multi-platform does. If making a game that is bigger, better, more stable, performs better across a wider range of hardware, provides a continued visual benchmark for PC gaming, and more fun with a huge single-player and multiplayer offering is considered selling out, that seems like a really odd application of the phrase. The decision to go multi-platform has allowed us to bring a better game to everyone, which has been our goal all along."

The process of moving across to a cross-platform workflow was an immense, time-intensive task for the developer. Tiago Sousa describes it as Crytek's "biggest challenge ever", but the directive from Cevat Yerli was clear: no lead platform, no single-format focus. Crysis 2 had to ship simultaneously on all three systems.

The first order of business for Sousa's team was to get the CryEngine code up and running on console in order to better appreciate the magnitude of the task facing them, so straightforward ports of all of the PC features were carried out.

"When all basic functionality was in place, it was clear that a massive amount of low-level optimisation and re-factoring would be required across the entire project," Sousa reveals.

"The best example (or worst depending on your perspective) from the GPU performance side: the straight port of our old post-processing was taking around 30ms, and HDR post-processing took an additional 10ms. On the current CryEngine 3 iteration for both together, it is around 5ms on consoles, which is almost 10 times faster."

Crytek's optimisation work on console led to a corresponding performance boost on PC. High setting here is roughly equivalent to the console quality. Higher-quality settings see far more computationally expensive lighting, effects plus support for NVIDIA's FXAA.

After years of working with the state-of-the-art in terms of PC processing and graphics hardware, adjusting to the relatively decrepit consoles was not an easy task for Crytek, but on the flipside of the equation the engineering team was excited by the challenge of seeing just how much they could extract from the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3.

"GPU side, when programmed properly, they are fairly similar. We just have to be conscious of the clear handicap on PS3 RSX in terms of vertex processing, but other than that, on fragment processing side they are relatively similar, both have their strengths but such differences become irrelevant in the long run, especially when compared to PC platforms," Sousa says, assessing the overall experience of working with the two consoles.

"My finger-pointing at Microsoft/Sony would really be on the memory side. It's way too low, and the biggest crippling factor from a visual perspective. I would really like to see next-gen console platforms with a minimum of 8GB."

However, the focus on extracting as much performance as possible from the fixed architecture has seen both Sony and Microsoft develop a range of tools that allow developers to optimise their code to get the best out of the systems.

"My highest praise goes to the amazing work they did for their performance profilers, with Xbox 360 PIX and PS3's GPAD. The PC industry has a lot to learn from such tools. I think it's great to see NVIDIA's NSight trying to raise the bar once again on this area. Both platforms also benefit greatly from their vast documentation and support."

Core to the optimisation effort was the process of adjusting CryEngine to operate on a multi-core architecture. The Xbox 360 runs with six hardware threads spread across its triple-core Xenon CPU, while the PS3 only has two hardware threads on its PPU. However, it is backed by the power of its six available SPU satellite co-processors.

"If you write an engine from scratch you would establish a task pool sitting on top of five or six threads and design all parts to run as tasks. But coming from a sequentially designed engine we required an incremental approach," explains R&D technical director Michael Glück.

"We re-factored the major parts into more and more coarse grained threads. This way it runs asynchronously and can be put onto one hardware thread on Xbox 360 right away. We then re-factored the coarse grained threads into task-based processing [and] we ported those onto SPU."

Page 1 of 3

Comments (132) Latest comment 1 year ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • TONYgr #1 1 year ago

    I haven't read the article yet but i hope they will answer why the game has such all over the place frame rate,on consoles.
    Also the weird to say the least A.I.
    Edited by TONYgr at 16/04/11 @ 11:04

  • DiamondIce #2 1 year ago

    There are really odd moments in the game; the AI can be appalling and pretty good in one go. I was chased all over the place by a ceph yet over the road one of them was having a mad fit spinning around on the spot.

    The 360 graphical glitch is a real issue too. The game starts okay but it suddenly starts and gets really bad as you progress. The nanovision became unusable because of the distortion.

  • Ryuken #3 1 year ago

    A Crysis 2 tech post-mortem without a single word of the DX11 soap opera or the fact certain features on PC definitely are impacted by the multiplatform development?

    Good write-up for the rest, nice to see they actually brought awesome graphics to consoles, but I'd wager plenty of folks are curious about more precarious things from Crytek regarding Crysis 2.

  • Gearskin #4 1 year ago

    That article doesn't mention ANYTHING about the busted AI in the 360 version.

    I'm VERY easy going on games with minor issues but Crysis 2's AI is serious messed up. Every time I encounter a CELL, I'll find one or two of them walking into walls or ignoring me completely. Even if I shoot them in the foot.

  • orangpelupa #5 1 year ago

    "Ideally, you want to have the same asset everywhere and not have artists making custom assets, or even levels, for specific platforms."

    yeah ideally is like that, but due to the console limitation some developer choose
    - use same res texture for Xbox ps3 PC. Hench for xbox and ps3 is considered good, but on PC its bad (Crysis 2)
    - use different level for xbox/ps3 VS PC. PC map is bigger. (BF3)

    hopefully developer talks about the console hardware like in this interview is heard and considered by SONY, Microsoft, Nintendo. So it will be considered in their console design

  • Tallon4 #6 1 year ago

    The game certainly has jaw dropping moments, but I wish the framerate could keep up with the graphics.

  • karooo #7 1 year ago

    Good read.

    More articles like this and less comparison shite please.

  • kirankara #8 1 year ago

    love the way the ps3 architecture gets blame completely, but then they inform us that the fully fledged global illumination that was selling point on crysis 2 in terms of technical achievements, is actually a fraud.
    So we have kz3 running at higher res, higher res tectures, better looking aa (ok mlaa has some issues too) and a better frame rate, so how can this all be blamed on ps3 architecture? Surely they need to take responsibility for not getting best out the system?

    I accept the ps3 isnt the ideal designed architecture , especially for multi plats, but this kind of statement seems to be slightly aromatic with the scent of bs. They admit they ran out of time trying to get the GI stable on the consoles, so my guess is they also ran out of time for the AI, the frame rates and generally optimising both versions on consoles, as others have ran technically more demanding engines on ps3, and got better results

  • Paul_cz #9 1 year ago

    Played it in 60fps on very high at 1920*1200, it is very impressive, but the point about same assets is why the textures really suck console ass.And they already have higher-res textures, so why not release them.

  • photoboy #10 1 year ago

    Excellent article, it's good to get some unbiased opinions of the differences and similarities between 360 and PS3. Interesting that Crytek's guys want 8GB of RAM in the next generation of consoles, even shared between CPU and GPU that's a lot more RAM than current GPUs usually have.

    My number one request on next gen hardware is on-board motion interpolation, so even when the engine can't manage 60fps, the missing frames get filled in by the chipset. Might have some latency issues but at least it will look smooth!

  • Syrette #11 1 year ago

    When it works it's a wonderful game. Stunning visuals.

    Unfortunately it comes with some serious issues, on all platforms. Don't get me started on the netcode.

  • carlosdfn #12 1 year ago

    They tried to put all the bells and whistles on the console version and ended up destroying the frame-rate. It's sad when a performance that manages to go as low as 14 fps becomes acceptable.
    Visuals should never have priority over frame-rate.
    They think they achieved something amazing but a lot of developers could pull this off if they were allowed to drop frames to unplayable levels.
    Try creating something that looks as good as Uncharted 2 and runs at rock solid 30 fps and then I might be impressed.

  • HokutoNoKen #13 1 year ago

    For anybody that is interested. As they mentioned that they went with FP16 it easy to callculate the framebuffer for the 360 version and we can see why they went with the choosen resolution.

    1152x720 with for example no 2xMSAA applied and with FP16 as frame buffer format we get: 9.49Mb...

    ...so it fits perfectly in the eDRAM. If they would have chosen 1280x720 (still no 2xMSAA) we would have gotten : 10.54Mb...

    ..and tiling would be required and then with the mentioned penelties.

    / Ken

  • womble #14 1 year ago

    @Gearskin: the AI is broken on both console versions. I assume it's the same for the PC.

    @ kirankara: you forgot to mention that in many cases, Crysis 2 is doing MORE in a single frame. The environments are much bigger than the average Killzone play area.

    Anyway, good article DF.

  • dwalker109 #15 1 year ago

    Fantastic read. I haven't played the game yet but I'm more interested in it now - frame drops or not.

  • rottingyoda #16 1 year ago

    I have to say a great job was done with crysis 2. enjoyed it more than the first one. far more immersive. despite using console hardware the game looks excellent. I rarely noticed any screen tears or frame drops myself. aiming precision was very accurate regardless of the sensitivity.

  • Murton #17 1 year ago

    "Excellent article, it's good to get some unbiased opinions of the differences and similarities between 360 and PS3"

    I'm not so sure about the lack of bias personally, the guy clearly has an axe to grind with the PS3. Seems that everything that went wrong with the console development was blamed on PS3 architecture and not the development team themselves. He clearly states during the first page that the bulk of the engine was ported to the PS3 and therein lies the problem. A port will never ever ever be as good as a properly developed game and unfortunately, judging by the 360 and even PC performance, this wasn't a properly developed game before it was ported so it never really stood a chance on the PS3 and that has nothing to do with the hardware, that's a straight up development issue.

    I know it's unfair to compare third party to first but in this instance it's perfectly valid. If the architecture is so cumbersome explain Uncharted and Killzone. Why do these games deliver better visuals with a higher and more stable frame rate? Another developer playing "damage control" and blaming their lack of optimisation on the architecture despite how many claims that the new engine was "platform agnostic"? I guess Crytek made a mistake in coming to consoles, yes it'll make them a little more money but they haven't made a fraction of the impact on the industry that they did with the first Crysis and I hope that they learn from this experience and either stick to the PC, or work a little harder on their next engine so that it can actually do all of the things that they say it will. I'd like to read another interview with Crytek in a few years time where they can be proud of what they've accomplished instead of three pages of poor excuses for bad work.

  • The-Jack-Burton #18 1 year ago

    Hopefully the lower than expected sales will teach these guys some humility. And to not try and blow so much smoke up our asses before the next game is released.

  • trampstar #19 1 year ago

    Dont know if it's just me, but I find Crysis 2 to be pig ugly on 360. Graphically it just isn't what it's cracked up to be. An absolute mile behind what I class to be the best looking game on console, Dead Space 2.

  • nickthegun #20 1 year ago

    One of those games I really enjoyed despite the problems.

    Namely clipping through levels, garbage AI and the weird screen distortion. I dont know how any of that made it through playtesting.

  • HokutoNoKen #21 1 year ago

    It's interesting that he mention that the two GPU:s in the consoles is fairly similar in power and that most of the graphics are rendered on the RSX. The main "issue" with the PS3 mostly seem to be related to memory. As it OS eats up 50Mb compared to the 360s OS 32Mb (which gives us an 18 Mb in difference and then not taking in consideration the extra 10Mb eDRAM and unified memory setup).

    That the two GPUs are very similar in power isn't something that comes as an surprise as if we where to compare the equivalent PC cards from where this two cards heritage from, there are not much difference between them either. This is also why the PS3 is so "powerful" when it comes to graphics. As it's almost like "having two GPUs - one good and one decent" in the console, the RSX (which is similar in power to 360s GPU) + SPU combination where you can offload GPU tasks.

    See this quote from DICE tech presentation of Battlefield 3.
    "SPUs are more then capable of performing shading work traditionally done by RSX - Think of SPUs as another GPU compute resource"

    [link url=http://i56.tinypic.com/2l9kryg.png
    ]http://i56.tinypic.com/2l9kryg.png
    [/link]

    / Ken
    Edited by HokutoNoKen at 17/04/11 @ 17:01

  • StooMonster #22 1 year ago

    Talking of two GPUs, when is the multi-GPU fix going to be done on PC?

  • Syrette #23 1 year ago

    Why are people like Murton so overly defensive about the PS3? Constantly on the lookout for criticism of it so they can throw the bias accusations around. Even though you're getting quotes direct from Crytek themselves, you see it as an attack on your beloved console. Even when both the article and the devs are quick to make it clear that the 360 and the PS3 both have their pros and cons.

    I hesitate to use the word fanboy, but it's hard not to in some cases.

  • Buran #24 1 year ago

    "By delivering three SKUs to the market, a project of the magnitude of Crysis 2 becomes much more viable from a financial standpoint, and the resources are there to include all the features the audience demands."

    Shame that Crysis 2 floped in sales without ever touching the Crysis 1 & Warhead quality in terms of story (from relatively realistic screenplay to a Stark Trek kind of talk-tech nonsense), visuals (no day/night realtime transitions, worse water, explosions, physics, textures, wireframe, scale and A.I.) controls (laggy mouse aim that the player must fix via console commands) options (the menu is a joke) and charisma (from badass guys as Psycho or Nomad to a shy faceless and talkless Master Chief-Gordon Freeman wannabe). Not to talk that multiplayer wise the game is a total backstep, and doesn't provide the awaited editor.

    Crysis 2 isn't a bad game, but due his roots is a true dissapoint. I'm feeling myself a bit trolled by Crytek after this long wait since Warhead, the game doesn't live to his expectations.

  • Syrette #25 1 year ago

    @Murton

    Have you actually played Crysis 2? It does everything they said it would. Occasionally the frame rate suffers but it's nowhere near as bad some make out. The AI/online issues/360 visual glitch etc however are unforgivable issues.

    @The-Jack-Burton

    What are you on about? How are they lacking humility? Are you confusing the devs with either EA/Crytek PR? Funnily enough they actually want to sell the game and the engine to people/companies.

  • GamesConnoisseur #26 1 year ago

    I dont get the anger with devs who talks about the difficulty of programming on PS3, sure bringing up Uncharted, Killzone as an examples of where devs performed with apparent eases doesnt excuses the fact that Sony and PS3 needs AS many developers to work on PS3.

    What I mean, its no good to say to developers if you dont like the system then bog off, as Sony did acknowledge themselves that there are lessons about how we want to make its much easier, by providing the right tools and so attract more developers. PS3 is doing well now but its clearly a slow starter and I m confident that Sony will release PS4 that are so much easier to work with.

    Not more complicated, though at end of day, Crysis 2 did well on all platforms and a big achievement to get as much parity on all platforms.

    Would be interesting if Wii 2HD will get a port of game as launch title?!!

  • Syrette #27 1 year ago

    Reading your post again, Murton (I must be bored), and you bring up ye olde "if Uncharted and Killzone can do it, why can't other games?" line.

    Have a guess why.

    Could it be;

    - that Crysis 2 had no lead platform, so the devs had to share their resources across 3 formats? They tried their best to optimise it as well as they could across all 3. If it was PS3-exclusive, then yeah it'd probably work better on that particular platform. Obviously. But you knew that already.

    - that Naughty Dog and Guerrilla have plenty of experience working on Sony consoles?

    - that Naughty Dog and Guerrilla get plenty of Sony aid/resources to help them better utilise the PS3 architecture?

    - that so many developers make it clear that the PS3 is flawed in certain areas? They're not biased now are they? I reckon they know a bit more about working the PS3 than you do.

    - that Crysis 2 was Crytek's first EVER console title?

    Etc.
    Edited by Syrette at 16/04/11 @ 13:22

  • weaselrat #28 1 year ago

    The ai and the glitches (fell of a cliff and walked around in mid air for an hour) let this game down a bit but what made it even worse was the shit storyline and same tasks again and again (meet us here, oh no this area under attack, meet us here instead oh no this area under attack meet us here instead and so on) I actually found myself getting angry towards the end of the game and wanting it to finish as it just drags! When the line comes at the end '' we've got to go right back '' or something similar to that, I thought no way am I going to play this again..... so I sold it.
    Very very disappointed with this.

  • Murton #29 1 year ago

    @foreverafternothing

    I don't think I'm being defensive about the PS3 at all, as someone who used to work in the industry, albeit as a tester I recognise the difficulties in game development more than the average poster, but I do feel that in this interview the PS3 is being used as a scapegoat to cover for bad development. The whole interview focusses too much on what Crytek failed to deliver and their excuses for that, it's quite clear that the old Crytek mentality of making a game to be played on future systems still exists, but you can't release that game on consoles as they're static systems. When making a console game you have to make something that actually works on that hardware and while Crysis 2 works and is technically playable, it's simply not at the standard that gamers expect, especially from this team.

    Crysis 2 isn't a bad game really, it's just unfinished, the optimisation clearly isn't there on either console. Take a screenshot and it easily stacks up against any exclusive but actually play it and you kinda wish they'd toned things down to give a more playable frame rate. I've only had the "pleasure" of playing Crysis 2 for a short time, but it was enough to tell me that the frame rate issues would frustrate the hell out of me, it's comparable to beta or even alpha level code at times and that's simply not good enough.

  • Syrette #30 1 year ago

    @Murton

    Maybe it is being used as a scapegoat - I don't know, I can't read their minds. But it's clear that the PS3 has some issues from a dev's point of view, issues that do cause hiccups and can be used as excuses for certain things.

    I have no development experience either so I'm certainly no expert on these sort of things.

  • waggy79 #31 1 year ago

    Finished it on 360 this morning, frame rate didn't affect my playthrough one bit. The a.i definitely needs work, had lots of enemies running into walls. Slow start but campaign picked up later, overall happy I bought it.

  • orangpelupa #32 1 year ago

    Btw if you have PC, try it on PC.

    i was surprised Crysis 2 is very lightweight.

    My PC is old. About 3 GPU generation old.
    HD 4770 512MB
    Phenom II X2 550BE

    it run Crysis 2 at 1440x900 at 30fps
    with graphic option beyond max option. (by manually edit the files)

    it looks beautiful and surprisingly lightweigh in term of performance :D
    here my screenshots -> http://game.bramantya.org/10-most-beauti...

  • ToAks #33 1 year ago

    Beeing an developer and with experience from the early 80s and up to now, i know where theese guys failed:

    Porting serious code = Not good.
    Trying to impress everyone by looking better than KZ2 and KZ3 = Failed, as it has to be a complete package and with that it means not just textures and shaders but things like enviroment,light sources, A.I and so on.
    And in order to up the GFX they messed up the speed, down to 16fps is not acceptable and even then the A.I is retarded.

    I personally would question the guys at CryTek U.K's Talent, i mean.. damn Free Radical made some fantastic games but i never heard them bitching about the coding/tools for the PS2 and yes the PS2 was harder to work on than PS3 the 3 first years after release.
    And just to make it darn clear, the PS3 today is a piece of cake to develop for compared to how it was 4 years ago,develop info and tools today are simply fantastic even for n00b's to the platform.


    At the end of the day, people and developers in general seems to favor the Xbox dev template and ease of port from Win based kit's and the real killer here , lazy developers and limited amount of people with low level knowledge and ofcourse, people got way too familiar with Unreal Engine and before that the Criterion Renderware engine.

    thats my 2 cents on it all.

  • mojo_x #34 1 year ago

    Great article, really enjoyed the read. I picked up Crysis 2 on PS3 on a whim (my PC gaming rig is temporarily out of service). I'm loving the game, it's brilliant (I also loved Crysis 1 and Warhead). I don't understand everyone's harsh criticism on his PS3 hardware related comments. It's not like they aren't factual. Just because a developer isn't blindly praising your chosen console doesn't indicate some deep seeded hate for the platform. Grow up.

    It's a credit to the dev team that the game looks completely amazing irrespective of your chosen platform. I'm incredibly impressed with their AA implementation. Normally PS3 multiplatform titles lose out in this regard but Crysis 2 on the PS3 look fantastic. My mind is blown that people are complaining...!

  • Syrette #35 1 year ago

    @ToAks

    Two things.

    - Crytek UK only did the MP side of Crysis 2. Everything else was done by the main German arm of Crytek, including CryEngine3.

    - Again it's not so much that the PS3 is difficult to code for. It's the fact that it's limited in terms of certain components and architecture that hinders development occasionally.
    Edited by Syrette at 16/04/11 @ 14:30

  • dirtysteve #36 1 year ago

    I suppose if you wanted to focus on the PC port problems, you'd need a separate article.

  • ZiggyMoff #37 1 year ago

    Quote
    "The PC market just does not support that cost of development, but going multi-platform does. If making a game that is bigger, better, more stable, performs better across a wider range of hardware, provides a continued visual benchmark for PC gaming, and more fun with a huge single-player and multiplayer offering is considered selling out, that seems like a really odd application of the phrase. The decision to go multi-platform has allowed us to bring a better game to everyone, which has been our goal all along."

    Hmm, bigger, better, more stable and performs better across a wider range of hardware, provides a continued visual benchmark for PC gaming? have crytek actully visited there own forums? (mycrysis is full of complaints), this game is far from more stable, the PC MP is broken and full of cheats (nearly every server), the SP has numerous bugs (some quite big), the AI is half broken and the game is certanly not bigger.

    Shame on you Eurogamer for not calling them out on this (it's amazing how the gaming sites are ignoring all the major issues with this game), aren't the press supposed to be impartial and report the truth?.

    It's a halfway decent game sure but this statement is utter crap, this game is currently unfinished (at least on PC, no ida about PS3/360).
    Edited by ZiggyMoff at 16/04/11 @ 15:01

  • Master_Ted #38 1 year ago

    FOr the record:
    That temporal AA makes motion look awful, I wish they'd not use it anymore.

    made halo reach feel ugly, and it hurts crysis 2 when ingame

  • des #39 1 year ago

    Crytek made best looking console,PC game(except modded Crysis).Engine is improved in every conceivable way.Game has some problems(AI,not that Crysis AI was any good),framerate problems on consoles.Surprisingly those things never stand in your way,that tells that game has strong,fun core gameplay.

    The most interesting part of the interview is not arguing about outdated consoles,but this



    My finger-pointing at Microsoft/Sony would really be on the memory side," said Crytek's principal graphics engineer Tiago Sousa while discussing with Eurogamer the problems the team encountered when developing Crysis 2 for console.

    "It's way too low, and the biggest crippling factor from a visual perspective. I would really like to see next-gen console platforms with a minimum of 8GB."

    Oh yes...8GB

  • carlosdfn #40 1 year ago

    I seriously doubt that we'll be seeing 8gb on next gen consoles. 4gb is my guess unless they arrive later than I think they will.

  • ToAks #41 1 year ago

    @foreverafternothing:

    thanks for info about CryTek Uk and the MP.
    ah, that explains some of the feedback.

  • CaptainQuint #42 1 year ago

    The game is a beauty to behold, but I don't think they nailed the consoles as much as they like to make out. An unstable framerate should NEVER be a feature of a 'AAA' title. Struggling to run certain features in 'crowded' areas? Then make further cutbacks as necessary - dial back the details - keep the game's framerate ROCK SOLID.

    I loved this game, but it does feel unfinished and not as cutting-edge as it's made to be. It's a great technical achievement for sure, but I don't think it's the best engine available on consoles.

    Would the even more ambitious Halo Reach be possible on CryEngine 3? I don't think so.

  • vegard #43 1 year ago

    Still waiting for this game to run flicker-free on my crossfire setup. No idea if it's ATI or Crytek I should be shouting at...

  • kirankara #44 1 year ago

    @forevernornothing

    There is an element of it being more difficult to work on ps3 or at least work in alternate manner .

    John carmack on doing rage on ps3 "“The rasteriser is just a little bit slower – no two ways about that. The RSX is slower than what we have in the 360. Processing wise, the main CPU is about the same, but the 360 makes it easier to split things off, and that’s where a lot of the work has been, splitting it all into jobs on the PS3.”
    "
    Whilst irrational games discussing bioshock infinite say

    "We all know that the PS3 is powerful but unique console with its own strengths and challenges. But compared to the PC, the Xbox 360 is challenging too. So instead of declaring a 'lead platform' and porting the game to the others, we've instead changed the game engine so that all platforms look (to a programmer) more like a PS3. This means implementing a task-oriented task processor that assumes a NUMA (non-uniform memory access) design that mimics the PPU/SPU split of the PS3. Writing code this way is more difficult for us, but has a key advantage: it's both optimal for the PS3 *and* gives speed improvements on other platforms due to increased cache coherence and more efficient use of multiple processing units."

    It's worth a butchers at whole article and illustrates what needs to be done ideally for multiplat to get best out both.

    [link url=http://imagequalitymatters.blogspot.com/2010/11/tech-report-irrational-talks-bioshock.html
    ]http://imagequalitymatters.blogspot.com/...[/link]

  • SvennoJ #45 1 year ago

    It seems like their biggest problem is trying to load or retain too much data in main memory at the same time. On PC It's normal to load everything you need for the entire level into memory before hand, but on consoles it's a far better strategy to stream assets while you're playing. Downloading main memory into video memory on ps3 as he said on page 2 sounds like a really bad idea and a big waste of cpu/gpu cycles. They went for a more linear level approach but it sounds like they're still stuck with a huge amount of global assets in memory. No wonder he wants 8Gb memory on consoles.
    This is probably why games like Uncharted and Killzone are much more stable by optimizing the data flow.

  • rottingyoda #46 1 year ago

    People are really hating this game and I don't understand why from what I played of it. Personally don't play FPS games for their story telling ability. The AI was fine. I dont know what people want from the AI. It reacts well. Flanking is attempted and cover is sought out under fire. No better or worse than the Crysis 1 AI. On occasion i'd see the odd cell soldier running into a wall but in no way affected my overall experience.

    A very fun game with great level layouts. Will play through many times. Keep me happy until battlefield3

  • DrStrangelove #47 1 year ago

    Does anyone know a website that clearly explains (and depicts) all this graphic tech stuff? That clearly shows what shaders, bump mapping, tesselation and postmlsaa are and what exactly it looks like with and without? I don't understand a lot of what they say, but I'd really like to. I wasted hours searching on the web, and all I could find were 90s-style pages with very scarce descriptions, lacking any images, and in the best cases 6 or 7 years old. Wikipedia is more up-to-date, but feels like I have to study computer graphics before I can understand even one paragraph, and also lacking good depictions in most cases.

    I would really appreciate if someone can tell me a good one.

  • VandelayIndustries #48 1 year ago

    @FAN & Murton.
    Using first party examples is unfair of course, but there are third party games which demonstrate how close in capabilities the HD twins are. I'm thinking of the last two games by Criterion & Visceral.

    I'd of preferred Crytek to have curbed the shiny in favor of performance, but with that said the game is great fun in spite of its problems.

  • StooMonster #49 1 year ago

    vegard: Still waiting for this game to run flicker-free on my crossfire setup. No idea if it's ATI or Crytek I should be shouting at...

    Crytek as (a) the light flicker problems occurs on SLI too and isn't limited to Crossfire, and (b) Crytek have it listed as a "known issue" on MyCrysis website.

    All the workarounds consist of disabling multi-GPU rendering, as I posted above, I wonder when they are going to get round to fixing this problem ... it makes the game unplayable on multi-GPU PCs, unless you turn off one of your GPUs.

  • warbo #50 1 year ago

    The 360 GPU has double the vertex setup rate of the RSX. Aside from that fairly big difference, the two GPU's are similar. Then there's the relative bandwidth limitation on PS3. Heaps of particles and transparencies aren't as common on PS3 as they are on 360, because that bandwidth provided by eDRAM is absent on the Sony console.


    Exclusive developers play to the strengths of a system. A game like KZ3 isn't nearly as memory intensive as Crysis 2 in some areas (no HDR,) and they can afford some extra post processing. Overall the two platforms are very similar, though some still don't want to believe it. One has better memory management, edram and can handle more geometry, 500m vs 250m tri's setup rate. The other has a stronger CPU for post processing effects and even shading. Nothing like a "second GPU" though.
    Edited by warbo at 16/04/11 @ 16:31

  • Otis_Inf #51 1 year ago

    @forevernornothing

    There's another restriction Crytek didn't mention: they didn't want to write too much PS3 specific code. This is understandable, as it gives higher maintenance costs, but it also makes it harder to make the same shader/GPU oriented code runnable on a satisfying speed on PS3. If Crytek had written more subsystems based on SPUs things would have looked differently for the PS3, but as they compromised on not going there, the consequence was that the PS3 code was likely not up to par with the rest.

    What others try to point out with games like Uncharted2/KZ2/3, is that to achieve the same graphical quality on PS3, you have to do things differently but it IS possible. The interview suggests that this isn't the case: the HW is simply too limited, according to Crytek. But it can't be both, and as Sony's studios show it is possible (albeit with highly tuned PS3 oriented code, most critical code written in CELL asm), Crytek should have worded it differently, e.g.: explained that effectively writing an engine for PS3 alone isn't doable, cost-wise.

    What's strange is that Crytek apparently doesn't really care about the fact it's now actually an engine with lower quality on PS3. After all, their engine is marketed as a true cross-platform engine which runs as fast and smooth on the PS3 as on 360 whatever you throw at it. They don't get there with this engine, because their showcase for their engine, Crysis 2, isn't smooth on either console. Any 3rd party using the engine will achieve only less than that.
    Edited by Otis_Inf at 16/04/11 @ 16:31

  • acuratebob #52 1 year ago

    Am I the only one who thinks that Crysis 2 was a major letdown. Everybody says this game looks amazing. Nothig visually wrong with it. I will give anybody a tenner if they show me a single shadow. On the console it looks flat and lifeless. No shadows mean no depth. Look at Battlefield 3, that looks amazing!

    The gameplay of Crysis on the PC was amazing compared to this linear game. At least on the PC there was plenty of opportunity to do stuff my way. Crysis 2 was linear game with the feel like it's open.

    Diss me if ya want but I traded this in for Dynasty Warriors 7. That even has shadows.

  • orangpelupa #53 1 year ago

    @acuratebob
    i play Crysis 1 and 2 on PC

    crysis 2 have many shadows and dynamic.

    to see my screenshot, go to comments this http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digita...

  • Claudiov1.0 #54 1 year ago

    Cool article.. the game looks amazing on the Pc... i have also a PS3, but crysis 2 on the PS3 could have been much better, the texture filtering is better, shadows are softer, the water looks much better (correct me if im wrong, but this is what DF said in their comparison.. i think!!), however the lower resolution is just a big game changer... i was very disapointed with crytek, i mean after putting crysis 2 to run on consoles, would it be too much to ask for 2 similar versions, especially since we are prety tired of the PS3 getting all of these inferior ports.

    Tiago Sousa (he is portuguese, like me :) ) said that future consoles needed 8 gb of RAM, that ain´t gonna happen, i have a pc with 8GB DDR3 Ram. and i pray that someday i will use all of those 8 gb's and not 2 or 3..
    Edited by Claudiov1.0 at 16/04/11 @ 17:47

  • Cjail #55 1 year ago

    Crysis 2 took 4 years of development and still Uncharted 2 (a 2 years old game) looks better and more is polished in every way!
    Also graphic is really secondary when the online is almost unplayable and full of bugs.
    Edited by Cjail at 16/04/11 @ 17:58

  • orangpelupa #56 1 year ago

    @claudio
    i think in a sense, crysis 2 in PS3
    yes inferior to PC
    but its not really inferior to xbox version.

    yes the resolution is lower,
    but it have better minimum framerate, it have better light (or maybe just the xbox is buggy i dont know).

    it feels like xbox win in one thing ps3 lose in one thing. But xbox lose in other thing, ps3 win in that other thing.

    also the resolution difference when you see it from television screen is not big.
    Maybe due to the distance between screen and viewer.

    @CJay
    crysis 2 is being developed for PS3 Xbox PC

    uncharted 2 is only for PS3.

    so the focus of time, workforce, man hour, budget, direction, all different.
    Edited by orangpelupa at 16/04/11 @ 17:54

  • Cjail #57 1 year ago

    @orangpelupa
    Consider this then: at Naughty dog they are 80-90 people; at Crytek they are over 560.
    Even with 3 different platform to work on (PC, PS3, 360), even dividing the work for 3 teams , they could have used a staff with 90 more people than Nought Dog to work on the PS3 version.
    In the end they had: twice the workforce and twice the time than Naughty Dog; also working on 3 platform meas a bigger audience and thus a bigger income!

  • CaptainQuint #58 1 year ago

    Anyone who seriously compares the graphics in Crysis 2 to Uncharted 2 is a clueless fuckwit.

  • radioactive_bumfluff #59 1 year ago

    I bought this game the day after iy came out, it got great hype from a work colleague and ratings on-line, never have I been so disappointed in a game since Rise of the Robots on the SNES!!

    POS!!! Trading this in next week for Mortal Kombat!!

  • CaptainQuint #60 1 year ago

    Methinks redbarony is a greasy little dweeb with too much time to kill.

  • apoc_reg #61 1 year ago

    You took that PR bull about selling out so easily Eurogamer, poor effort.

    We demand some more probing than that in the PC world!

  • chiz #62 1 year ago

    I haven't read the article yet but i hope they will answer why the game has such all over the place frame rate,on consoles.
    Also the weird to say the least A.I.

    Because consoles are shit now? A nice steady 60fps for me on proper HD resolution (PC)

    Edit: Sorry, I played it on a better than HD resolution. A PC
    Edited by chiz at 16/04/11 @ 21:18

  • Inmediasress #63 1 year ago

    Looking at the comments from this post it is clear that a lot of people have again fallen for the PR bullshit the devs and Ea pulled.
    Then again looks like it did not reached estimated sales which gives hope for the future that some people start to get immune to game devs/publishers lies. Buying games first day and preordering is something that should be avoided at all costs even with games that you look forward to.
    Edited by Inmediasress at 16/04/11 @ 21:11

  • Murton #64 1 year ago

    "Buying games first day and preordering is something that should be avoided at all costs even with games that you look forward to."

    QFE. Though I don't feel that way myself, there are plenty of titles that has inspired pre-orders and day 1 purchases from me and I rarely regret buying. It is sad however that game experiences so often fail to live up to the hype that it puts people off pre-ordering altogether.

  • MegaCadet #65 1 year ago

    WTF is this bull? They didn't even use the Cell to off-load GPU functions.

    ARRRGH! PS3 maxing out my ass..Atleast this game is a good "RSX vs Xenos" reference. I was under the impression that the Xenos GPU was leagues better than the RSX. Glad to see that the RSX still is decent enough to run Crysis 2 fairly decently compared to the 360 version. Though both versions feel unfinished.

  • BloodofKingu #66 1 year ago

    that was an incredibly fluffy interview. where did all the tough questions go?

    crysis 2 isn't the disaster some want to claim, but i don't think it will be making many end of year lists.

  • solidmgsnake #67 1 year ago

    Im glad hes knocking the low memory and limitations of current console hardware. 8 gigs for a console would great. Developers wouldnt have to deal with this crap thats holding back their visions. Its very true and everyone should know that the consoles are old and we need an upgrade already. Real-time Avatar looking gfx? Fucking hell yea. but the mass market isnt ready like he said. Its a damn shame everything is being held back. Sony and Microsoft need to upgrade their consoles already.

  • kirankara #68 1 year ago

    Yeah ultimately neither console version impressed me that much tbh, I remember playing the 360 demo 2nd time around and squinting looking at it , thinking well it's kinda nice looking but hurts my eyes looking at at, and no idea why.
    It's still a good looking game and even on ps3 which I got it in to play online with mates( naive or what lol?) it looks fine to me, not as sharp but not huge difference.
    However , it's not that great a looking game, and to learn they even cheated on the GI is weak . Both versions look and feel half finished.

  • betrayerofhope #69 1 year ago

    I think the folks from crytek need to contact gureilla games or naughty dog on how to design a game that utilises the PS3 strengths.

    killzone and uncharted absolutely look so much better than crysis on consoles. Much much better.

    Edited by betrayerofhope at 17/04/11 @ 01:02

  • womble #70 1 year ago

    @trampstar "An absolute mile behind what I class to be the best looking game on console, Dead Space 2."

    There's no useful comparison to be had there.

    Yes, Dead Space 2 is gorgeous. But it's a strictly linear room shooter. It packs most of its assets in to very small areas, with a very limited and scripted set of encounters, where they can control the environment and subsequent frame rate.

    On the other hand, Crysis 2 operates in a MUCH larger environment with a MUCH larger range of elements at any one time. As such it has very different rendering/scene-management requirements.


  • womble #71 1 year ago

    @Cjail "Crysis 2 took 4 years of development and still Uncharted 2 (a 2 years old game) looks better and more is polished in every way! "

    1) Why are you ignoring Uncharted 2's development time?

    2) Why are you comparing these games when they are very different technically, and do very different things for different reasons?

    Frankly, if you can't see the technical (and ofttimes artistic) merits in Crysis 2, then you're looking at things in the wrong way. Crysis 2 has its share of problems, but it's still pretty amazing, particularly since it runs on multiple platforms.

  • sabbede #72 1 year ago

    Crysis 2 made me sad, but I won't say that Crytek sold out their PC fanbase. They did not.
    They sold themselves out.

    They used to produce games that pushed the limits of design beyond what was even possible. Hell, even hardware that is top of the line now struggles with Crysis on its max settings (well, if you crank the resolution).
    That's why I was disappointed in Crysis 2. It was a step back. Gamespot has a great piece comparing the visual quality of Crysis, Warhead and Crysis 2. Its sad.

  • kirankara #73 1 year ago

    @womble.

    ur points are valid to a degree id say, but when u look at things like say infamous 2, which is probably even more open world than crysis and still looks much better, then its clear, that crysis made some errors in way they handled the port.

    i actually think the game was not fully finished tbh , i think there too many indicators suggesting that the gme was released ahead of what the devs would have liked , and given more time theyd have refined it on both consoles further. either that or their engines just simply not as good as they thought, but in all seriousness id say the former

  • MegaCadet #74 1 year ago

    Are you high? Even as a Pro-PS3 gamer I couldn't tell you that inFamous looks better than Crysis 2 with a straight face. Don't get me wrong, inFamous is the best looking sandbox game...but come on....Better than Crysis 2? ffs..

  • womble #75 1 year ago

    @kirankara

    I haven't seen much of Infamous 2, so can't really comment there. What I have seen does not overly impress me, relative to other games. Infamous 1 wasn't a particular standout, either. I'll wait until I play Infamous 2.

    I do wonder how much of Crysis 2 you have seen, though. Yes, there are the NY street scenes that everyone has seen, thanks to the trailers, reviews, etc. And they look great. But there are levels -- particularly the night time scenes in the middle of the game -- which make you think "How the flap did they do that???". There's some serious technological firepower there.

    Yes, Crysis 2 could have done with another 6 months of polish. A few too many things are given short shrift, and there are some genuinely bad design decisions at times. (Like the ability to use a telescope to view an incredibly low-resolution 2-dimensional skybox.) But the core technology IS cutting edge. The fact that they got the performance they did from the PS3 version in particular, given the threading requirements, speaks volumes about how much work they put in to the tech.

    Oh, and BTW... Crysis 2's campaign is one of the longest ones around. It's about double the length (at least) of FEAR 2, for example. They packed a hell of a lot in to this game, even if the variety isn't always there.

    Frankly, anyone complaining about Crysis 2's technological underpinnings at this stage has probably not played the game, or is arguing on ideological (fanboy) grounds rather than on the basis of facts.

  • Enkeixpress #76 1 year ago

    Edited by Enkeixpress at 17/04/11 @ 07:40

  • CaptainQuint #77 1 year ago

    I agree with you Womble - the engine on consoles is an astounding achievement... for the most part. But it IS a heavy flawed creation. I'm afraid the unsteady framerate sadly exposes its unfinished, and frankly unacceptable state.

    Crytek's technical ambition is known for its blind over-reach - at the expense of other fundamental elements of game design and Crysis 2 is no exception, which is a damn shame, since if only their visual philosophy extended to ALL areas of game design - we'd have a bit of a masterpiece on our hands.

    I finished this game again last night on the hardest setting, it really is a fucking awesome game, the best shooter of 2011 so far, but it is quirky as fuck, a bit like Fallout. And it shouldn't be.

    I mean, it's bang out of order really that I was able to invisibly sprint through 90% of the game without so much of a scratch on Supersoldier...

    If Halo Reach's Legendary setting allowed that there would be uproar.

  • Murton #78 1 year ago

    "They used to produce games that pushed the limits of design beyond what was even possible. Hell, even hardware that is top of the line now struggles with Crysis on its max settings"

    But is that down to Crysis being so far ahead of its time or because Crytek didn't bother with optimisation? There is a little truth to the addage "can it run Crysis?" not because the game actually needs all this power but because raw power and brute force is the only way to run it at all. Also I'd wager that current day systems that struggle with Crysis do so largely from compatibility and not lack of power.

    On the subject of consoles with 8gb RAM, that would great, but I'm worried that if such resources were made available many developers would attempt to pull the same trick as many do with PC ports and use the extra power to shorten or even completely skip the optimisation process leading to more unstable games. I think the console manufacturers are right to design their hardware in such a way that it imposes some limits on developers as it means they have to work to a resource budget and code and optimise properly. It's just that this particular generation those limits are a little too low, both consoles should really have had around 1gb as opposed to 512mb in the Xbox and the much faster but far more limited 256mb in the PS3, which is really the limiting factor in multiplatform games and why straight and lazy ports to the PS3 always turn out badly.

  • kirankara #79 1 year ago

    “I haven't seen much of Infamous 2, so can't really comment there. What I have seen does not overly impress me, relative to other games. Infamous 1 wasn't a particular standout, either. I'll wait until I play Infamous 2. “

    I cant say i got into infamous myself, or even tried too hard, open world games don’t appeal to me. I was simply talking technically, theres plenty of hd footage around(badly compressed though) google it, its very impressive considering its an open world game. Sucker punch worked exclusively with naughty dog on the game, so u can imagine the quality theyve achieved, but clearly as an open world game theyve made cutbacks too. [link url=http://www.eurogamer.net/game/infamous-2-ps3
    ]http://www.eurogamer.net/game/infamous-2...[/link]

    “I do wonder how much of Crysis 2 you have seen, though. Yes, there are the NY street scenes that everyone has seen, thanks to the trailers, reviews, etc. And they look great. But there are levels -- particularly the night time scenes in the middle of the game -- which make you think "How the flap did they do that???". There's some serious technological firepower there. “
    Finished game other day, so seen it all. Can you tell me exactly what tech firepower u were super impressed by, as honestly very little of the game really blew me away. Like i said, when i first played the demo(2nd version) my immediate reaction was to squint at it like it was out of focus(i have 20/20 vision last time i had eyes checked), and game still made me feel that way playing through. Im not sure if its the level of low res textures, the low level aa, or the post processing effects, but it just has a certain level of “unclean-ness” to it somehow, that made it uneasy on the eyes. I refer you to an iqgamer article dealing with the tech analysis of demo on 360, and its slightly out of date, as it was upgraded slightly on visual level after that, but most part still stands true. [link url=http://imagequalitymatters.blogspot.com/2011/02/tech-analysis-crysis-2-multiplayer-demo.html
    ]http://imagequalitymatters.blogspot.com/...[/link]
    Its still pretty game in many ways, and like u said it did kinda make u go wow at times, but for me that was mainly lighting that impressed me. Little else really made me gasp or even go wow i want to just stand here and look around, and theyve now said they didn’t use the full gi either in console versions. I always felt they over reached with the gi, and chose wrong things to cut back on , with consoles, they should have cut back on lighting , and given us better frame rate and some better textures and res maybe??

    “Yes, Crysis 2 could have done with another 6 months of polish. A few too many things are given short shrift, and there are some genuinely bad design decisions at times. (Like the ability to use a telescope to view an incredibly low-resolution 2-dimensional skybox.) But the core technology IS cutting edge. The fact that they got the performance they did from the PS3 version in particular, given the threading requirements, speaks volumes about how much work they put in to the tech. “
    Disagree here, they chose wrong options in porting game from 360 effectively, when its well known that this is not the way forward. Again i point to irrational games article i posted earlier or john carack talking about getting best out of ps3, who both seem to have had the knowhow, and more importantly the commitment to getting best results. http://imagequalitymatters.blogspot.com/... . i seriously am convinced neither version had time they needed to make sure they were running properly, and as their claims of the engine itself are that it’s supposed to make programming on ps3 and 360 at same time easy, it seems to have failed miserably.

    “Oh, and BTW... Crysis 2's campaign is one of the longest ones around. It's about double the length (at least) of FEAR 2, for example. They packed a hell of a lot in to this game, even if the variety isn't always there.
    Frankly, anyone complaining about Crysis 2's technological underpinnings at this stage has probably not played the game, or is arguing on ideological (fanboy) grounds rather than on the basis of facts."

    Im not sure what the relevance of this is to technological analysis of the game and its faults really tbh. The length of the game itself was almost a fault to me anyway, with first 1/3-1/2 game often feeling like padding and was quite dull and tedious, it was only the last half of the game where it really felt there was some clear ideas/goals to the game, and it genuinely had a nice pace and level of action to it. Its ok to maker a game longer than others, but quality and pacing has to be there too.

    As for fanboy thing, there's been ppl on all formats relatively unimpressed by the whole package, especially framerates. i honestly feel, they rushed it out after maybe spending longer developing engine than planned, and it really wasnt ready yet. Its hard to believe the ai and frame rates got through quality control unnoticed. Either that, or there engine really wasnt as good as they thought, and they just released it anyway, but im convinced its the former.
    Edited by kirankara at 17/04/11 @ 13:16

  • OptimumSlinky #80 1 year ago

    Seriously people?

    @ MegaCadet, did you even READ the article? They didn't unload graphics tasks on the SPU like other games because THEY RAN OUT OF MEMORY. It's easy to that stuff with a completely LINEAR game like Uncharted or Killzone, with narrow, restricted levels that don't require a lot of memory. While Crysis 2 isn't as big an open as Crysis was, each level is still MASSIVE and complex compared to almost everything else out there, with multiple vertical levels and paths. Comparing a game like Crysis 2, which has an exceptionally high-level of environmental interactivity, with a game like Uncharted 2 or God of War III is ridiculous.

    @ acuratebob, every single video that's been shown of Battlefield 3 has been run on a cutting-edge PC with multipled GPUs linked (SLI/XF). If you think it's going to look anything near that good on PS3, you're smoking some good stuff.

    There is no free lunch, people. You can have linear, almost corridor shooters that literally don't allow you any deviation from a set path (see any Call of Duty, Uncharted) with silky smooth frame rates. Or you have big, interactive environments that allow you freedom to be creative, but come at tremendous costs in performance (see Bad Company 2, Crysis 2). Personally, I prefer the latter. I prefer the game that lets me decide how I want to fix and kill my enemies rather than a pretty, but glorified interactive action movie.

    Regarding why the PS3 version of Crysis 2 isn't better optimized... Guerilla Games and Naughty Dog are both owned by Sony. Sony can literally throw endless amounts of money/time at any problem they may encounter because they have it. Crytek, despite having tons of EA money backing them, doesn't have that luxury. Sure, they could spend another 6 months polishing the PS3 engine (god knows, the AI alone needs it), but they wouldn't their money's worth in PS3 sales to justify the extra cost. It just isn't worth it for them when they have to focus on all three platforms. And frankly, they already focused on the consoles enough, as PC gamers didn't get the Direct X 11, high-resolution textures, or editing features they were originally promised.

    Finally, I hate to go here, but as the owner of all three (PC, 360, PS3), I hate this "it's the lazy developers fault!" line. Developers shouldn't have to offload the GPU tasks to the Cell just for the PS3. Developers shouldn't have to make their entire code revolve around the PS3's atypical, bizarre structure. Sony knew exactly what they were doing when they dumped all their money into their PR-worthy supercomputer processor, then skimped on the GPU, system memory. They knew they were making things difficult, yet arrogantly declared, "We're Sony. People will conform to us." There's a reason Gabe Newell at Valve and John Carmack at iD went, "WTF?" when the PS3 was launched, because from a software developers' position, it's a horrible design. And who ultimately makes the games you have to sell? DEVELOPERS. Both Newell and Carmack have come around to work on the system, because to Sony's arrogant credit, their market share demands that any smart developer do so. Ultimately, it's all about the money. But when Microsoft purposely makes the Xbox 360 architecture easy to use and similar PC technology, and Sony purposely makes theirs obtuse, are you really going to blame the developers for not wanting to spend the extra time to rewrite everything? If so, well, go look in the mirror, because you're a fanboy through and through.

    I played the hell out of Crysis on my PC, and I will be the first to admit the second made some serious changes in order to run on consoles. And it's far from perfect, which buggy AI, glitchy sound, especially when compared to supremely polished shooters like Halo: Reach. But I understand WHY Crytek did what they did. And it's still a great piece of gaming, more complex and interesting than Call of Duty or Uncharted. And it's still gorgeous.

  • vizzini #81 1 year ago

    "My finger-pointing at Microsoft/Sony would really be on the memory side. It's way too low, and the biggest crippling factor from a visual perspective. I would really like to see next-gen console platforms with a minimum of 8GB."

    This one comment in the article makes me think my decision to wait for a single player demo before deciding whether to buy Crysis 2 was correct.

    8GB is a stupidly large amount of memory for modifiable game data, even in the next generation, and that's coming from someone trained first as a system's analyst, before graphics programming.

    Maybe all these developers need to revisit the colour index mode of texturing(Nintendo 64 style), to search for data redundancy in their software designs and OOP data programming struct/Classes.

    Software designers who want to build a generic engine and throw the data problems to the technical artists will need 8GB for mega texturing, next generation for openworld games on PCs.

    But expert designers employing data normalization(SSADM techniques) and packed data accessed with structural programming, or procedural assets/geometry (like Shadow's of the Colossus) certainly can do a lot more with a quarter of that memory provided memory latency is optimised for data streaming.

    8GB is such an old lazy PC centric view of game development. By all accounts it now sounds that the Crysis 2 game has amazing visuals, in spite of terrible data analysis.

  • Murton #82 1 year ago

    "Finally, I hate to go here, but as the owner of all three (PC, 360, PS3), I hate this "it's the lazy developers fault!" line."

    You have to admit that it is true in some instances though. I don't think Crytek were "lazy" in Crysis 2, it's pretty clear that muchos effort has gone into it, it's just that they put so much effort into visuals that the rest of the game lets itself down. There is no excuse for frame rate drops below 20fps, something that happens on both platforms I should add, that's an inability or refusal to properly optimise the engine for home consoles and that might be in some small part due to laziness.

    The 3D implementation is also incredibly lazy. Why is the 3D implementation on the PS3 still based on HDMI 1.3? Because the PS3 SKU is at its core, a copy/paste port of the 360, and while some of the points you make in your post are true, it's very difficult to argue that copy/paste ports are anything but lazy.

  • kirankara #83 1 year ago

    @optimum slinky

    what level of environmental interactivity was there in crysis 2 exactly? picking up a barrell? occasionally shooting a tree in half, where it fell at a pre-ordained point? I fail to see where crysis 2 was that interactive.

    It was more open in many ways than kz3 , with open spaces that you could explore and manoeuvre around, but it was actually quite linear too in reality tbh. The areas u could explore at any given point werent vast by any means.

    Again i refer to infamous 2 as a game thats more impressive looking overall and is an open world game (and far more open world than cryisis2).

    Im 100 % in agreement that Sony shot themselves in foot when designing architecture the way it did, but my simple point is this. If they choose to release a game on a console, they should make sure they give as good an account of the hardware as possible when doing so, even if it costs them a bit more to do so.They charge same amount as 360 version on ps3, and dont cut cost, so why should they not put up the money to make it a more refined version, as they reap huge rewards in sales of the game anyway. They know when they decide to release game on ps3, that there is multplatform issues, but they still choose to do so, knowing the financial rewards they will make, so they should also make sacrifices financially to gain those rewards. So i only have minor sympathy for devs and publishers in this respect.

    other devs such as Irrational and John Carmack have actually put in financial and temporal work to make sure they can get best performances out both versions(read article from irrational), and I applaud this approach, one that says, "ok we have to spend some money up front, but will reap rewards long term, and get best possible results". its not just lazy dev work that leads to poor ps3 ports, its greedy dev/publishers.There are always ways around problems, doing things differently, and you are right Sony were stupid in their design, but if they want the rewards they gain, they should make some sacrifices too.

    im also not a ps3 fanboy, and own both consoles(cliched i know), so ultimately couldnt care less if ps3 version pooorer etc, as i can always pick up 360 version, but when u raed/see devs finding ways around the problems that other devs struggle with in ports, it just makes u think, well actually they just didnt care enough.


    I also think that the 360 version is lazy too,as well as ps3. the first third/half of game feels simply like padding and is riddled with glitches and bizarrely poorer frame rates than rest of game (maybe was added later to extend game???) . then there's the ai, wtf??? again lazy dev work imo,when u look at ai in other games that's clearly superior.Then there's the grainy glitch on 360. then theres the netcoding online in mp etc etc.

    @vizzini

    I said something similar elsewhere(minus the tech talk lol). I simply think they are lazy devs who just want to throw brute force at everything, rather than develop good coding. This suits pc gaming obviously, and also to a degree the 360 architecture, whereas ps3 requires more refined coding.


    Edited by kirankara at 17/04/11 @ 14:11

  • OptimumSlinky #84 1 year ago

    @Murton, personally, I would have toned back the visuals even more on the console versions to achieve a minimum frame rate of 30 frames per second, but then there would have been complaints that it didn't look impressive enough. Frankly, either way, we're dealing with hardware that's six years old! And wasn't even bleeding edge when it was released. So honestly, I agree that I hate it when the frame rate drops below 30-fps, but I still think Crytek did an amazing thing with this engine on these systems.

    @ kirankara, I am referring to the wealth of sheer crap you can do. You can kick cars at enemy, throw computers at them, attach C4 to cars, then kick them, then detonate them. You can climb scaffoldings and slide across containers. As a Crysis aficionado, I'll be the first to say, yeah, they cut a LOT of the sheer open-world freedom of the first game to make it work on consoles. But it's still more free-form and interactive than 90-percent of shooters on the market. It was ultimately a linear game, but each battle space was incredibly non-linear in how you can fight inside it.

    Irrational Games made the decision the basically "pretend" the other systems are designed like the PS3. It's a solution for achieving parity on all platforms, yes, but it's again essentially the world conforming to Sony. Pretending the Xenon functions like the Cell is a disservice to the power of the Xenon. I'm not saying the Xenon should get preference but frankly, I wouldn't show the PS3 architecture preferential treatment like Irrational did. But that's their decision.

    I have the utmost respect for John Carmack, and he has said he will get Rage to run at 60-hertz on the PS3. He has also said he hates the architecture and it will be a serious, costly challenge to do so, but ultimately, he's committed to his products and his fan base. And iD has the talent and time to do so. But not everyone is John Carmack.

  • kirankara #85 1 year ago

    @optimumslinky,

    regarding the aspects of game u mentioned, fair enough, its quite an open approach, but (genuinely asking), is the ability to attach c4 to a car and kick it etc that demanding, even if it is a nice option, im sure it has some demand on engine, but i remain unconvinced that the things u mentioned are so highly demanding that it justifies other things being pared back to degree they were, and the frame rate issues etc

    U forgot that irrational said they get better performance from 360 too via that method in that article, so not really doing xenon a disservice, and again I agree, that yes, it means others having to adapt to the unique architecture of ps3 and it's not ideal, and carmack also not ps3 's greatest fan ( although he kinda Tongue in cheek said Its better than anything else out there, apart from 360 lol), but its clear if devs put in grunt work and bite bullet on cost short team, they have an engine that's easily transferrable to use in other games too, plus they have a happy consumer base too. If they clearly felt that ps3 was too costly and not worthy of investment in, they shouldnt make a ps3 version, but they do as they know they make vast sums of money from doing so.

    Ultimately they want the money from ps3 users, but dont want to make sacrifices necessary to produce a good product. That's not right IMO, especially when u see other( sometimes even smaller companies ) realising ok , we do this properly and absorb initial cost , and long term we win, and bigger companies refusing to do so .

    like i said furthermore, the sheer glitchiness of these console versions and the bizarre framerate that improves in second half of game makes me feel they actually did a disservice to both versions.

    Dont get me wrong, im not hating on the game in a big fashion, its still quite impressive and relatively nice looking. i just think its clear they made the decision to chuck it out as it was(for whatever reason they were behind schedule) and chose not to optimise coding on either version, and didntr bother to fix glitches/ai etc, which stinks of laziness and greed.



    Edited by kirankara at 17/04/11 @ 14:56

  • bluetoothion #86 1 year ago

    I ll be simplistic someone asking a mammoth 16x ammount of memory for the next generation in his first sentences means that working around resourses wasn't their cup of tea.... Crytek was spoilt and still is from their PC history its apperent that they will blame everyone else before they see pointing hands against them.

    you couldn't run Crysis 1??? you ass.... get a new pc.... eeer we can not say that anymore . Sousa : oh right lets make a crappier game and blame consoles for it.

  • funkateer #87 1 year ago

    "I seriously doubt that we'll be seeing 8gb on next gen consoles. 4gb is my guess unless they arrive later than I think they will. "

    In a few years, 8Gb seems not unrealistic.
    Going from 512MB -> 8GB would be not so far off from 36MB (PS2) -> 512MB (PS3)

  • kirankara #88 1 year ago

    @funkateer

    "I seriously doubt that we'll be seeing 8gb on next gen consoles. 4gb is my guess unless they arrive later than I think they will. "

    In a few years, 8Gb seems not unrealistic.
    Going from 512MB -> 8GB would be not so far off from 36MB (PS2) -> 512MB (PS3)"

    but even now 8gb on pc's is lot of ram, throw in fact consoles dont need as much ram for rnning of operating system etc, and we still have a lot of ram for a console, even for couple of years time, and consoles are always going to be behind pc's , otherwise costs will be too substantial on the hardware. remember ms and sony took bit hits on the hardware for a long time, and im pretty certain they not keen to repeat that if possible.

  • MegaCadet #89 1 year ago

    The fact that they were so heavily limited on RAM on the PS3 that they had to overlay the game with a sub-HD HUD (which created a stretched effect) shows that the CryEngine 3 isn't very efficient on consoles. Crytek is asking for an 8 GB minimum for next gen. That's an INSANE amount for console.

    When I played through Crysis 2, there was nothing about the visuals that made me think that all those compromises in resolution and IQ was worth it. The fact is there is alot of texture pop-in, various graphical glitches, and framerate dips throughout the game. It isn't very optimized on either console.

    Not every dev has to compromise to get similar results out of the "hard to develop for" PS3. Really, really shitty ports were only REALLY common in 2007. Now we still occasionally get really shitty ports but they are so far and few in between that we do start to get the impression that the devs WERE being in a sense "lazy." You even hear Crytek say over and over that the RSX GPU is actually quite similar to the Xenos GPU. And in some situations, Crysis 2 actually runs better on the PS3. So no I don't think it's the hardware's fault. While inFamous isn't better looking than Crysis 2, it clearly shows that the PS3 doesn't have to have a bunch of insane compromises to the point where they don't even have enough memory to use the Cell to it's full extent. It's a sandbox game with a huge variety of textures and polygon meshes and they are still using the Cell to offload various post processing effects.
    Edited by MegaCadet at 17/04/11 @ 16:43

  • OptimumSlinky #90 1 year ago

    @kirankara, perhaps I misspoke. Environmental interactivity isn't really the best way to describe it, so we'll call it environmental complexity. It's not like Gears of War or Uncharted, where you've got a narrow path, a few blocks for cover, and a bunch of non-interactive objects. It's still far cry (sorry, had to) from the original Crysis, and Crysis Warhead, which let you literally shoot down every palm tree in glorious high-resolution physics. But it's a helluva lot more impressive to me than anything else I've seen on either console. Bad Company 2 is a close second, but I'm just a sucker for those destructible buildings (nothing like bringing the roof down on an annoying sniper).

    The next generation of consoles will probably have between 500GB and a TB of HDD, a six-core CPU, and I'd say 4-6GB of RAM. They don't need it, correct, but with 1080p becoming the new standard and 3D becoming a craze, they'll want it down the road.

  • kirankara #91 1 year ago

    Yeah I am bc2 fan myself, it really changes the dynamics of mp. Thoroughly enjoyable experience ruining some camping sniping Twat's hidey hole.
    An 8gb ram would be one behemoth of a console and quite future proof, but reckon it's unlikely due to cost , but even 4-6 would be pretty tasty

  • kirankara #92 1 year ago

    Yeah I am bc2 fan myself, it really changes the dynamics of mp. Thoroughly enjoyable experience ruining some camping sniping Twat's hidey hole.
    An 8gb ram would be one behemoth of a console and quite future proof, but reckon it's unlikely due to cost , but even 4-6 would be pretty tasty

  • acuratebob #93 1 year ago

    @Orangpelupa

    I got Crysis, Crysis Warhead and Crysis Wars on the PC. That looks amazing. The lighting through the trees, reflections on the water, the wind, leaves on tree move in the same direction as the waters currents. Few games get that right.

    I know it does. Which is why I'm saying that the console versions specifically look flat and lifeless.

    I don't even want Crysis 2 on PC. The game was also very dull. Especially with AI that would bump into the player character while stealthed then process to walk around him!

    I was laughing at them.

    Possible typos. Stupid iPod predict text.

  • Badassbab #94 1 year ago

    Good article but I wish Richard asked Crytek the following questions:-

    1. Why is the 360 double buffered with soft v-sync and the PS3 triple buffered and full on v-synced?
    2. Why does the frame rate suffer badly during combat?
    3. Why is the A.I appalling?

  • OptimumSlinky #95 1 year ago

    Eh, RAM is cheaper and cheaper these days. It fluctuates a little, but you can get 4GB for $50 on NewEgg, and that's with PC retail prices. When you're talking mass production consoles, it gets even cheaper. I will stake my money on 4GB of RAM next time around, with a 1TB HDD since Sony and Microsoft are trying to turn their consoles into media centers and digital distribution is catching on through PSN and XBL. CPU, I'd like to say hex-core, but it could also just be a beefy quad-core. The current 360 has a tri-core, the PS3 technically has a single core with the seven SPUs, and the CPU hasn't really proven to be the bottleneck with either of them.

  • betrayerofhope #96 1 year ago

    Personally as long as sony uses cell 2.0 with 32 SPU and XDR 2 i will be a happy bunny.

    Just imagine how games like gran turismo, uncharted, GOW et all will look under those specs

  • OptimumSlinky #97 1 year ago

    If Sony has any sense, they'll drop the Cell and the rest of the PS3 architecture all together. But they're Sony, and they have more money than sense.

  • YoungPayters #98 1 year ago

    very smart guys there in germany.

    excellent read EG, good stuff indeed.

    wonder if there are any jobs going there?

  • bluetoothion #99 1 year ago

    Anyone in their right mind and sense mate would never walk away from half a billion investment. Cell is the way sony wants future proccessors and has the line to support it with laptops playstations mobile phones i think everybody would be surprised to see sony dropping this.

    On that note i think that developer with resourses and not lazy ones that have worked extensivelly on this type of architecture will benefit vastly in the transition compared to lazy minded lazy port policies from certain developers and will find this in front of them. Ofcourse there is no reason a scenario like the present not to unfold again ...sony can not make anyone bother if the same path of harder development is again pushed against 3rd party developers not matter how much power their next machine has.
    Edited by bluetoothion at 17/04/11 @ 20:16

  • knightmt #100 1 year ago

    I have to say that I have enjoyed this game immensely on the PC, and that must have some credit to the cross platform development. This may be an obvious point, but how many more people are going to play this on console and how many more PCs will be capable of playing this because of the broad development. The AI may have some limitation but doesn't it always?

  • MegaCadet #101 1 year ago

    I think Sony made the right decision going with the PS3's current architecture. The pros heavily outweigh the cons and it definitely shows in PS3 exclusives. Despite the hardware being "unconventional" it still does run multiplatform games very well.

  • kirankara #102 1 year ago

    i thought it was well known that sony had planned to drop cell for ps4, with ibm having rumoured to stop cell production??
    [link url=http://nintendo-revolution.blogspot.com/2009/11/ibm-discontinues-cell-chip-line-ps4.html
    ]http://nintendo-revolution.blogspot.com/...[/link]

    they were also rumored to be planning multi core to make it more dev friendly

    [link url=http://gadgets.softpedia.com/news/Sony-PS4-Might-Drop-the-Cell-CPU-Go-Multi-Core-7028-01.html
    ]http://gadgets.softpedia.com/news/Sony-P...[/link]

    Sony are not stupid, they got burnt and learnt their lessons fast, as they started buying up small devs to make exclusives, supporting devs with tech support, quickly produced software tools to support development etc, all within a short time after they realised error of their ways. When they had the american guy as executive for a while , he effectively revolutionised their approach in the market.

  • womble #103 1 year ago

    @MegaCadet

    "The fact that they were so heavily limited on RAM on the PS3 that they had to overlay the game with a sub-HD HUD (which created a stretched effect) shows that the CryEngine 3 isn't very efficient on consoles. "

    Not really.

    It just shows that they were so heavily limited on RAM on the PS3 because the RAM on the PS3 is very limited. Not a new story, it must be said.

    With Crysis 2, they tried to pack in a lot -- and overdone it in cases, to the detriment of the frame rate at times -- but that doesn't mean the engine itself isn't efficient. I seriously doubt there's anyone here who could tell Crytek how to do their scene management any better, or tell them how they could better offload even more stuff to the SPE, or how to get better use out of their threading model. (If someone does know, speak up, but make sure you bring your credentials and qualifications! :)

    CryEngine 3 is a highly efficient collection of engines. At times, it is remarkable for what it can do. The ENGINE is state of the art for what it tries to do (i.e. a limited sandbox shooter) particularly when you consider that it works (and works well) on 3 platforms, and when you consider the lighting and expansiveness.

    But I believe the GAME needed more time in gestation. It needed another 6 months of polish, with level designers and artists attending to specific encounters, optimising them for best effect. The AI in particular, is borderline broken, and doesn't even come close to the gold ribbon of shooter AI (that'd be Halo Reach). The game also needs weapon balance, some polish of art assets and some audio bug fixes.


    Re: "LAZY DEVELOPERS" ...

    (A mini-rant, not directed at you MegaCadet)

    I don't know any "lazy developers". However, I do know of LOTs of lazy forum contributors; people who deign to talk about developers and their work ethics, but whom have no real first-hand knowledge. People who talk about "lazy developers" usually don't know what the fook they're talking about. In my experience, the vast majority of game developers work hard (and are in fact overworked), and undercompensated. They typically care a hell of a lot about the games they make.

    In short: if you use the term "lazy developer", you're telling the world that you don't have any better argument to make, and that you don't have a clue.



  • kirankara #104 1 year ago

    @womble, maybe the term lazy devs is bit lazy , but we all know what it means ie that they Choose not to/lack capacity to refine the game further according to what can be done when placed in the hands of more experienced or committed devs.
    Most likely the majority of "lazy" devs are in fact , just extremely highly pressured from publishers , devs, but we all know that's basically what me mean by the term.

    Ps ur statement that most devs are hard working etc etc, is a lazy statement too , do u know many devs? How are u qualified to make such statements about how hard devs work etc??? Lol

  • HokutoNoKen #105 1 year ago

    I must say it kind of strange that people are saying that the PS3 are not able to run "free open" games and yet we have here an perfect multiplatform example that shows the opposite. Lets compare the two versions....

    AI: Same

    FX: Same

    Textures: Same

    Polygons: Same.

    Size of levels: Same.

    Animation: Same.

    Lightning: PS3, according to Lens of Truth, IQGamer and CryTechs own techpapers. Only DF say otherwise as they think the PS3 version is bugged even though it looks similar to the PC version in that regard.

    Anisotropic filtering: PS3

    Triple buffer + vsync: Only PS3- and PC-version supports this. The 360 had to settle with double buffer, soft vsync with tearing. If the 360 would not drop vsync the framrate would be even worse compared to the PS3 version due to the double buffered setup. Double buffering requires less memory compared to triple buffering which makes it even more of a mystery why the 360 don't use this setup as we know it has more memory to use and a more powerful GPU (according to some people) - Actually there is no mystery here more likely an hardware limitation.

    Sound: PS3

    Resolution: 360 (1152x720 > 1024x720, so the 360 version has a resolution advantage here).

    Framerate: Tie as both version perform better then each other during different circumstances. PS3 version during action, non action events the 360 is better. I think most people prefer a more stable framerate during the action as this is an action game.

    So the PS3 version had to drop some resolution as it has less memory compared to the 360 and as this interview pointed out its not beacuse of a weak GPU as some people claim.

    / Ken.
    Edited by HokutoNoKen at 18/04/11 @ 08:38

  • OptimumSlinky #106 1 year ago

    @bluttoothion, on a basic sense, yes, you're right. But you have to look bigger. The PS3 has a great line up of games now, but this wasn't always the case. When it first debuted, it was left out on a lot of titles. PC developers ported games to the Xbox 360 left and right, but PS3 versions were non-existent. It wasn't until Sony started buying up small developers to get them to design PS3 exclusives, and started shelling out massive amounts of cash, tech support, and cheaper developer kits to the rest that PS3 began to gain multi-plat ground. So while they spent a massive amount of R&D on the Cell, they had to then spend even more to get people to use it! The PS3 has been a huge, costly endeavor for Sony, which is one of the reasons they fired so many of their corporate leaders over it. Sony adopted the mentality that they were the best, the big dog, and that people would line up to develop on their platform. It didn't happen, and they had to adapt quickly (and expensively). Especially if IBM has announced they're stopping support of the Cell Broadband Engine and production, I doubt Sony will continue to push it. They would have already started using it in their Vaio systems if that were a probable course of action, but instead, those continue to use Intel chips.

    I sound like a Microsoft fanboy, and I hate that, because I've spent hours on the phone fighting with them to repair my consoles after they burn out (am on my fourth Xbox 360). But the reality is the Cell is an awesome number cruncher, but a terrible gaming CPU. There's a reason MIT and the USAF linked up lots of PS3s to compute quantum physics theory or whatever the hell they compute: because it's fantastic at doing that, and relatively cheap. But from a GAMING stance, it's not even CLOSE to as efficient or ideal a platform. And at the end of the day, the PlayStation 3 is a gaming system. And when you have a work HARDER to achieve the same level of performance on multiplatform titles (Borderlands, Bayonetta, and the Crysis 2 and Black Ops both running at lower resolutions), it's the kiss of software developer death.

    From a business standpoint, Sony got caught with their pants down. The PS2 absolutely dominated all other systems. It killed the Dreamcast, marginalized the GameCube, and beat the Xbox in everything but sheer power. So Microsoft made a decision to abandon the Xbox, and start focusing on the 360. And the 360 was an outstanding counter-attack. It's far from perfect and with the Red Ring of Death fiasco, it's had some serious issues. But it proved itself a credible threat to Sony's dominance, and Sony didn't take it seriously enough. Sony took a huge gamble with the Cell and Blu-Ray. The Blu-Ray paid off for them, as it killed HD-DVD, and established market dominance for the Sony format. But the Cell, despite what it is capable of, hasn't given a solid return on its massive investment. The PS4 will be a much more powerful system than the PS3, make no mistake. But I think you'll find it's a much more traditional, cost-effective architecture as well.

    @ Ken, I don't think anyone has stated the PS3 can't run open-environment games. We're just saying you can't legitimately compare Uncharted 2 to Crysis 2, as both are completely different games.
    Edited by OptimumSlinky at 18/04/11 @ 08:55

  • HokutoNoKen #107 1 year ago

    @OptimumSlinky
    "I don't think anyone has stated the PS3 can't run open-environment games. We're just saying you can't legitimately compare Uncharted 2 to Crysis 2, as both are completely different games."

    Why would anyone compare Uncharted 2 (a third persion shooter) with Crysis 2 (a first person shooter)? It makes just as much sense as to compare U2 with Killzone 3. It's better to compare Killzone 3 with Crysis 2 instead, as Lens of Truth did.

    [link url=http://www.lensoftruth.com/head2head/head2head-killzone-3-vs-crysis-2-analysis/
    ]http://www.lensoftruth.com/head2head/hea...[/link]

    And the outcome of that analysis doesn't come as an suprise either. Even Gamereactor has done a top 10 best graphics comparision and the outcome was the same. Their opionions is consistant with the tech analysis on this site which of the two games that are more technically advanced.

    / Ken
    Edited by HokutoNoKen at 18/04/11 @ 09:35

  • kirankara #108 1 year ago

    @ken

    Point ppl were making was that kz3 or uc2 arentt as open as crysis 2, and thus they can produce more graphically astounding visuals due to their linearity. Whereas in crysis 2 crytek dropped res due issues they were having on ps3 .
    Others have pointed to games above to say it's clear ps3 can do better visuals than crysis 2 but others have countered saying uc2 / kz3 aren't as open in nature. I've pointed out that infamous 2 is much more open world than any of these games and whilst lacking some of the clever stuff of crysis 2( although technically crysis 2 doesn't even have real GI on consoles ) is higher res and in many ways better looking too.
    Personally i reckon , put in hands of naughty dog , or another dev truly willing to get cross platform results ( see john carmack on rage or iqgamer article with irrational games talking bout bioshock infinite) and we might have different game on our hands on both platforms .

  • kirankara #109 1 year ago

    Where are kens comments gone I look crazy now , as I'm talking to someone with no posts there lol

  • hiscore #110 1 year ago

    One thing MS and Sony could do is install a minimum quality cap of vsynced 30fps@720p for their next console. When a developer doesn't reach this target, it should return to the workbench. QC was a bigger thing in the past (PS1-2), now it's getting those deadlines because shareholders want profits at certain times of year.

    As stated here before, Crytek wanted all bells and whistles for C2 on console(s), but they should have prioritized framerate first. Only very few developers remain who actually care about framerate and image consistency (= no screen tearing). Multiplatform development hasn't made things easier, but some devs are really lazy (even some high profile devs). If the development community itself does not organise around quality, than it will always be the publisher's/shareholder's call for what is acceptable. The only way we (as consumers) can let our votes count is through our combined wallets.

  • HokutoNoKen #111 1 year ago

    Kirankara. I think you have both games, Killzone 3 and Crysis 2 so it would be quite easy for you to compare those two games and compare it too what other people claim.

    Is Crysis 2 when it comes to MP really more "open - sandbox like" compared to Killzone 3? Why not compare the multiplayer maps (the size, the openess, draw distance, multi level struction floors etc ) of those two games instead. Killzone 3 namely has bots running around so it could be compared to a single player game. The single player of Killzone 3 is very much more scripted most likely due to GG wants to have full control of the experiance. If they are able to run those MP maps which are quite open and compareable to crysis 2, with bots and with that graphic fidelity people can't use the excuse that they only managed to do that because of linearity...

    / Ken

  • vizzini #112 1 year ago

    OptimumSlinky: But the reality is the Cell is an awesome number cruncher, but a terrible gaming CPU. There's a reason MIT and the USAF linked up lots of PS3s to compute quantum physics theory or whatever the hell they compute: because it's fantastic at doing that, and relatively cheap. But from a GAMING stance, it's not even CLOSE to as efficient or ideal a platform.

    I think that's what Intel and Microsoft would like people to believe, but it is far from the truth. The main difference with the Cell is that the SPUs don't branch predict using an onboard cache or reorder workloads, like a general purpose multicore CPU regularly has to with garbage programs, so garbage-in, garbage-out really is true on the Cell.

    PC developers have been pampered by the egg heads in Intel/Amd's CPU labs and by automatic compiler optimizations to produce better than garbage-out from garbage-in since Windows 95 became the default O/S. 3rd party developers blaming the Cell for them failing to do proper software analysis and work scheduing at an architectural level is hardly fair.

    Nintendo got accused of something similar with the N64 hardware because they were the only people producing an engine that showed the hardware's capabilities(Mario 64/Zelda Ocarina). If Nintendo were using the PS3 hardware, they would be do amazing things which would make it much harder for developers to blame the hardware.

  • kirankara #113 1 year ago

    @ken and vizzini, both fair points.

    Vizzini, Ken, what do u make of the Gi debacle on crysis??
    how bad was their decision to go the route they did for multiplat when compared wiuth irrational and bs infinite, and also what are ur technical impressions regarding infamous 2? Clearly theyve got some lower res textures in backgrounds going on, but overall for an open world game, it looks highly impressive, especially given the low quality footage, and that they are aiming for 60fps(unlikely to be locked though)

    ps ken ur comments kep going mia for some reason
    Edited by kirankara at 18/04/11 @ 11:35

  • Retro_ #114 1 year ago

    Interesting read, thank you.

    Can't say I've really noticed many frame rate issues on the PS3 version, it appears reasonably stable to be honest. I have noticed a few weird graphical glitches which stand out more due to the general good looks of the game. Haven't gone online with Crysis 2 as Killzone 3 is so good, but I'm enjoying the Single player campaign a lot.

  • mrblonde #115 1 year ago

    I think if nothing else crytec should be commended for giving us a solid and an at least 15 hour Long (on veteran) SP campaign, which very , very few shooters with MP components manage this day and age.
    MOH, the recent 5 hour in SP homefront ,all used their campaigns as training modes or were at best ,an afterthought.
    I didnt bother with crysis 2 MP but still felt i had my moneys worth when i traded it in for my £26 credit. (for bulletstorm)

  • Kaminari #116 1 year ago

    "8 GB of RAM"

    This is why CryTek is a patently bad development studio.

  • kirankara #117 1 year ago

    tbh mr blonde i thought first 4 or so hrs were just boring and dull and almost felt like filler at times, but after that the game really got going and was great fun

  • Bangaioh #118 1 year ago

    Stunning visuals? Really? I bought this and really felt as if it was below average. Suprised considering the amount of hype that built the anticipation.

  • vizzini #119 1 year ago

    kirankara: vizzini, Ken, what do u make of the Gi debacle on crysis??

    I take most of the info in EA's articles of multiplat games on Eurogamer with a pinch of salt. The article reads like, we've had our sales on console now after talking the game up, now lets trash it with less than quantified statements to provide more lip service to PC. And still avoid topics of patches and single player demos.

    Reading this article and then the Reach or Motorstorm article and you see the difference in the quality of info provided by the developer, and the absence of assertions being made by the DF author.

    I'm sure I read the other day that Cryengine 3 uses scaleform (an intelligent automatic multi-core compiler), so it probably uses about as much of the Cell SPUs as Infamous 1 does. So yes Infamous 2 is likely to be a technically better game (Ai, Collision detection, popping, screen taring, Frame rate, Resolution, world size, polish) than Crysis 2 on console and likely more fun. But without a SP player demo of Crysis 2 I can only go by your issues and online vids/pictures and technical docs.

    I will be buying Infamous 2, after enjoying 1 .

  • OptimumSlinky #120 1 year ago

    @Ken, you're right, no one with half a brain should compare Uncharted to Crysis, but read back a couple posts on this thread and you'll see PS3 fanboys doing it all over the place.

    @ vizzini, point taken, but BetaMax was technically superior to VHS in terms of visual fidelity, yet VHS killed it in the marketplace. Perhaps your right about the Cell, but it still doesn't change the fact that the entire gaming industry is very familiar and adept with certain architectures and tools, and whether or not they're the "best," they're the industry standard. And an architecture that runs contrary to the status quo has to be so mind-blowingly exceptional that it convinces people to throw away what they're used to and adopt the new tech instead, and I don't think the Cell is doing that (or even can).

  • bluetoothion #121 1 year ago

    Exactly because they have pour down so much money bought developers and created tools makes even more sense to upgrade on Cell's trails, they have the ability to complete what they wanted and as mentioned earlier they have their own line of products to integrate it so scrapping all this makes little to no sense.

    As for lazy developers ( AND I MEAN POLICIES NOT PEOPLE should be an obvious point anyways but thought to shout it) i m sorry but they do exist and its not a figment of anyones imagination.... by lazy means that they have a target result to meet and for obvious reasons once they hit it they won't really strech it much because they have annual cycles ?perhaps? because they have well known frachises and keep their strength to ''wow'' and ''innovate'' on their next instalment ?perhaps? perhaps because they choose the easier platform (or better paid perhaps) and simply copy paste a port ( as simple as it can be ofcourse)

    Crytek is getting thumbs up for relative result but thumbs down because they boasted about stuff that they weren't sure they could do....and one guy there dreams and throws a number of 8GB RAM while we are stuck on 512MB. and not even actual 512 to begin with a certain fact that in the future there will be memory hungrier stuff to run so even no matter what number you put any number you throw next to RAM and VRAM at some point you ll need more....wasted comment on his behalf really.

  • Machiavellian #122 1 year ago

    PC developers have been pampered by the egg heads in Intel/Amd's CPU labs and by automatic compiler optimizations to produce better than garbage-out from garbage-in since Windows 95 became the default O/S. 3rd party developers blaming the Cell for them failing to do proper software analysis and work scheduing at an architectural level is hardly fair.

    There is no such thing as pampered. It's called time, money and resources. Most of you come into the discussion with this silly notion that developers are corporate fanboys like yourselves but instead they are fanboys of systems that allow them to do what they want to do without causing them the most strain. When you have an 18 month time frame, anything that can help you to cut down the development time is a boon. At the start of this generation Sony tools were crap and those 3rd party games suffered. Yes, it is the fault of Sony if they want their games to compare to the other system if they make a system difficult to program for with no tools to help the developers create games for their system

    When one company gives you everthing to get your games out in your 18 months while another company does not who do you think you will champion. Delays cost money, developers do not have infinite time to create a game, put in the content, debug and test etc. if they have to create everything from scratch. People forget that the Uncharted devs spent 3 years developing the PS3 engine alone. I forget how much it took the Killzone developer but I am sure it was at least 2. Thats a lot of time, money and resources just creating an engine for a game. A lot of 3rd party developers do not have anywhere close to that type of time.

    So when most fanboys of a system come out with the "lazy developer" comment, I am probably the first to get steamed. Lazy isn't the case most of the time and it certainly not the case with PS3 development. The problem in the early time was time, money and resources.

  • BuckEntropy #123 1 year ago

    @vizzini - "I think that's what Intel and Microsoft would like people to believe, but it is far from the truth. The main difference with the Cell is that the SPUs don't branch predict using an onboard cache or reorder workloads, like a general purpose multicore CPU regularly has to with garbage programs, so garbage-in, garbage-out really is true on the Cell.

    PC developers have been pampered by the egg heads in Intel/Amd's CPU labs and by automatic compiler optimizations to produce better than garbage-out from garbage-in since Windows 95 became the default O/S. 3rd party developers blaming the Cell for them failing to do proper software analysis and work scheduing at an architectural level is hardly fair."

    Another pristine misdirection - or predictable LIE OF OMISSION - from the master there. Xenon isn't one of those "general purpose multicore CPUs" either, by your implied criteria. I'm aware of no indications that it has any hardware advantages sorting garbage code compared to the PS3's CPU, only that Cell is (obviously) more complicated, as it's asymmetrical.

    So all you're doing is towing the tired old propaganda of XBOX=PC/conventional but Playstation=tuner/special! Though I doubt I'm telling you something new... and which sort of fanboy is really worse I wonder? The ones who talk crap because they only know crap, or the ones who talk crap even though they know better?

    -

    Aside from all the usual trite memes - "lazy devs"; exclusives are all the proof that matters; but look at what THESE devs are saying, and about THIS amazing game that's not even out yet! - (and seriously people, all the crowing about Idtech at this stage is EXACTLY the same as all the crowing about CE3 up till a few months ago... ffs) certain running themes to these comments are notable:

    Not only is it less-than-fair to be comparing this *first release* for CE3 to other one-off exclusives, it's not even fair-minded to be comparing it to most other bespoke multiplat showcases. On the basis that most of their focus has gone into developing a versatile engine to (hopefully) attract other licensees, and generally build on for many years, about the only direct comparison (that's even been a success anyway) is UE3. And even that has a distinction, since it's console debut was as a platform exclusive, funded by the first party to be a pretty showpiece. And of course we all know how brilliant UE3's cross-platform-cred was for a few years...

    At least wait till a couple other devs have put their own stamp on the engine before making it out as some clear failure.

    Oh but I just love the outrage over their lack of "SPU work", even though the article spells out exactly what the SPU's are being put to work on. Again it's basically just people getting butthurt over every single instance that may further puncture their little 'Cell Magic' fantasy. All these resources are finite, and that's every bit as true for the Cell as it is for the RSX, or the Xenos/Xenon, or even for the eDRAM etc... so it's not like the SPE can/should always be leveraged for super grafix magix without any drawbacks, neither does it happen in a vacuum from the rest of the system. Just as in GT5, there may be an either/or point in factoring in the advantages / drawbacks of dedicating the SPE to post-processing or other imaging effects.

  • vizzini #124 1 year ago

    @BuckEntropy

    Yes the PPC core/s in the Cell and Xenon are similar to conventional Intel and AMD desktop CPU cores with level 1 and level 2 caches, branch prediction, etc

    @Machiavellian
    There is no such thing as pampered. It's called time, money and resources.

    How's about software engineering competence? Thorough Problem analysis? Correct design paradigm and language API selection?

    Customers have every right to form a negative opinion of a publisher or game developer if they feel the goods aren't of merchantable quality (framerate, pop up, screen tearing, resolution, fun) for any reason, and imo very few multi platform published games are of suitable merchantable quality even at this half way point in the hardware cycle.

    What more (exactly) in tools did a competent game development studio need than the gnu C/C++ compiler for Cell, the IBM hardware documentation, a OpenGLES/Nvidia CG graphics driver, and the necessary education/know how?

  • BuckEntropy #125 1 year ago

    Since you're so smugly certain about exactly how all these things SHOULD be done vizzini, and it means so much to you that you're always here to trash every (in your opinion) sub-par effort - or champion every obvious PS3 achievement... why the hell aren't you out there busting down doors at software houses?

    I'd think almost any of them would be delirious at the prospect of employing such an uncompromisingly gifted engineer as you clearly believe yourself to be.

    But you're just being stubborn about the misdirection there, of course the PPUs of both those processors have many basic features to facilitate workflow, and as a very low level serialized design the Cell is a completely different animal. BUT: as far as I have ever known - and feel free to prove me wrong, if you actually think you can - Xenon is not considered a true out-of-order-execution design. So no you can't actually just throw "garbage code" at it and expect it to run as well as your PC would. Which has also been represented as the main reason optimized PS3 engines often see nearly equivalent performance gains when ported back to 360. Because otherwise devs tend to code sloppy on the 360!
    Edited by BuckEntropy at 20/04/11 @ 05:57

  • Psihomodo #126 1 year ago

    Even the first paragraph is a load of bull. C2 was the flop of the year, even more than DA2.

  • Zappa #127 1 year ago

    So much talk about its AA method and downplay on MLAA ,yet crysis is an absolute jagfest...what gives??

  • MegaCadet #128 1 year ago

    @womble

    The RSX has access to 462 MB of RAM (50 MB is used for OS). The Xenos has access to 480 MB of RAM. I love how people are pretending that the difference in memory between the PS3 and 360 is enormous when in reality it isn't. In fact, half of the PS3's RAM is much faster.

    Crytek even said themselves that they saved 14 MB on the PS3 by lowering the res down to 1024 X 720. I don't know what exactly their engine is doing to make the game consume so much RAM, but all I'm saying is that it isn't very efficient. They make a ton of compromises in the console versions because of limited memory, my question is why didn't they scale back some of the visual effects to insure better image quality and even better frame rate performance? I much prefer the clearner, crisper look of Killzone 3. Hell even Halo Reach which has a similar frame-buffer set up as the 360 version of Crysis 2 has a much cleaner looking IQ.

  • TheGuvernor #129 1 year ago

    How can people see CRYSIS 2 as a flop? I don't get it.
    Just curious - the game is stunning & a riot to play.
    Not perfect - especially from the perspective of an old school PC fps guy but still...

    Single player only for me though.

  • kirankara #130 1 year ago

    Could have been a great sp, clearly lacking polish on all systems in terms of ai, glitches, online mp, so ends up being average. Also first third or so of sp, is simply Boring , and feels almost like filler and even has a worse framerate and the ai is worse, suspicious in my books.
    Rushed out by crytek it seems, they even dropped the much vaunted selling point on cryengine 3; the global illumination on consoles and gave up a cheat version as they hadn't stabilised it in consoles in time. Notice they didn't mention this before launch lol

  • albinas #131 1 year ago

    @MegaCadet,
    according to [link url=http://www.edepot.com/playstation3.html#PlayStation_3_Hardware
    ]http://www.edepot.com/playstation3.html#...[/link]
    only 24mb of ps3 memory used for os ( >2.20 SDK ).

  • MegaCadet #132 1 year ago

    @albinas

    24 MB of RAM is the baseline usage. If a game has friendslist, custom soundtracks, voice chat, ingame mic setup, keyboard, etc then it will use more space.