Far Cry 2 for PS3, Xbox 360 News

a new engine? what for? crysis engine is more than enough for anything at the moment.

I really hope that this doesn't distract them from the PC version. However, I'm not too optimistic...

Although, given that previous builds and demos have been shown on the PC, maybe the PC will continue as the lead platform? Time will tell.

a new engine? what for? crysis engine is more than enough for anything at the moment.


Different developer, different publisher. Fra Cry 2 has got nothing to do with Crysis whatsoever.

but still... what point in having a game with almost the same name as the former developer and their newest game?. .. and then show up with technology that is behind them?

could far cry 2 look better than crysis? probably not, but it will work on some lower-end systems...

but trust me, there's going to be a lot of confusion in the marketplace when a new "cry" game is out so soon... especially since people still remember the original far cry.

I'm actually quite like the sound of this.

"a new engine? what for? crysis engine is more than enough for anything at the moment."

Crytek took their engine with them when they left I believe.

The 'New' engine is probably Ubi modifications of the Cryengine 1 as Crytek sold that to Ubi along with the FarCry IP.

but still... what point in having a game with almost the same name as the former developer and their newest game?.

Well. Ubisoft has the Far Cry name, Crytek left Ubisoft and went to EA, made Crysis. It's probably safe to say that Ubisoft aren't too happy with the name "Crysis", but it would also foolish of them to give up the well-established Far Cry name. And Crytek probably made sure they can use "Cry" in the titles of their games, it being part of their name etc.

laugh now, far cry later

Erm, given that Crysis is the superior game (technically) and has a lot of positive hype, I don't think Ubisoft will be too worried about people associating their game with it to be honest. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if the two packshots are strangely similar.

DarkEdge

Speaks the truth - On March 30th 2006, Ubisoft acquired all rights to the CryENGINE, and the engine now has no legal ties to Crytek.

Just to add something that seemed to be missing (and for me is the most important point) when announcing Tiberium from EA which is coming out for PC, 360 and PS3 is that it is being made using the CryENGINE2 that powers Crysis.

Now either the PC incarnation is going to be a completely different game (unlikely) or Crytek have the CryENGINE2 up and running on consoles - thus Crysis can't be that far away?

Ubisoft better get Far Cry 2 out while they can.

This does not come as a big surprise. The lacklustre sales of Crysis, not to mention other recent PC exclusives, likely sent a cold chill up the spines of Ubisoft executives. I suspect that much the same will be announced for other PC exlusives in the near future, especially given the relative ease of porting to the Xbox 360. That said, I anticipate a dodgy Playstation 3 version, possibly arriving later than the Xbox 360 alternative, too.

I think it would be nice if they would also release Far Cry, the original, for the consoles, preferably emulating Valve's The Orange Box by including it in the same package. I have never owned a PC powerful enough to enjoy most PC exclusives, and so have never experienced the event that was Far Cry, and while that still remains the case the sequel is not such an enticing prospect.

+1

Don't get me wrong, love my 360. But I don't love when PC games are confirmed multi-platform. Just makes me think of Deus Ex 2. Eugh

FooAtari,

I think that I prefer a port of Far Cry 2 to no port of Far Cry 2, even if it is not the best port with concessions made for the console, at least the former gives me some choice in the matter, whereas the latter does not. Of course, for those who own a decent PC, this announcement bodes ill, Far Cry 2 might not end up worse for it, but I doubt it will end up any better.

"Crytek have the CryENGINE2 up and running on consoles - thus Crysis can't be that far away?"

There was a story the other day about Crysis coming out on the X360 this year but AFAIK nothing official yet.

Bonza! Looking forward to this much more than Crysis.

Downloaded the demo of that and to get any kind of framerate, had to cut everything down to late 90s graphics settings. Very, very poor.

I mean, yes, my 8500GT is laughably underpowered, but to not get playable framerates with a game that looked much worse than the original Unreal is just pathetic - I tried each and every individual setting and as soon as one went above 'low' - BAM! - there went the framerate and I was stuck looking at a rubbish slideshow. And I did all the tweaks I could find on the Internet, too.

With the rest of my PC spec, this game should have looked at least as good as a game two or three years old, so the fact that Far Cry 2 has been announced for consoles makes me very happy indeed :-)

With a 8500GT, you have absolutely no reason to complain. That's a card for office applications with some basic 3D capabilities to make Vista work, not a gaming card. It's not even as good for games as several years old cards are. No matter how powerful the rest of your PC is.

Hardly unexpected, although I'd rather Ubi concentrated on the PC version first, then released it on consoles a handful of months later.

That said, I'm tentatively hoping for good things from this game, but after the complete fucking mess that was Instincts on Xbox I'm really not holding my breath.


EDIT - I also expect Crysis will appear on consoles later this year, but I think EA will handle the port internally, as I have fathomed from previous interviews that Crytek have little interest in the consoles.

@ UncleLou

My 60+ fps on Half-Life 2 at 1360*768, with all effects to full begs to differ. My 80+ fps on Unreal Tournament 2004 at same res, same settings, would also like to add its opinion. Supreme Commander runs fine if I scale down to 1024*768, as does Company of Heroes.

My point is that Crysis looks far, far worse than a three year old game and never gets above single digit fps.

Yes, the graphics card isn't exactly all-singing, all-dancing, but when running Crysis at 800*600, with all settings to low, no AA, no AF, absolutely bugger all in fact, I am lucky to get 7 or 8 fps. On a game that looks like a gouraud-shaded, shadow-less, texture-less plateau. No scaling in their engine at all.

It's precisely that attitude of "Don't bother squeezing power out of what's available - PC-tards will just buy X thousand pounds worth of kit to play our game" that forced me away from many happy years of PC gaming to a relatively stress-free and smooth console life. Which is why I'm so happy that Far Cry 2 is coming to PS3/360 - I'll happily put up with "worse graphics than a a £3000 ninja-bast pc can run" on a box that cost me less than a tenth of that, as long as it looks decent enough and plays well enough.

Boireit

Agreed - Crysis on my 512Mb ati 1950pro looks far worse than Far Cry did on my old 128mb ati 9700pro.

boireit,

Agreed. The cost of a PC (including regular updates), is ten times that of a console. I do not see a corresponding ten-fold improvement in the graphics, or more importantly, the gameplay. I can barely afford rent and a dozen games per year for my Xbox 360, there is not a chance I would be able to be a PC gamer. In respect to value for money, the PC is undoubtedly the worst choice out there, especially for those of us on a tight budget.

No doubt, if I had vastly more resources (not to mention time) at my disposal, then I would be more inclined to dive in and appreciate the PC's riches, but for me and many others this is just not possible.

@ PCRist

Damn straight. Plus, I vastly prefer beanbag-and-controller gaming to office-chair-and-kb/mouse gaming. To get a PC that can genuinely blow a PS3/360 out of the water in terms of graphics, you have to spend at least double what a console costs, more likely triple or quadruple.

It's precisely that attitude of "Don't bother squeezing power out of what's available - PC-tards will just buy X thousand pounds worth of kit to play our game" that forced me away from many happy years of PC gaming to a relatively stress-free and smooth console

And it's precisely that attitude that's nonsense. ;)

My PC cost around 700 quid this summer, runs Crysis perfectly fine, and I doubt I'll even think about an upgrade before 2009. You don't need to spend "thousands", not even to play Crysis, but of course you need to spend your cash wisely.

And Crysis scales quite good, btw. Just not to the absolute bottom-end of office cards, obviously, what the 8500GT is. I've tried it on a PC with a 7600 GT (which is now what - 3 or 4 years old?) and it ran fine on medium settings.

As always, and by the posters above me, the cost of PC gaming gets massively exaggerated by people who don't really do PC gaming. Buy hardware sensibly, profit from the much lower games prices, and the differences between console and PC gaming are negligible. Don't want all the upgrading/updarting hassle? Fair enough. But stick to the facts when it comes to the costs.

Well there goes the 'Instincts' brand...since this will probably follow the original. You know there are going to be some people who will moan about the lack of 'Predator' mode.

Please dont let this translate into a shoddilly optimised PC version as the game has some potential i think.

video i saw i thought this looked better than crysis..

Oh god, the traditional "PCs cost 2000 pounds" argument comes out again. Let's end this right here:

No, they, don't. As with lou, I spent 700 quid on mine and it will not need any upgrading for several years. I don't quite understand the "squeeze power out of what's available" thing. You think PC hardware designers should just STOP right now, and we should never try to improve anything, just so what is currently available will remain cutting edge, forever? Bit reductive really.

Yes it's twice as expensive as a cutting edge console, but you also get twice as many games, twice as many possible control schemes, twice the graphics, twice the general functionality and the games cost half as much.
This seems to be the same school of thought that forgets that PCs do stuff other than play games.

@ UncleLou

"My PC cost around 700 quid this summer, runs Crysis perfectly fine"

What res and details settings and what fps do you get? Because if/when Crysis gets released on 360, I bet it looks and runs better than on your £700 pc. And yes, obviously you don't *have* to have the best graphics and framerate for Crysis, but the whole selling point of the game was it's fantastic graphics - to realistically achieve those, you *do* need a ridiculous system. Look at that triple-SLI system, for example.

Don't be such a patronising fool. I was a PC gamer for years - I even bought my Nvidia GeForce2 GTS/Pro specifically for Max Payne, as it had been designed for it - and I know full well how much it costs to maintain a respectable system. Because no matter what, people will always tell you "Ah, but to play it properly, you really need this".

Whereas on console, yes, you are left with whatever graphics and performance the devs leave you with, but at least you don't need to worry that in six months' time, your consolve game will look worse than your mate's console game. If you have the money and the inclination, PC's are technically better - for myself and several others on here, consoles seem to be the nicer, easier, lazier choice.

@ katsumoto

"You think PC hardware designers should just STOP right now, and we should never try to improve anything, just so what is currently available will remain cutting edge, forever? Bit reductive really."

Did I say that? Go on, point it out to me. Oh wait, you can't, because you're putting words in my mouth.

No, I don't think hardware designers should just stop. What I think (but maybe I should refer to you for that, seeing as you know what I think...) is that games developers shouldn't concentrate purely on the latest technology that less than 1% of consumers possess - it makes crap business sense, as borne out by the not exactly spectacular sales of Crysis. By the time a significant proportion of the PC gaming population has the requisite hardware to do Crysis justice, Crysis will be a bargain basement game that barely anyone cares about.

By making a genuinely scaleable engine - Messiah, anyone? - Crytek would have gained a PC sale from me. By being restrictive and blinkered and elitist, they have lost my support, which is why Far Cry 2 is more appealing to me.

I come from a background of years of being a dedicated PC gamer, so don't you or UncleLou dare to presume, or question, or make snide, ignorant comments.

Twats.

/Angry at the end. Will regret it later, but feels good to say it now.

Woah there. Okay, I'm sorry I didn't mean to put words in your mouth, that was silly of me. I guess I was responding to an overall criticism of PC gaming that I see on these forums a lot, but just chose that quote out of place. No need to resort to insults, though!

On this very thread, though, we have people saying it costs ten times as much to maintain a PC as a console. that simply isn't true. Feel free to ignore all my other points, but this is one that niggles. And I can truly see the appeal of consoles btw, much less hassle technically I agree. But I don't think you need to upgrade them as often as many people think.

Anyway, sorry for putting you out of place, but in return, I ask for less name-calling please! :)

edit: its also worth pointing out that if I buy a PC at the same time as an xbox, it wont look worse than an xbox until the next generation of consoles come out which will be in like 5 years anyway, by which time a few upgrades won't be too burdensome :)

@ Katsumoto

Ok, let's just say we both reacted less well than we could have....

I apologise.

My point about the 10* cost was made in reference to the fact that Crysis was designed with what seemed to be one purpose - to have the most astoundingly amazing graphics and physics of any game for some time to come. Arguably, therefore, to play the game as intended (and for many people, this would mean 'to enjoy it as much as possible'), a ridiculous rig would be required - i.e. a Core 2 Extreme, 4 gig of EEC RAM (at least) and a minimum of two cards in SLI, if not three, or even four.

Yes, if Crysis comes to the 360, it will look worse than the very best PCs can manage. But, due to the closed system, it will look a lot better and perform much better than a similarly specced PC would - thereby almost guaranteeing a certain minimum standard. It would certainly outperform any similarly-priced machine

I'm happy to trade 'absolute best' for 'guaranteed performance and level performance across the board'.

Sorry again for the ranting.

:) Well, I certainly can't disagree with any of that. If i'm being honest, of course, graphics aren't why i'm a pc gamer. It's because I always have been, as have my friends, so I have a giant back catalogue of great games, and If I got a console i'd have noone to play with. I also, try as I might, simply can't get used to using gamepads over keyboard/mouse. I also just like how with pc gaming you can ignore the whole microsoft/nintendo/sony fighting that goes on constantly - as RPS say, the PC is only "truly free" platform.

So that's my excuse :) Anyway, apology accepted, and i'm glad you accept mine.

Hell hath no fury like a former PC gamer scorned.

they better had port this thing properly to the 360 no framerate loss etc and no far cry predator nonsense WE WANT THE FULL EXPERIENCE