Gaming Crysis 2 Xbox 360 vs PC comparison

Gran Turismo 5 & (PS3) Ridge racer 7 (PS3) both contstant 60fps at 1080p.

So which bits do you keep? Which do you throw away? And how do you maintain compatibility? Console architechture is vastly different to PC, everything is integrated much more tightly and console makers can be a law unto themselves when it comes to things like how the CPU talks to the graphics chip. You would have to standardise all the interconnects, possibly implement a large number of expansion slots. Might as well be a PC. In which case, why buy a console in the first place?

I know exactly what you're getting at, and to an extent I agree with you but I don't think it's something Sony, Micro$oft or Nintendo could market or implement. It also kills the 'just works' appeal of consoles.

Also, this suggests that the performance differential between consoles and PCs isn't as great as it could be...

 

SHOCK HORROR!!

State of the art tech outdoes 6-8yr old tech (depending on how you look at it).

Was this article even neccessary?

 

is your comment necessary?

The article shows how much better the PC version looks. Which is what many of us wanted to know.

 

Tried it on a friends xbox. Looked ok. Played it on my PC and it feels like a different game (graphics wise). My PC could handle "Very High" no problem. Running @1080 at about 40fps. Tried "Extreme" and couldn't play it. Ran about 20fps.

I do hope they bring out a patch in the future that will allow advanced graphics options. I don't want to fanny around with the console just to get my game looking its best!

 

It's true. It uses some kind of temporal AA which I don't fully understand. Crytek released a paper on their company website that describes the graphics technology in the game, and they confirm in there that they chose this type of AA because it's faster to render for the consoles and uses less memory.

Incidentally, this type of AA is why the screenshots look blurry even at high res. It's much more noticeable at higher resolutions like 1920x1080.

 

This is nothing close to how demading the old game used to be. I'm running an Nvidia GTX 460 1GB and AMD X4 3.2GHZ with 4GB DDR3 and I'm getting a comfortable 35 to 40 FPS on max at 1080p.

Have to say the games a little boring so far, nothing like the original, I'd wait to buy until it comes down it price tbh.

 

lol consoles, my ocd 2006 cpu (E6600) + 60$ gpu maxes this at full HD @ 50fps

 

GT5 was my biggest disappointment on console. Gaphically it seems like a backward step for gaming. It may well do 60fps at 1080 but that didn't do it any favours. I realise there are some big fans of it, but sorry, crap game and probably the biggest turn off so far for me on the current gen of consoles. It didn't help that I had been bashing DIrt2 on PC at 2560 with beautiful detailing, short load times, with a G27 and excellent multiplayer with mates. After that, probably all console games would fall short.

 

Greetings!

Very High option seems to look better than Extreme.
The tree leaves in Extreme just look like a green cloud.

 

nintendo did try something on the N64, it had an upgradable internal memory pak (I think it doubled the system RAM) - needless to say only a few games ever made use of it (actually only Turok 2 springs to mind, but I'm sure there were more).

 

Greetings!

That explains the blurriness of the image in Extreme.

 

News-flash just in!

4 megapixel PC images are sharper than 1 megapixel x-box images.

 

hmmm fact otr fiction, site claims dx11 patch will be here today...
http://exophase.com/22212/report-dx11-patch-for-crysis-2-coming-today/


On a side note... Hurry up with the PC mini review, I wanna know if it gets more than a 6.5 on pc as a lot of marks were deducted on the xbox version due to limitations!

 

No GI in consoles . Very clear in many screens

http://images.bit-tech.net/content_...-vs-pc-comparison/crysis-2-max-graphics-6.jpg

http://images.bit-tech.net/content_...pc-comparison/crysis-2-xbox360-graphics-5.jpg

 

Well technically you can. http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/mythbusters-polishing-a-turd.html
and from the look of the Xbox Screens beside the PC screens they did.

 

Take a look at this:
http://www.eurogamer.net/videos/crysis-2-pc-360-ps3-face-off-comparison?size=hd

I don't see almost no difference graphics wise between all versions. The PC version is a little crispier and framerate is higher. But other then that I expected more debris and other extra stuff flying around on the PC version. All I can say is what they did to Crysis2 is making it look very good on 6 year old Console hardware and there is nothing extra added to the PC version, even the textures are the same. Basically you could say to PC gamers they play a 7 year old game.

PC gamers bought all the latest hardware to play this game. And every PC gamer expected ultra fancy graphics with the latest and greatest DX11.x code. This isn't the Crysis 2 that we as PC gamer expected it to be. We wanted it to destroy our new greatest hardware and bring it to his knees and wanted to see the extreme quad SLI setup crawl on extreme graphics settings and barely survive. THAT is what we wanted as a PC gamer. And we as PC gamer expected it to be.

Instead Crysis 2 is invested with the consolification virus and Cryteck is now a proud console Zionist.

Now we know what the future is going to be, why in the hell should any PC gamer/user be fall into the 'latest graphics hardware' hoax this day. Why should we invest in 2011 graphics and processor hardware when games are build with DX9. (introduced in 2002) The matter of fact is, that DX10 is here since 2008 and the PC games using this tech are countable on two hands.

I believe there is absolutely NO need at all to invest in new graphics hardware until the next consoles are coming out. Since all games have to be compatible and needs to be running on 7 year old console tech anyway. Hell we should send letters to Nvidia and AMD to stop making new graphics cards for the PC since we do not need it. It's a waste of resources...

 

HOLY MOTHER OF GOD!

I have drank all the milk.

 

Ah yes, Turok, Donkey Kong, Perfect Dark... it's a short list. IIRC, it broke a couple of old games too didn't it? I remember International Superstar Soccer being distinctly jerky with the expansion pack in...

I think Kaz could have relented on the 60fps thing. 45 would have been enough, which gives you 25% more render time. I love the game though, I've loved the whole series. I can see why some people think it's crap, because it's not instantly rewarding, it's a game you really have to work at to get the best out of in terms of the mechanics and the cars/rewards. It's not like Lylat wars or NFS underground, which turn the fun up pretty early on.

I'm just a masochist. I play too much of a variety of stuff to commit to a wheel, but Dirt2 @ 2560 sounds sexy...

 

Not a fair test at all.

You should have compared the £100 Xbox 360 with a £100 PC. I think the Xbox 360 would come out tops. OR even compare it with a 6 year old PC.

Oh course if you compare a £100 console with a £2000 super computer its obvious which will look best.

Like id expect a Aston Martin Vantage to have more power than my 2001 Mk4 Astra.


My 6 year old PC died and couldnt play any games from the last 4 years at a resoloution compared to the consoles.. But my 6 year old Xbox and PS3 still do with no problems at all and no upgrades required.

 

Of course it's a 'fair' test, PC hardware has moved on and people would like to see how this game compares on modern PC hardware compared to current gen consoles.

It's fairly obvious the PC version will look better but why on earth would you compare it to 5 year old PC hardware? Times change, tech moves on and even in these times of console ports it's nice to see games looking better on our platform of choice, even if it is without DX11 etc..

When the new gen of consoles come out and they have better graphics to PC's (for a year or so) would you say it's not a fair test for them to be compared to the latest gen PC's or would you want the old consoles to be compared?