So I guess Crytek lied

From the start of deveopment on Crysis 2 I was so happy to hear about it been on consoles and I knew it would be less than the original but still good. And then I heard the engine would optimise each platform to its max potential and push conosles further than anything, and that the PS3 was showing more prowess than the 360. Then we were assured the PS3 version looked the exact same as the 360. But in the end Crytek lied about all this because it doesn't crank more out of the PS3 over the Xbox, It doesn't look the same because its a lower resolution and it hasn't really pushed the consoles that far. PS3 owners really got shafted with this game.

I don't think it's that bad..

I'm about to play Crysis 2 on my PS3. If the gameplay is even remotely similar to the first game, I'm sure I'll love it. I loved the first one for gameplay way over graphics. Hell, my PC at the time had to play the game on low settings to have playable framerate and it was still awesome.

If the graphics are a little better on the 360, can't say that I care as I still get the chance to play a great game. Well, I'm hoping it'll be great anyway.

From the start of deveopment on Crysis 2 I was so happy to hear about it been on consoles and I knew it would be less than the original but still good. And then I heard the engine would optimise each platform to its max potential and push conosles further than anything, and that the PS3 was showing more prowess than the 360. Then we were assured the PS3 version looked the exact same as the 360. But in the end Crytek lied about all this because it doesn't crank more out of the PS3 over the Xbox, It doesn't look the same because its a lower resolution and it hasn't really pushed the consoles that far. PS3 owners really got shafted with this game.

seanmcloughlin

I was always kind of skeptical about the notion that Crysis 2 would shine as brightly on consoles as Crysis shined on PC. Crysis on PC shined not because Crytekwere better programmers than everyone else, butbecause of its insane hardware requirements (which played a big role in the game's relatively low sales).

On consoles quality graphics are produced by making better use of the same hardware everyone else is using. While a lot of third parties restrict themselves to licensed engines like UE 3.0, there are several teams out there who code as close to the metal as possible, and it struck me as unlikely that Crytek was going to leapfrog past such developers.

Also, while I'm not a programmer, by all accounts programming for the PS3 is different and tougher than programming for the X360 (programming for that is very similar to programming for the PC) so its not deeply shocking that a PC developer like Crytek did better work on the X360.

From the start of deveopment on Crysis 2 I was so happy to hear about it been on consoles and I knew it would be less than the original but still good. And then I heard the engine would optimise each platform to its max potential and push conosles further than anything, and that the PS3 was showing more prowess than the 360. Then we were assured the PS3 version looked the exact same as the 360. But in the end Crytek lied about all this because it doesn't crank more out of the PS3 over the Xbox, It doesn't look the same because its a lower resolution and it hasn't really pushed the consoles that far. PS3 owners really got shafted with this game.

seanmcloughlin

I'm a PS3 owner and I have to disagree. I guess it's not exactly pushing the console to it's limits. A lot of developers have said that their game is doing that. If that had been true the first time someone said that about the PS3 or the 360, we'd be stuck with horrible graphics right now.

I wouldn't exactly call it lieing either. It's just sorta stretching the truth a bit. Either way Crysis 2 is a good looking game. It may not be pushing the console to its limits but it's definitely a step forward towards that.

Just to add something, wouldn't pushing the limits on a console cause a lot of issues like long loading times and lag online?

Maybe when Crysis 3 hits they will have learned a lot and the engine will be better optimised for consoles. After all I guess it is their first venture into the console market.

I think we'll be seeing more of this in the future. The publishers have probably figured out that they could reduce development costs by not optimising games for PCs and consoles. It's all about money these days and I only see certain companies still doing this right.

Mass Appeal 3 and Oblivion will probably deliver this year but I can't really be sure about how challenging the games will actually be. But that's another story I guess.

most developers hype up their graphics during development. i still remember back when every other game was going to "unlock the true power of the ps3" and they would give mysterious percentages as to how much potential they are using. LoG-Sacrament

In fairness, many of them did. The PS3 has come a long way since Resistance (which wasn't a bad looking game, but which looked bad next to the X360's Gears of War or the PC's FEAR).

I think we'll be seeing more of this in the future. The publishers have probably figured out that they could reduce development costs by not optimising games for PCs and consoles. It's all about money these days and I only see certain companies still doing this right.

Mass Appeal 3 and Oblivion will probably deliver this year but I can't really be sure about how challenging the games will actually be. But that's another story I guess.

anthonycg

I think building a game which takes advantage of the quirks of all three systems just isn't possible (there are things the X360 does better than the PS3 and vice versa and PC hardware is in an entirely different league and has a completely different interface).

Stop saying these things until you see LoT & DF H2H.

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

From the start of deveopment on Crysis 2 I was so happy to hear about it been on consoles and I knew it would be less than the original but still good. And then I heard the engine would optimise each platform to its max potential and push conosles further than anything, and that the PS3 was showing more prowess than the 360. Then we were assured the PS3 version looked the exact same as the 360. But in the end Crytek lied about all this because it doesn't crank more out of the PS3 over the Xbox, It doesn't look the same because its a lower resolution and it hasn't really pushed the consoles that far. PS3 owners really got shafted with this game.

CarnageHeart

I was always kind of skeptical about the notion that Crysis 2 would shine as brightly on consoles as Crysis shined on PC. Crysis on PC shined not because Crytekwere better programmers than everyone else, butbecause of its insane hardware requirements (which played a big role in the game's relatively low sales).

On consoles quality graphics are produced by making better use of the same hardware everyone else is using. While a lot of third parties restrict themselves to licensed engines like UE 3.0, there are several teams out there who code as close to the metal as possible, and it struck me as unlikely that Crytek was going to leapfrog past such developers.

Also, while I'm not a programmer, by all accounts programming for the PS3 is different and tougher than programming for the X360 (programming for that is very similar to programming for the PC) so its not deeply shocking that a PC developer like Crytek did better work on the X360.

So selling 3 million copies is a low amount, even when EA and Crytek both stated that they got more than expected?

Crytek became greedy. Very greedy. They flipflopped on the PC gaming industry.

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

From the start of deveopment on Crysis 2 I was so happy to hear about it been on consoles and I knew it would be less than the original but still good. And then I heard the engine would optimise each platform to its max potential and push conosles further than anything, and that the PS3 was showing more prowess than the 360. Then we were assured the PS3 version looked the exact same as the 360. But in the end Crytek lied about all this because it doesn't crank more out of the PS3 over the Xbox, It doesn't look the same because its a lower resolution and it hasn't really pushed the consoles that far. PS3 owners really got shafted with this game.

PunishedOne

I was always kind of skeptical about the notion that Crysis 2 would shine as brightly on consoles as Crysis shined on PC. Crysis on PC shined not because Crytekwere better programmers than everyone else, butbecause of its insane hardware requirements (which played a big role in the game's relatively low sales).

On consoles quality graphics are produced by making better use of the same hardware everyone else is using. While a lot of third parties restrict themselves to licensed engines like UE 3.0, there are several teams out there who code as close to the metal as possible, and it struck me as unlikely that Crytek was going to leapfrog past such developers.

Also, while I'm not a programmer, by all accounts programming for the PS3 is different and tougher than programming for the X360 (programming for that is very similar to programming for the PC) so its not deeply shocking that a PC developer like Crytek did better work on the X360.

So selling 3 million copies is a low amount, even when EA and Crytek both stated that they got more than expected?

Crytek became greedy. Very greedy. They flipflopped on the PC gaming industry.

I said 'relatively'. By kickbutt shooter standards in a generation mad for shooters, 3 million is low. The appetite for shooters on consoles is huge. CoD and Halo have reached heights that any other shooteris unlikely to hit, but equalling Gears sales (6 million, predominantly on the X360) or Battlefield sales (6 million across three platforms) is doable.

Look at it this way: Crysis 1 was more a status symbol than a game:Black_Knight_00

Is that why it won Gamespot's Award for Best Shooter in 2007?...not to mention an over 90% Review aggregate on Metacritic and Gamerankings.

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"]Look at it this way: Crysis 1 was more a status symbol than a game:locknload17

Is that why it won Gamespot's Award for Best Shooter in 2007?...not to mention an over 90% Review aggregate on Metacritic and Gamerankings.

It's just another multiplatform game that looks and runs better on xbox360... no surprises here... I will say this though -- Crytek turned out the best looking PC shooter of all time with Crysis and now they have turned out the best looking console shooter on the market as well (well, the xbox360 version anyway) -- their 'best-on-platform' reputation is still intact... that's no small feat considering what they had to work with as far as consoles go. I honestly believed (until today) that only a first-party developer with tons of factory R&D and support behind them could pull something like this off... It will definately bother a few PS3 fans that Crysis 2 on xbox360 looks better than Uncharted 2 and killzone 2/3, but I'm not sure it's really fair to say they are being 'shafted' -- of the hundreds of multiplatform games that have been released to date, only 3 or 4 arguably look and/or perform better on PS3...67gt500

IGN and several fansites were really impressed by Crysis 2's graphics, GS and Eurogamer (who cited framerate problems, texture pop in, visual artifacts and shimmering textures even in the X360 version) not so much.

Moving on, I don't think only first parties and second parties can make visually impressive games. The problem this gen is that the most developers rely on licensed engines (usually Epic's, which is getting a bit long in the tooth, though it looks like Gears 3 will update it) whereas before they used to build their own engines.