Crysis 2 announced. [PC / Playstation 3 / Xbox 360]

Crysis, the gorgeous sci-fi shooter from German developer Crytek Frankfurt, is a PC game. So is its sequel, Crysis 2 — that, and an Xbox 360 and a PS3 game.

The game is the second entry in the planned Crysis triology and will be published by EA. "The development of Crysis 2 marks a major stepping stone for our studio," said Cevat Yerli, CEO and President of Crytek. "This is not only the next game in the Crysis franchise, it's the first title we are developing for consoles and the first title being built on CryENGINE 3."

Source

 

The 360 will hamper the technical ability of the game.

 

So it will probably be a port. And the game engine will be optimized for the consoles, which means the gfx will be less appealing than crysis/warhead.

 

Hope it will have a better story than the first one...
Oh, and can't wait to see CryENGINE 3 - it should be EPIC!

 

Well at least it will work on all hardware.

 

I was hoping it would take place somewhere new, but I guess not

 

Another milestone in poorly optimised console ports for the PC, I'm sure Crytek will have some ready-made excuse this time round if sales don't rocket despite all-round good reviews.

 

Hope they think of PC first, and console second

 

crytek better have some extras for the pc part.

 

Hope they make it a lesser hardware hog

 

As long as it's made for the PC first, and then ported to the consoles it shouldn't be too bad.

 

Just hope the control is not awkward in PC... One of the biggest problem for most of the port is their mouse support.

 

I don't understand why they're taking a step back after the huge leap with Crysis. I mean CryEngine3 looks horrible compared to CryEngine 2. I don't care if it's optimized for the consoles, PC comes first. I was hoping CryEngine 3 would push the current hardware's capabilities.

 

What's the hardware requirement?

 

Yeah, like extra graphics...

 

They should lease the UT3 engine

It looks good and scales back so well while being easy on resources.

I was dissapointed with Warhead, it was too short and was not as fun to me as the first. I'll have a hard time paying $50 for a sequel unless they do some amazing things and make it a longer game.

 

What I read about before was that the PC version will have extra visuals of course and the console versions is of course limited due to hardware. Though this maybe has changed now. The tech demos they showed running on 360 and PS3 didn´t impress me much at all, especially not the framerate. Looked like tweaked Medium settings.

I´ll definitely get the PC version because as you know by now the game can be tweaked like crazy, the console verisons doesn´t stand a chance. Of course I will get it for both my 360 and PC.

 

Well, the consoles basically max at 7800 GT levels, with 512MB of RAM total between the system and video memory.

Shouldn't take much.

 

Though usually we can´t compare right off console hardware with PC hardware, they work different. Console hardware is more tight and optimized, though that doesn´t mean they run and look better which they don´t.

 

Doom 3 and Far Cry came late in the Xbox's career, and didn't port very well lol. It looked the part, but you've got blurry textures, less view distance, no AA, lack of dynamic lighting, etc. I wouldn't expect much different with Crysis 2. I fully expect Crysis 2 on PC to look as good if not better than Crysis, and perform better to boot. Or they've lost a fan..

 

Of course it will look better and run better. These consoles is not any high tech at all to date and lack ram and GPU power. So don´t worry about Crysis 2 to not look good on the PC or run better.

See Crysis 2 on consoles won´t look better than Crysis 1 on Very High. Besides check the videos of the Cryengine 3 running on consoles.

 

Minimum Requirements:

-Octo Core
-Quad GPU
-16GB DDR5

... you know... standard stuff

 

yeah and why not add a terabyte hard drive.

 

You officially disappointed me...

It's called a RAID5 PCI-E SSD ARRAY (If you have that many PCI-E slots)


In other words, laptop users will feel the lag to the tune of 5 minute loading times xD

 

As long as they don't pull a Monolith by building the game with console gaming in mind, it should be PC first because we gave them life before they had it, and we sustained it. FEAR 2 sucked because Monolith got enticed and seduced into console development unlike the first FEAR which was built from the ground up for PC and was amazingly awesome. It only got ported to the consoles a year after. If Crytek does this I will never forgive them. No reason why the quality we expect and have with the first Crysis and Crysis Warhead should be comprimised by the consoles which have tight memory constrictions and half the graphics capability of what would be considered mainstream GPUs today: GF8800s/9800s and ATI 3850/4650/4850s. Surely the PC version will have much higher texture and graphics settings. There was no way the PS3 or 360 could render the original Crysis without dumbing down the textures to 'medium' levels and environmental scale and landscape considerably. All the proof you need is in the CryEngine 3 demo video. They render the environment of the second level in the game with the sunrise. The house at the beach as well as the trees and objects in the distance were not even being rendered, just the actual landscape. That's pathetic compared to what we're used to.

 

heres the trailer:

<embed src="http://blip.tv/play/g4Q9gYaXK435ZA" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width='426' height='270' allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed>

 

Hmm... to play it on my PC or my 360.... that is the question.

 

This was all I had to see, cryengine 3 looks dull and fake like farcry 2.

<object width='853' height='505'><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/WMZEO3z4maE&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&hd=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/WMZEO3z4maE&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&hd=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width='853' height='505'></embed></object>

 

But your forgetting lack of ram on the ps3 isn't a problem.


The ps3 use's XDR ram clocked at 3.0ghz it shifts that data about pretty fast

 

I hope we have a demo soon to run lots of benchmarks

 

I call BS on the YouTube video...
I don't see why he would have footage 3-4 months ago from the engine
And I dont' see how the Cry Engine 2 can look that FUGLY

If it really is that bad, I will be thankful to whoever makes an installation package that scans your hardware, lets you chose your colors (lifelike, high color, cinematic etc...) then let's you chose what has priority (water, sky, models etc...) and then it sets the settings,tweaks and mods for you.



And I love the trailer that revealed... NOTHING, asides that you might have swarms of people, a city, FIRE (hopefully like Far Cry 2 fire propagation)

 

It's better to have the large amounts of slower RAM than a comparably miniscule amount of fast RAM. Remember that the PS3 and 360 even with the HDD for data caching (which is soooooooooo much slower than RAM) will still have to deal with streaming data off the DVD or BR-DVD. Crytek talked about this when asked about the original Crysis being on consoles. They made clear that the amount of RAM needed to run Crysis with recommended specs level visuals was beyond what the consoles had. You can clearly see that in the outdoor levels shown in the CryEngine 3.0 video, the textures, as well as the shadows and shaders are dumbed down some compared to high level textures seen in Crysis or Crysis Warhead in DX9 mode. It's simple fact really, the 360 and PS3 have rather small amounts of RAM and GPU power compared to the targeted PCs for running Crysis. Something will have to sacrificed in order to get everything running smoothly, as many PC to Xbox ports/transitions had to make. Far Cry Instincts was pretty much imagined from the ground up, but did a great job pushing the Xbox's graphics capabilities to max but still had to confined to the 64 MB limit. Half-Life 2 would cause freezing due to the nature of the Source engine needed CPU power that was beyond what the Xbox could really do, but the graphics were fine. And Doom 3's graphics had to take quite a hit especially in the lighting and shadowing department. And that's what has me worried, is Crytek going to accomidate everyone by letting the PC version suffer so it runs fine on consoles, or is the PC version going to be the foundation version, with the console versions as ports, or are the PC and console versions going to have some noticeable differences in terms of level design fidelity. Hopefully, the last guess is the outcome. The PC version I hope will be the true vision Crytek has for the game, while the console versions will be accomodating what's needed by closing up the level some to fit on the available RAM. Honestly I'm not worried about AI, physics, and game orchestration too much, the Cell BE is quite an impressive processor, and the Xenon is good enough at running physics on the same level as medium settings in Crysis 1, maybe even high physics settings with proper optimization. I just don't want the PC version to suffer because of what the console versions can't do. Of course I got to mention graphics too, because it's pretty obvious that the console versions can't be potentially as good looking as the PC version unless Crytek actually takes a graphical step back on purpose. High level visuals on massive levels a la Crysis won't happen on the PS3 and 360. They just can't really do it with the lack of RAM and necessary graphics horsepower needed. The recommended graphics card for Crysis upon release was the 8800GTS 640 MB which is at least twice as powerful as the 360's Xenos, and the PS3's RSX GPU, and of course it has more VRAM that either console has RAM altogether and Crysis needs a healthy 320-512 MB of VRAM and 1.25 GB of SRAM free to run nicely at high DX9 settings at medium screen resolutions (like 1440 x 900). Even at 720p, the 512 MB of VRAM is necessary and it does smooth rendering out. My laptop's 9800M GS with 512 MB of GDDR3 has almost as good rendering capability at 1280 x 720 with Crysis as the 8800GTS 320 in my desktop did. Now admittedly I did run that 8800GTS 320 at 1440 x 900 resolution, but I can tell the 9800M GS, despite being 256 bit interface as compared to 320 bit and despite having only two thirds the amount of stream processors, a few less TMUs, and a few less ROPs, it feels as if the 512 MB of VRAM was necessary to get those visuals, and I think my 8800GTS comparitivily choked on it's lower amount of VRAM despite being equiped with a much greater number of stream processors. Higher memory bandwidth can't make up for lower amounts of VRAM. The best solution is to increase the amount of memory while scaling up the memory transfer speed with it by increasing the memory clock or using VRAM that moves more bits per clock like GDDR4 or GDDR5. One or the other really doesn't work out, you need both. The GPU has to be able to read and write to the VRAM as quickly as possible, but it needs the proper work space to do it as well. You wouldn't expect an engineer to map out a scematic on a school desk would you?

 

Oh i wasn't saying the XDR ram will make up for all of the flaws, im just saying the lack of ram 256mb of system ram on the ps3 isn't as bad a limit as you think due to the high speed of it.

Of course HDD speeds are slow but consoles tend to have loading screens every 5 mins, not to mention the data transfer during the pre-rendered cut scenes.

The GPU's in the consoles are gimped, and it's a decision i never quite understood, they spend loads of cash making an ultra CPU when the gpu does most of the legwork.

The advantage of the consoles is the fairly low resolution they play in.

Alot of games on console don't even run at 720P often running with just 600 odd vertical lines and then upscaled and you can't really notice the difference.

I'm not saying the consoles won't struggle with crysis as they will, but if the SPU's on the ps3 are coded for properly they can take the vertex shading and other calculations off the gpu.

I'm sure it will be made primarily for pc though

 

Yeah I guess it would require lots of work on the PS3 for that. Just look at how much time was needed for SE to make the Crystal Tools/White Engine. I remember reading an interview where the FF producer said that the engine in the FF XIII's demo wasn't even finalized, things are still missing O_O

 

Not necessarily. I mean, it is a scaleable engine, so you can just give the consoles the equivalent of 'medium' or 'high' settings. It shouldn't affect the PC version, that can still have the option to crank settings, resolution and AA to the maximum if your system can handle it.

 

Got damn talk about a bad youtube video. Why run Crysis at 8xAA when the game runs like [edited]!! Crap!!!. Oh I can run Crysis at 1920x1080 at 8xAA but the game runs at <------- 25fps oh so mighty choppiness, hell even the GTX 295 with a Core I7 can´t run the game at 8xAA and at that res and not for real any crappy 8800GT. Give me a break. What are they trying to prove how choppy Crysis runs with AA turned on and on a single GPU?

Back to topic, Crysis is on consoles I call fail!

 

1080p and 8x AA isn't exactly a walk in the park for a GTX 295 while running FRAPS.

 

Yeah it isn´t a walk in the park without fraps either at that res and especially not for a weak 8800GT.

Now if he decides to put up a video, then at least record it with another source than fraps. You need at least the double framerate to achieve it looks smooth and that is not possible with Crysis at those settings.

 

>.> if you watched the movie the 8800gt portion was running at 4x aa and 1280x720. That seems more than playable and still looked way better.

 

yeah but who plays at 720p on a PC, unless you play on an HDTV and of course unless you have an old GPU which can´t cope with newer more hardware demanding games.

Though I agree of course it looks better on PC than on any console. That´s what I said.

It was just so hilarious to show a video where the game runs like crap and then brag about it looks better, but hey it looks better but runs like crap.

 

Oh great, i'm gonna have to upgrade, AGAIN!

 

to be fair, they were fitted with high-end gpus at their time of release.

 

ok first of all I never bragged about anything two its not a video I created...and 3 maybe instead of just complaining you could actually contribute seeing as how all you did for several months was brag about your system and crysis. If you can make a better comparison video then do it....you certainly bragged long enough about having the system capable of it. A lot of people still play games at 1280x720 not everyone feels the need to waste their money on laptop that will be considered dated hardware in less than a year.

 

i am afraid that Crysis 2 will fail at every aspect.

Sin for losing Crytek PC exclusives and thanks Crytek for doing this to PC gamers.

Hope it will be better that than CryEngine 2 at least perform better like 20%-30% maybe they will argue with it somehow.

 

Just ignore people like him clevoguy, a lot of people like to play elitist here and brag about what they could do, but never end up contributing.

 

Woah, guys, settle down. You haven't even seen the game, played the game, it's not even out yet and it's already a fail? Calm down kids.

 

Actually the low amount of RAM is a serious issue, XDR RAM or not. It's like I said, you need the space to work with no matter how fast you can do it. 720p is not really an advantage anymore when everyone has been doing since the 360 came out, and the 600p issue is particularily CoD4's problem, but other games have used similar resolutions because they had to in order to implement a specific feature like Halo 3 running at basically 640p due to Bungies unnecessarily complicated HDR which required storing two frames in the framebuffer. When the 360 came out, the Xenos was as good as any PC GPU at the time, except for it's unrationally low number or ROPs which holds back the systems ability to handle z-buffering past 720p level resolutions. The PS3's GPU I can agree was gimped but it would've been much more expensive to implement a better solution, however, it's G71 based core was partially gimped to have less available Pixel Shaders, Vertex shaders, TMUs, and ROPs. I guess they did that possibly to cut down on power needs and force devs to use the Cell as a graphics augmentor if they wanted to show off graphics better than the 360. Even still, the Cell while quite capable of graphics calculations as shown in Killzone 2, even combined with the PS3's RSX GPU, it can't hold a candle to any 8800 series graphics card especially beyond 720p, and the low amount of total RAM doesn't help.

 

Boo. This game is going to tear apart every piece of hardware you thought was epic.

 

Hope they make story line longer. The first one was OK, but Warhead was too short! And I hope I can play it with my rig

 

its not like the consoles - or specifically the 360 as someone mentioned *cough fanboy* - are going to hold back the game. crysis is tweakable. they aren't going to be able to release crysis at max settings on the consoles.

the console gpu's are not gimped, they are just from about the 2005 era. so they are old. not much you can do about that but release a new console.

both of the consoles are basically at the same power level in the grand scheme. i wouldn't be surprised if either console ended up running the thing in higher quality or better frame rate than the other. really just depends on how much attention each gets from the developer. the youtube guy understands this, why can't you?