I certainly haven't forgotten that. I'm saying it has significant advantages for those who do not have high end gaming rigs, which would be most people. And even for being open world and looking great Crysis 1 was still a bit of a resource hog. It takes a hell of a rig to get a consistent 60 fps even now.
Actually Gaffer, the frame rate is apparently very solid and it's v-synced too so no tearing. Furthermore it is more technically advanced than KZ3. Crysis 2 actually has a GI lighting system and full HDR lighting (KZ2 and KZ3 use LDR lighting, infact ost games still do). Finally, just by looking at some of the clips from the 360 version, there is a metric crap tone going on most of the time. Falling buildings, firefights with large amounts of enemies as well as limited terrain destruction. All of which seems to be running very smoothly as well.
I'm impressed with Crytek to be fair. I had Farcry on my old laptop (the one that couldn't run oblivion for shit) and although it didn't run at 60fps it looked pretty damn good, and that was on a pos laptop. I also thought Farcry 2 on 360 looked good too, and that was before I had my HDTV. Now we have Crysis/Crysis 2, both of which look awsome graphics-wise. You can't fault Crytek for their ability to make games that look great.
Getting it to run on 60FPS is indeed a trick, but Crysis on the consoles for sure doesnt go higher then 30, and thats fine, with this game, atleast, for Crysis 1 it was.
Getting 60 fps or close to it isn't going to be all that difficult with Crysis 2. Very High in 1080p is very smooth for me with just a GTX 460. I can play in very playable frame rates in Extreme as well, but I think I've decided to switch to Very High because it's so smooth and still looks really good. I have little doubt that a higher end card could get a stable 60 fps on Extreme. A second GTX 460 would probably do the trick. The DX11 patch could prove more challenging of course. On the other hand, even the $700 cards will probably struggle to get Crysis at a stable 60 fps at max. I'm amazed that many of the mighty machines people have created still can't keep it at 60 or above.
Its probally abit optimization aswel, as you have some special mods that go beyond the highest settings in Crysis 1, without any performance drop.
*Maybe here is more appropriate thread* Just read the Digital Foundry analysis and I have to admit I'm very underwhelmed. The bottom line seems to be that the 360 is the slightly better version to get however both versions have their issues. The 360 has a higher framerate on average although the PS3 has a higher framerate in high action areas. The writer actually said the gamer should use stealth instead of combat in these areas to keep the framerate up which is frankly ridiculous. Other features vary, the PS3 has better texture filtering and less blocky shadows wheras the 360 has better lighting and resolution but suffers from tearing. The most damning fact is the framerate can hit 15fps which is appalling. The article tells me all I need to know, Uncharted 2 is still king, rocksteady 30fps, a myriad of amazing effects and it simply looks amazing. None of the letdowns both consoles suffer with Crysis 2. All we need now is Uncharted 3 to come out and put the x-bots back in their corner.
I've been on the fence about getting Crysis 2 but this video has actually sold it to me: I might buy it today
To all reviewers, it looks better then any console game out to date, even KZ3 and UC2. Its not about FPS, its about how great a game looks. They are saying, which game looks the best, not what one runs the best. CS1.6 runs better then Crysis 1, but Crysis looks better still, on my system. Dont forget, Crytek has some other 360 game awaiting, which probally looks better then UC3. UC3 isnt even a big improvement over UC2 at all, if you watch the ingame video's.
How on earth can you ignore frames per second if you're considering how good a game looks? It doesn't make any sense at all. If a games runs like a pig then of course it detracts from how good it looks. "to all reviewers"? Seriously, ALL reviewers? Are they some sort of hive mind you're attuned to? You're obviously some kind of Nostradamus, seeing as you know what U3 will look like and these other future Crytek games. What a bunch of stupid statements.
I'm mad as hell and won't take it anymore. Not really but there's been some rather - shall we say contentious? - posts of late.
Ive posted links to the reviews before, Crysis 2 on 360 is said to be the best looking console game to date. that includes KZ3 and UC2. That it touched your crystal ball is another thing though.
You said all reviews. Big difference. You also seem to know all about how future games will look, which is mental. And you also appear to believe how well a games runs has precisely nothing to do with how good it is graphically, which is insane. You just write some plain backwards shit at the end of the day.
That means GameSpot, and all the review sites that said its looking better then KZ3 and UC2/all console games are writing backwards shit. Did you ever consider it isnt you thats writing shit?
Where am I contesting what a particular review says? Where am I contesting that Crysis 2 is the best looking console game? Seems you're writing shit again.
Like some of the reviewers we are all entitled to our own opinion and it is my opinion that Uncharted 2 is the best looking game on consoles and Kill Zone 3 is technically the most advanced. That's my opinion. Of course framerate is a major issues. If the game is rendering 15fps and apparently sometimes even lower then a game running solid at 30fps is being compared unfavourably. Imagine how good Uncharted 2 and Kill Zone 3 could look if 15fps was an accpetable framerate. I don't think Crytek are on a par with the PS3 as Sony's in house studios are. For instance if they used MLAA they would have fantastic AA and free time on the RSX and a memory saving but this is something only the proper PS3 studios do. I am interested to see what Sony Santa Monica will come up with next. God of War 3 is a beautiful game and supposedly left many resources free for improvement in future titles.
Crytek isn't an experienced PS3 developer, and the PS3 has complex hardware, so it wouldn't surprise if they had no clue what they were doing.
That might be the reason the 360 version looks better. They are experienced with the 360 though, as they created the best looking console game to date.