Oh my!! Will my next gen graphics card be able to run crysis 2?
GT300 and whatever ATI's is... will they be able to run crysis 2 on very high? What do you predict????
Crysis 2 will more than likely be made on the cryengine 3. Which is designed to run on the PS3, 360, and windows based machines. It is more or less a hacked down cryengine 2, with some optimizations.
Your current GPU should run crysis 2 at max settings (better than crysis 1).
This is a stupid thread..
Dude I know it will be made on the cry engine 3 and yes I knew it was going to be made cross platform. You say its going to be hacked down? Why would they make crysis 2 for the pc using cry engine 3 that would be "hacked down"? lol they would just use cry engine 2.
This is a quote from crytek on ign.com
When asked if that sounded like a contradiction, he responded that you have to think of technology as a tool that can scale. He said the game's content scales to the platform it's on. "The PC version will look better, because of the fact that the PC can do more. It will be scaling up. But on the consoles, you're competing with console games," he said. "The goal is to be the best looking game on PS3 [and] the best looking game on 360 in the entire market." On the PC front, Crysis 2 will compete with the original Crysis, which still sets the bar for PC graphics.
Why the hell would they make the game twice? They are in the business of making money not pissing it out the window.
Cryengine 3 has had some features removed to allow it more freedom in cross platform games. It will run smoother and not look 'much' worse. though there certainly will be concessions..
The game will be made on only cryengine 3, it will perform orders of magnitude better than crysis 1 due to optimizations and changes in the engine feature set.
You even quote crytech saying the game will not be any better lookign than crysis 1... With the optimizations needed to make it run on the PS3 and 360 it will obviously run orders of magnitudes better..
I'm not sure why you want the game to run worse than crysis 1.. they would sell maybe 3 copies of it if they code the thing any worse...
I guarantee the game will look pretty, probably be another average at best shooter, and perform as well or better on today's tech than the first crysis. The engine has NO new features as far as graphical pretties go, it is no DX11, it will not require more power, it will require far less for roughly the same look.. that is the point.
I think the pc version will push hardware a little further than the original crysis. Meaning instead of a gtx295 getting 40 fps on very high it will get 30 maybe less. I think they will be able to push the pc version much harder than the ps3 and 360 version. Meaning there will be a drastic difference visually between the platforms.
"I think the pc version will push hardware a little further than the original crysis. Meaning instead of a gtx295 getting 40 fps on very high it will get 30 maybe less. I think they will be able to push the pc version much harder than the ps3 and 360 version. Meaning there will be a drastic difference visually between the platforms."
Then you would be wrong.
"The PC version will look better, because of the fact that the PC can do more. It will be scaling up. But on the consoles, you're competing with console games," he said. "The goal is to be the best looking game on PS3 [and] the best looking game on 360 in the entire market." On the PC front, Crysis 2 will compete with the original Crysis, which still sets the bar for PC graphics.
The game will be the best looking game on teh ps3 (at least that is their goal). The game will look better on teh Pc than on the consoles, but will compete with the curernt crysis.. meaning they are not trying to one up it, the graphics will remain very much the same.
The only changes I have seen documented in cryengine 3 are cut backs and optimizations to allow teh game to perform better. It will not look any different. If they don't optimize the damn thing noone will buy it.
Take a look at this interview about cryengine 3, its a bit old, wouldn't be surprised if most ppl saw it already.
What calmed me down is that he said that pc fans are worried for the wrong reasons. Cryengine 3 is no big leap from 2, it focuses more on optimisations, with only a few improvements... this is ideal in my opinion. What this means to me is that the game should look noticeably better than the first crysis while not being light years ahead of gpu hardware like the first crysis was. Odds are that cryengine 2 was capable of producing even better standards than crysis because over time, the quality of a game can improve greatly while still using the same engine. This is why I think cryengine 3 is perfect for crysis 2... you make more out of an already great engine, but with even further optimisations. At this point, all I can do is have faith in crytek and hope they know exactly what they're doing, i.e. that they don't screw up the pc version by focusing on the console release.
I'm certain it will look good, never said it won't. But In the technical aspects of the engine thre is nothing to make me believe it will look much better, if it even looks better at all. That being said.. 60fps compared to 20 certainly "looks" better...
The new engine is simply an optimized engine to allow them to get realistic performance, and allow them to market it to consoles. (didn't I already say that?) If it doesnt run substantially better, even on todays hardware, they have done something terribly wrong and didnt bother to mention it in any documentation I have seen. If it is going to look good and play well on the PS3, it will run a hell of a lot better than crysis 1, and the era of "look at this retarded game that barely works but looks nice" can finally end and we can use real games as our measuring sticks....
What you're missing is CryEngine3 is a BASELINE for all three platforms, not a ceiling, it will support using DX11 features if they see fit, however just like they didn't exploit all CryEngine 2 had to offer, they still need to include the features in a game for it to matter what the engine supports.
I wouldn't get worked up for EITHER side of the spectrum. With CryEngine2 you could right now make a game that would crush the upcoming G300 and R800, but there's little point in just doing that. The expectation will be better scalability from future releases, not meaning no stress on the top end, simply better balance among strata and platforms.
I can't see them wasting time on "over the top" features on a game that needs to run on an xbox though. It would bea profound waste of money. I know the features that cryengine 3 will support "when they see fit" but the question was about crysis 2, which will not be dx11, and (hopefully/expectantly) will run several times better than crysis 1, even on today's hardwar.
Don't get me wrong.. I'd love to see a game with no real uper limit on the graphics.. but its never going to happen as long as a company wants to make money. Certainly it will not be this game.
is crysis really THAT poorly optimized? I mean look at the depth of field in the game. Its insane! Where as other shooters are corridor shooters. In buildings at one room at a time. But In crysis you can see other little islands with the trees and everything. Just the amount of trees in the game would require imo very powerful hardware.
Yes, the amount of hardware required to play crysis is crazy, but compare it visually to other games and you can see why. You have to account for all the extras in Crysis... like the draw distance. Looking at the cry engine 3 on ps3 you can def. tell that the draw distance is extremely gimped.
Here is a comparison http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMZEO3z4maE
daedalus, for PC gaming, going over the top makes sense for pushing the game, but so does making it scalable.
Having HL2 crush the current cards at the time when everything was fully maxed (not what people said was maxed [without HDR, without X], just like Maxed Crysis [not in DX10 emulation DX9 mode]) was a good thing, but so was the fact that it (edit HL2 being the 'it') also ran on older hardware with great shader fallback support (except for the terrible FX series having to fallback to FP16/int with no FP24+ support).
Putting in high-end features is not a bad thing nor does it keep them from running on the Xbox of PS, however even without something DX11, you could make a DX10 game from CryEngine 2 or 3 that would likely clobber the next gen cards even if it was efficiently coded for baseline DX10.0 without DX10.1/DX11 especially since those would add efficiency.
The thing right now it's too early to tell, in the last year alot of devs have talked about moving away from PC to console, but the feeling is that the tide is beginning to turn again for future titles past 2009 as things become easier for PC. Until the 2012 consoles come I would say we'll start to see a split again like we saw just before the X360/PS3 console revival, and I wouldn't want to guess what next year's titles look like, least of which is because few games look at launch like they did at engine demo stage.
However that they look better on Console than CryEngine 2 games cannot be attributed to higher end shader features like DX10/11 since neither console support that.
They would essentially be DX9+, and thus it would be more about implementation than raw power or feature sets that would stress the hardware, so as before it doesn't matter if they can stress the G300/R800 with DX11, they can do it with the good old fashion features put to use in a different way.