Crysis 2 gives me renewed hope of Skyrim on the PS3 : V - Skyrim

» Sun Feb 06, 2011 2:22 pm

Now I know that Crysis 2 and Skyrim are completely different games and use completely different engines...

End of discussion.

» Mon Feb 07, 2011 2:19 am

End of discussion.

Not really no. Why? Because lighting and such (which the OP mainly is talking about) can work nicely in any game. How lighting works is dependent on the engine. A comparison between engines can definitely be done in this case, meaning: What could one learn from one another?

Just because there are differences doesn't mean you can't compare. One thing may do something better, while the other not. And the opposite.
I personally think lighting looks much much more stunning and realistic in Crysis 1 and 2 than in Skyrim. I think Bethesda should learn from Crytek in how they handle lighting, then add some kind of unique touch (like specific colour settings or a colour gradient) to Skyrim to give it a special fantasy look, while still looking more realistic and stunning in how lighting works (if that makes any sense ^^).

» Sun Feb 06, 2011 10:29 pm

Personally, my opinion of the game is that it's both incredibly pretty, and incredibly well optimised. It's a clear step above the original in terms of graphics.

Gameplay-wise, though? Eugh. Now, I'm not going to blame consoles, because frankly that'd be saying that I think all console gamers are morons who couldn't see any tactic other than "run at the guys holding fire". There are certainly areas that have fallen that can be directly blamed on consoles - or rather, controllers - namely the lack of a lean that actually works and the complete removal of prone, and the overwhelming linearity could certainly find its reason there, but I find it hard to blame the basic gameplay on consoles. Unlike some of my fellow PC gamers I don't think console gamers are subhuman - which you'd pretty much have to think to blame most of C2's failings on consoles.

In any case, CryEngine3 makes use of a lot of very fancy technologies. A shadow is not just a shadow, there are a lot of different ways of producing "a shadow". And, of course, fancy graphics are what crytek does. It's their *thing*. They attract the best graphics programmers in the industry because their work is so well known, from far cry onwards. I certainly don't expect bethesda to be able to come close to the sheer level of optimisation CE3 went through.

I would recommend playing C2 on PC, though, graphically it beats the first one, and it runs better too. Even the lowest settings are higher than console settings - and almost any decent machine can run them, so it's worth playing for visuals alone.

You make alot off good points! That is what grabbed me, the way Crysis2 looks and has been optimized... clearily Crytek have put ALOT of work into getting it to run and look its best on all 3 systems, but I am really amazed it looks and runs as smoothly as it does on the PS3 and Xbox! Not sure what its native resolution is on the PS3 because it upscales to 1080p, but the textures always look sharp, there is none of that fuzzy texture that games like COD Black Opps seem to have (which is the biggest dissapointment in FPS's IMO) plus they managed to squeeze in all the pretty lighting and graphic effects and I haven't noticed it slow down yet!

I wasn't saying that Bethesda can recreate Crysis 2's graphics, it was more of a nod of what can be achieved through optimization and talent! If what of half Bethesda are claiming is true in regards to their game's features it will look pretty damn impressive still ! I agree with others, the TES series has its own style but I still sit and stare at awe at even Oblivion sometimes when the lighting is right

Regards to nolean and no prone... yeah I noticed that, dunno why Crytek left that out, would have been easy enough to map to all controllers and keyboard you would think?

I will probably get Crysis2 for my gaming laptop when I get it too, its just one of those titles that I think I would be silly not to invest in on both my platforms!

» Mon Feb 07, 2011 1:14 am

Yahhhh. Skyrim will not compare much to Crysis. Crysis is much smaller.

» Sun Feb 06, 2011 3:21 pm

So long as it isn't Console Exclusive, I'm completely fine with it. So long as I can get it on mah PC, I do not give a rat's ass what anyone else does with it.

» Sun Feb 06, 2011 3:12 pm

how can you not noyice the aweful HDR covering up all those aweful graphics?

» Sun Feb 06, 2011 10:10 pm

Not really no. Why? Because lighting and such (which the OP mainly is talking about) can work nicely in any game. How lighting works is dependent on the engine. A comparison between engines can definitely be done in this case, meaning: What could one learn from one another?

Just because there are differences doesn't mean you can't compare. One thing may do something better, while the other not. And the opposite.
I personally think lighting looks much much more stunning and realistic in Crysis 1 and 2 than in Skyrim. I think Bethesda should learn from Crytek in how they handle lighting, then add some kind of unique touch (like specific colour settings or a colour gradient) to Skyrim to give it a special fantasy look, while still looking more realistic and stunning in how lighting works (if that makes any sense ^^).

Exactly, there is no shame or harm in Bethesda's programmers and artists looking at how Crytek does things, especially in regards to lighting and shadows, IMO Crytek are the masters of this in their field not to mention spending time on optimization making sure everything runs smoothly with as little lag as possible. Lets face it, Oblivion was very poorly optimized, I had to upgrade just to play it after release when my PC wasn't even 3 years old. Oblivion was incredibly CPU intensive and bottlenecked, I lost count the amount of posts I saw in Oblivions Hardware/Software issues forum from people saying they upgraded to the latest video card and are not getting any improvements in terms of FPS. Now I think they have learned alot from Oblivion, hopefully they can squeeze in these pretty graphical effects without making the game run like a donkey!

» Mon Feb 07, 2011 1:20 am

Crisis had a good engine, a OK story (which would be like a 65%) which is bad, and god awful Textures..... I believe the Elder Scrolls V on the other hand will has a decent engine, No or minimum physics :sadvaultboy: , might have a good story because they've been working on this title for 5 years, and textures look OK.... Lastly, learn to tell the difference between FPS's and RPG's, this is the reason Crisis 2 could run on the consoles and cause of this makes it a console port to the PC.... Not meaning FPS's in general are easy to run, but if you've played Crisis 2 you'll notice that the areas are small which makes the game easier to run... And lastly Elder Scrolls V is an open world RPG.... So Crisis's engine will never be able to run a Elder Scrolls Game but more small environment games are better for it...

Crysis 1 actually had a pretty big, open world. It's not an RPG and it doesn't have the level of items and NPC interaction that Elder Scrolls games have, but I don't think it's fair to blame the engine for Crysis 2's small environments.

» Sun Feb 06, 2011 10:05 pm

first and foremost im not try to saying anything negative towards console i own a ps3 use it mainly for sports games and gt5 but im a pc gamer at heart, crysis 2 was a complete dissapointment for me, not saying that it runs bad im getting 60+ fps on extreme but its a 100% console port. its my new $64 paper weight, im not going to play it till they release a dx10 or dx11 patch at the very least(which could be awhile). i was expecting it to have dx11 and bring something awsome and new where you would have to wait several years before you could go back and replay it they way its meant to be, like crysis and warhead. you still cant even max those two out with AA all they way up. you couldnt with 2 295 co-ops in quad-sli maybe the 590 in quad-sli but i dont know for sure. crysis 2 didnt give me that drop and ahh mouth watering cutting edge graphics, it didnt give me the same feeling as the first one or the way oblivion even did when it first released. i bought something that was advertized as one thing and gave me some pos game that took a major step backwards.

» Sun Feb 06, 2011 6:08 pm

Crysis 2 destroys my hopes for PC gaming...

My thoughts exactly.

» Mon Feb 07, 2011 3:35 am

Couldn't help yourself could you? :facepalm:

after-all arn't all console gamers 12 year old kids who don't care about graphics? :banghead:

Nope... but all console gamers ARE 12 year old kids who (for some random reason) are crazy about wanting their games to look photo-realistic...
And to be first person shooters.... atleast everyone I know of...

» Sun Feb 06, 2011 10:48 pm

My thoughts exactly.

sigged... :ninja:

» Sun Feb 06, 2011 5:51 pm

Some of he worst gaming experiences I've ever had were on the PC. Playing a shooter against someone who plays for five hours a day on their 3000$ computer cracking quickscopes and 180 headshots? How is that fun by any means? If I want to play a singleplayer First person game I'll use my pc, but multiplayer is far superior on a console as an overall experience.

I haven't read something on this forum that hasn't made me actually LoL in real life until now, I wish I could fit all of that in my signature.

» Sun Feb 06, 2011 6:28 pm

If I were you I'd be less worried about the graphics on the PS3 and more worried about their lack of support and patches in their PS3 versions. Regardless of whether it's Sony's fault or Bethesda's, their track record is not great.

Personally I prefer games on the PC because I'm so used to my keyboard/mouse setup, and my PC is hooked up to my HDTV/speakers.... I do own a PS3 though, it has its purpose. But unless they stop releasing a CS, (or creation kit in this case) I won't stop playing TES games on the PC.

» Sun Feb 06, 2011 10:03 pm

In my experience multi platform games on ps3 always lacked in graphics when compared to the xbox 360 the two that have always stuck out were oblivion and Turok which looked great on 360 but absolutely shocking on my friends ps3. Could of been my TV making it look better but i doubt it.

» Sun Feb 06, 2011 5:40 pm

In my experience multi platform games on ps3 always lacked in graphics when compared to the xbox 360 the two that have always stuck out were oblivion and Turok which looked great on 360 but absolutely shocking on my friends ps3. Could of been my TV making it look better but i doubt it.

I have Oblivion on both consoles. It looks better and performs better on PS3. It's actually well established the PS3 runs better.

» Sun Feb 06, 2011 7:22 pm

Rage look really good. One of the best-looking games of 2011 I'd say.

Anyway, can I ask an open question that I've always wondered about here? Kind of off-topic, kind of on-topic.

We all know Todd said all platforms should look the same, that's what Todd wants.
What I wonder is, why? Why do Todd want to force all platforms to look the same, when in reality, we all know that the platforms aren't the same themselves. The PC can push the limits much further. So.. why do he want to force this equality? Anybody got any ideas?

Well isn't it obvious?

They don't want to work extra hard on the PC version.
Several reasons, they don't want console jockies getting bent out of shape that PC has the best looks AND mods.
Also PC version is likely to sell least amount of copies so why work harder on it?

Then again, the game might look the same in general but clearly all they need to do to make the PC version looking the best is higher resolution textures and some soft-shadows etc using DX11.
Not only that but the PC's can ACTUALLY display full HD 1080p or even higher on monitors that have a higher pixel density and they can also do full AA.

All these factors always make the PC version look the best in a multi-platform game,and this is without any extra features.

So please BGS give us high res textures and some decent dx11 features.

» Sun Feb 06, 2011 4:13 pm

I have Oblivion on both consoles. It looks better and performs better on PS3. It's actually well established the PS3 runs better.

Plus some of the PS3 exclusives have amazing graphics. I would prefer to play killzone with my mouse though, instead of having the weird acceleration on the aiming <_<

» Sun Feb 06, 2011 10:16 pm

Nope... but all console gamers ARE 12 year old kids who (for some random reason) are crazy about wanting their games to look photo-realistic...
And to be first person shooters.... atleast everyone I know of...

I'm not 12.

» Mon Feb 07, 2011 2:36 am

Nope... but all console gamers ARE 12 year old kids who (for some random reason) are crazy about wanting their games to look photo-realistic...
And to be first person shooters.... atleast everyone I know of...

If you're joking, I don't get it. If you're not, please don't assume who you know represent console gamers. Plenty of sales for RPGs and, exclusively from console gamers, pretty much all RPGs from Japan are made by console gamers and we most certainly are not all 12 year old kids nor do I see what is wrong with ever having been a 12 year old as I'm pretty sure we all were. Also know that I have NEVER played a first-person shooter. I wouldn't miss the genre if it just disappeared one day.

» Mon Feb 07, 2011 2:36 am

If you're joking, I don't get it. If you're not, please don't assume who you know represent console gamers. Plenty of sales for RPGs and, exclusively from console gamers, pretty much all RPGs from Japan are made by console gamers and we most certainly are not all 12 year old kids nor do I see what is wrong with ever having been a 12 year old as I'm pretty sure we all were. Also know that I have NEVER played a first-person shooter. I wouldn't miss the genre if it just disappeared one day.

This.

» Mon Feb 07, 2011 4:01 am

If you're joking, I don't get it. If you're not, please don't assume who you know represent console gamers. Plenty of sales for RPGs and, exclusively from console gamers, pretty much all RPGs from Japan are made by console gamers and we most certainly are not all 12 year old kids nor do I see what is wrong with ever having been a 12 year old as I'm pretty sure we all were. Also know that I have NEVER played a first-person shooter. I wouldn't miss the genre if it just disappeared one day.

Hmm, maybe you should try one? There's nothing wrong with expanding your boundaries to new game genres. Although I hate playing shooters with thumbsticks, kb/m is the way to go.

That said I'm getting really bored of the dozens of ww2 and modern shooters that come out all the time. I mean 5 CoD games on one console generation? I'd rather shoot some zombies, mutants, or aliens.

» Mon Feb 07, 2011 4:12 am

Crysis 2 may look good on the consoles, but Crysis 1 looks better than Crysis 2 on the PC. Crysis 2 is rather disappointing for PC, compared to it's predecessor.

Crysis 2 destroys my hopes for PC gaming...

Agreed.

» Sun Feb 06, 2011 4:15 pm

Hmm, maybe you should try one? There's nothing wrong with expanding your boundaries to new game genres. Although I hate playing shooters with thumbsticks, kb/m is the way to go.

That said I'm getting really bored of the dozens of ww2 and modern shooters that come out all the time. I mean 5 CoD games on one console generation? I'd rather shoot some zombies, mutants, or aliens.

I'll need larger, original single-player modes in any game I play. As such, most shooters, or really most games, in general, won't be on my to buy list. Rage looks promising, though, and I'll keep my eye on the upcoming DOOM 4 but there doesn't seem to be much separating the gameplay of one shooter from another and none of the demos I've played have inspired me to look into the genre much. On that topic, the Crysis 2 demo barely worked, for me, and it seemed to be a mess, so I don't think I'll be playing that game and I just don't see much in the shooter genre to keep me interested in it. The core basis of the genre seems to consist of just shooting things and little character progression... resulting in a nearly monotonous experience across the whole genre. That's merely what I've assessed from demos and what I've seen of other people playing the game, but it doesn't do much, for me. Coupled with a relative lack of customization or freedom, I just have no interest in many of these games. I'm very picky about my games.

» Sun Feb 06, 2011 10:54 pm

Crysis 2 may look good on the consoles, but Crysis 1 looks better than Crysis 2 on the PC. Crysis 2 is rather disappointing for PC, compared to it's predecessor.

It really doesn't. It just really doesn't. The water is perhaps better in C1, but in every other area it's consistently beaten - the DX10 effects in Crysis were mostly gimmicks that didn't change the visuals in any serious way, so lack of DX11 just means it doesn't look as good as it could, rather than looking worse than the original. However the game itself simply looks better, supports newer technologies, and can actually run much harder than the ingame settings would trick you into believing. If you go grab the third party config tool and turn everything to "high", you'll have your game that nobody can max for a few generations.

Certainly, the game plays worse - I played crysis 1 for the gameplay, but I played crysis 2 for the graphics - but technically, and visually? It's a bloody masterpiece.