Anyone else totally unimpressed by Crysis 2 on console?

I'm talking from a technical perspective, although I found the story to be pretty awful to.

Just to set the context, I was playing this on the 360 and I imagine that the PC version is a lot better - so no need for all the PC fanboys to bombard me with screenshots. I don't know what the PS3 version is like, although from the face-offs it would appear the 360 version has the slight edge.

In no particular order, these are the problems I had with Crysis 2 and why I am surprised people were so impressed with the visuals:

- The framerate is appalling at times and I'd go as far to say that certain parts border on unplayable. It's all well and good having fancy effects, but if the engine can't keep the pace you might as well not bother.

- pop-in is literally everywhere. The odd bit of environmental detail is fine, but shadows only seem to render when you are a few meters away from an object. I literally felt like the world was being drawn around me at times.

- aliasing is pretty evident most of the time and, with the action taking place in an angular city, it gets pretty annoying.

-Whilst not a graphical complaint, the AI is beyond ridiculous, with NPC displaying almost no logic at times.

After playing Crysis 2 I went back to the Killzone 3 demo and, I'm sorry, but there was no comparison. Whilst I think the graphics of Crysis 2 are good, the engine is unrefined, glitchy, subject to massive performance drops and is clearly not at home on consoles. In contrast, Killzone 3 runs smoothly at all times and is a hell of a lot more polished. Of course, both engines are very different, with Crysis 2 clearly focussing on semi-openworld environments, but graphically I found it VERY disappointing.

Oh, and people that remember my anti-360 stance, I now have a 360 and a PS3, so I'm over it :) – I still think the PS3 is a better console though, although I take back everything I said about Alan Wake being rubbish – it's one of my fav games this gen!

But Killzone 3 is a linear corridor COD clone, and has textures onpar with Fallout New Vegas.

But Killzone 3 is a linear corridor COD clone, and has textures onpar with Fallout New Vegas.

DreamCryotank

But Killzone 3 is a linear corridor COD clone, and has textures onpar with Fallout New Vegas.

DreamCryotank

If your not playing Crysis on the PC then your not playing Crysis.gamebreakerz__

If your not playing Crysis on the PC then your not playing Crysis.gamebreakerz__

The entire cow faction.

This thread is original and interesting.

Not at all, best looking console game to date and fun as hell to.

Better on PC, but xbox version was still good to.

Not at all, best looking console game to date and fun as hell to.

Better on PC, but xbox version was still good to.

kozzy1234

Yes the pop in is annoying and the AI i'm very dissapointed, crysis 2 should have been a pc exclusive and not everyone who hates the game is a cowTheGuardian03

i don't get it, i have not seen any serious pop-in niether have i had any serious framerate issues either, and although the AI isn't ground breaking it's not as bad as the TC makes out either and the aliasing isn't that bad at all.delta3074

[QUOTE="delta3074"]i don't get it, i have not seen any serious pop-in niether have i had any serious framerate issues either, and although the AI isn't ground breaking it's not as bad as the TC makes out either and the aliasing isn't that bad at all.thetruespin

[QUOTE="kozzy1234"]

Not at all, best looking console game to date and fun as hell to.

Better on PC, but xbox version was still good to.

thetruespin

According to Lens Of Truth, Crysis 2 runs (at average) 1 frame slower than Killzone 3. Hardly "crippled performance".

[QUOTE="thetruespin"]

[QUOTE="kozzy1234"]

Not at all, best looking console game to date and fun as hell to.

Better on PC, but xbox version was still good to.

DreamCryotank

According to Lens Of Truth, Crysis 2 runs (at average) 1 frame slower than Killzone 3. Hardly "crippled performance".

I'm sorry, but Lens of Truth are a bunch of kids with a capture card, I take any of their comparisons with a pinch of salt. Digital Foundry on the other hand:

Digital Foundry:

The increased performance and resolution indicates that the Xbox 360 is the preferred platform for Crysis 2, but in the heat of actual gameplay, this difference appears to evaporate. Put simply, on certain stages, frame-rate varies rather drastically to the point where the game can feel almost unplayable.

However, there are parts of the game that seem to be brutally unoptimised, bringing the performance level crashing down to the point where the afflicted sections become almost unplayable - a variable 15-20FPS update in an intense fire-fight is hugely disorientating, and this makes Crysis 2 one of the most inconsistent performers released in recent times.

Don't get me wrong, it's not all the time, but sadly framerates drop when you need smooth gameplay the most - in the heat of a battle.

The ps3 version has better frame rate during gun fights i think check DF.TheGuardian03

Oh, to one of the previous posters, I did try installing to HD, but didn't see any difference. Crysis 2 had potential, but I found it to be unplayable at times, and that was the killer. Graphically it was nice, but without good performance it counts for nothing.

I only own it on PC, but I did get the chance to play my friend's 360 copy. I don't get the big deal. It runs not that much different than most console games. The aliasing seems about on par with the aliasing in Killzone 3, just in different areas since they are using two different anti-aliasing methods. The framerate is also not that much worse than most console games I have played. Killzone 3 definitely has frame rate drops as well. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbpZb6yotEo

The pop in I saw in the 360 version is worse than in Killzone 3, although there is some in Killzone 3 as well, it just isn't as noticeable. Other than the pop in, however, I thought Crysis 2 on 360 looked better than Killzone 3 or any other console game.

[QUOTE="DreamCryotank"]

But Killzone 3 is a linear corridor COD clone, and has textures onpar with Fallout New Vegas.

thetruespin

Some xbox 360 pics

The textures on 360 version look as good as it gets imo

The Xbox 360 version is arguably the best looking console game period. So I have to disagree with the OP.KC_Hokie

Indeed, also looks much better in motion than in the still pics above

Them screenshots just a few posts above prove this is clearly the best looking game on any console platform, almost every shot is from actual fully controllable gameplay and not some cutscene, just look at the scale of that game compared to COD or Killzone 2 or 3! A game like Halo Reach which has similar scale does not look that good and lets not forget Crysis 2 is a multiplat. If the Crytek team used all available resource to work on just a single platform then imagine has much better this game could look or play...

But Killzone 3 is a linear corridor COD clone, and has textures onpar with Fallout New Vegas.

DreamCryotank

lets not forget Crysis 2 is a multiplat. If the Crytek team used all available resource to work on just a single platform then imagine has much better this game could look or play...

ccagracing

Crytek's upcoming 360 exclusive Codename: Kingdoms has that very chance. :) There's very little known about it as yet (not even the genre is definite) but it's a safe bet that they will be hoping to meet or exceed the standard set by Crysis 2.

[QUOTE="kalipekona"]

I only own it on PC, but I did get the chance to play my friend's 360 copy. I don't get the big deal. It runs not that much different than most console games. The aliasing seems about on par with the aliasing in Killzone 3, just in different areas since they are using two different anti-aliasing methods. The framerate is also not that much worse than most console games I have played. Killzone 3 definitely has frame rate drops as well. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbpZb6yotEo

The pop in I saw in the 360 version is worse than in Killzone 3, although there is some in Killzone 3 as well, it just isn't as noticeable. Other than the pop in, however, I thought Crysis 2 on 360 looked better than Killzone 3 or any other console game.

TheGuardian03

No, it definitely drops lower than 28fps. I am surprised you didn't notice it. Maybe you just aren't very sensitive to changes in frame rate.

I saw no screen tearing in the 360 version of Crysis 2. Just because a machine can tell you a miniscule amount of frames are torn doesn't mean that you can actually see it. If you can show me a video of the 360 version of Crysis 2 where you can see screen tearing I'll give you a cookie.

[QUOTE="TheGuardian03"][QUOTE="kalipekona"]

I only own it on PC, but I did get the chance to play my friend's 360 copy. I don't get the big deal. It runs not that much different than most console games. The aliasing seems about on par with the aliasing in Killzone 3, just in different areas since they are using two different anti-aliasing methods. The framerate is also not that much worse than most console games I have played. Killzone 3 definitely has frame rate drops as well. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbpZb6yotEo

The pop in I saw in the 360 version is worse than in Killzone 3, although there is some in Killzone 3 as well, it just isn't as noticeable. Other than the pop in, however, I thought Crysis 2 on 360 looked better than Killzone 3 or any other console game.

kalipekona

No, it definitely drops lower than 28fps. I am surprised you didn't notice it. Maybe you just aren't very sensitive to changes in frame rate.

I saw no screen tearing in the 360 version of Crysis 2. Just because a machine can tell you a miniscule amount of frames are torn doesn't mean that you can actually see it. If you can show me a video of the 360 version of Crysis 2 where you can see screen tearing I'll give you a cookie.

Indeed, the tearing is definatly far from visible, it is funny that people who have not actually played the game think it has some bigtearing, when in fact it does not

[QUOTE="kalipekona"]

[QUOTE="TheGuardian03"] KZ3 runs very smooth i haven't noticed any frame drops it probaply drops to at least 28 fps then keeps the 29 or 30 fps with no tearing. killzoneded

No, it definitely drops lower than 28fps. I am surprised you didn't notice it. Maybe you just aren't very sensitive to changes in frame rate.

I saw no screen tearing in the 360 version of Crysis 2. Just because a machine can tell you a miniscule amount of frames are torn doesn't mean that you can actually see it. If you can show me a video of the 360 version of Crysis 2 where you can see screen tearing I'll give you a cookie.

Indeed, the tearing is definatly far from visible, it is funny that people who have not actually played the game think it has some bigtearing, when in fact it does not

When it does tear, it appears at the very top of the screen so you won't notice it anyway.

Them screenshots just a few posts above prove this is clearly the best looking game on any console platform, almost every shot is from actual fully controllable gameplay and not some cutscene, just look at the scale of that game compared to COD or Killzone 2 or 3! A game like Halo Reach which has similar scale does not look that good and lets not forget Crysis 2 is a multiplat. If the Crytek team used all available resource to work on just a single platform then imagine has much better this game could look or play...

ccagracing

Indeed, that was just their first xbox360 game and multipltform

Now with Codename Kingdoms, that is both their 2ond game on 360 and an exclusive, is not hard to see why they confirmed will look night and day better than Crysis 2

If your not playing Crysis on the PC then your not playing Crysis.gamebreakerz__

Me. I fund RE5 that came out 2years ago looking sharper (on 360) than Crysis 2. silversix_

Sharper maybe, but as good looking ?

Xbox 360 pics above

How many times do these theads need to be created and how many times do the creaters need to get badly owned before people stop this nonsense? Both Crysis 2 on consoles and KZ3 look like ass when compared to Crysis "anything" on the PC anyway!

[QUOTE="delta3074"]i don't get it, i have not seen any serious pop-in niether have i had any serious framerate issues either, and although the AI isn't ground breaking it's not as bad as the TC makes out either and the aliasing isn't that bad at all.thetruespin

Some people scrutinize things more than others..They tend to grab their magnifying glass more often..TRYING to find anything at all to complain about.

It´s not the most consistent game but it´s best parts top everything on consoles graphically! A few more months of polish could have helpd.

How many times do these theads need to be created and how many times do the creaters need to get badly owned before people stop this nonsense? Both Crysis 2 on consoles and KZ3 look like ass when compared to Crysis "anything" on the PC anyway!

AnxietyAttack

Actually the xbox 360 version of Crysis 2 looks about same as the PC version maxed

Fantastic pics above. I cant believe some ppl dont find them impressive for console standards!

Fantastic pics above. I cant believe some ppl dont find them impressive for console standards!

PAL360

Its a classic case of "haters gonna hate" thats why..Some people have to stand behind what they like no matter what...I find it funny

Fantastic pics above. I cant believe some ppl dont find them impressive for console standards!

PAL360

They do, they just dont let it be known for obvious reasons

Who would have though xbox 360 could do such graphics ? It was a very unexpected turn really, so took many by surprise

^ ^ GOD..the jaggies and horrible shadows.. GET THEM AWAY GET THEM AWAY!campzor

The shadows are dynamic, not prebaked. That's the problem.