Crysis has been matched if not Surpassed!

thats right i said it, Farcry 2 has equeled Crysis graphically if not surpassed it in some areas. it has a better lighting system, better physics engine, its more destructable and its coming to the XBOX 360 and Playstation 3. if this game is not downgraded on consoles will hermits admit that Crysis was possible on consoles all along. thanks to new compression technology they can fit much more vegetation on screen than befor without using much memory, and the 360 and PS3 have more than enough cpu and GPU muscle to handle the engine.

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/30936.html

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/30927.html

Nameless-Hero

lol not downgraded on consoles? I'll take that challenge.

[QUOTE="DragonfireXZ95"][QUOTE="Nameless-Hero"]

frost engine works wonders on buildings

PS3_3DO

Looks decent, that's not the whole house though... That's only parts. Got any pics with the whole building blown down? And the photos appear to be doctored.

You Hermits have been Pwnt! The power of the Xbox 360! Yeah Far Cry 2 looks on par with Crysis.

BF Bad Companys destruction is the same as RED FACTIONs

Go watch the latest dev video.

Not saying the game will be bad - its destruction is not as complex as what Crysis had- though it is on a larger scale.

And no the 360 is LOW END gaming PC, and no Far Cry 2 is knowhere as detailed as Crysis, nor does it look as good - from everything shown.

Godammit, repeating repeating repeating.

[QUOTE="DragonfireXZ95"][QUOTE="Nameless-Hero"]

frost engine works wonders on buildings

PS3_3DO

Looks decent, that's not the whole house though... That's only parts. Got any pics with the whole building blown down? And the photos appear to be doctored.

You Hermits have been Pwnt! The power of the Xbox 360! Yeah Far Cry 2 looks on par with Crysis.

You fail too see that farcry 2 has a boring open landscape without any objects, this is since the ram for consoles are not enough for anything else. It can't be compared too crysis. But nevertheless, the savannah ain't supposed too have a lot of trees (Should have quite a few animals considering how isolated that place is....) so they masked the lack of ram by simply changing the setting.

This thread is funneh. Though it doesn't rape Crysis but it does have Crysis beat in some areas.

Crysis:
+Higher range lighting/More realistic lighting
+More realistic color pallette
Far Cry 2:
+Larger in size/scope
+Physics and weather system

Those are the advantages they have over each other IMO.

This thread is funneh. Though it doesn't rape Crysis but it does have Crysis beat in some areas.

Crysis:
+Higher range lighting/More realistic lighting
+More realistic color pallette
Far Cry 2:
+Larger in size/scope
+Physics and weather system

Those are the advantages they have over each other IMO.

Pro_wrestler

Though Far Cry 2s game design is much more intesting. Im very intrested in seeing how Ubi pull it off....

[QUOTE="Pro_wrestler"]

This thread is funneh. Though it doesn't rape Crysis but it does have Crysis beat in some areas.

Crysis:
+Higher range lighting/More realistic lighting
+More realistic color pallette
Far Cry 2:
+Larger in size/scope
+Physics and weather system

Those are the advantages they have over each other IMO.

skrat_01

Though Far Cry 2s game design is much more intesting. Im very intrested in seeing how Ubi pull it off....

And keep in mind that Crysis was designed to look even better on future hardware, so even if FC2 gets somewhat close to the graphical fidelity of Crysis, it certainly wont' stay that way.

An example of what I mean:

Thats from inCrysis on very high spect DX10

I think there is a barrier of realism that FC2 hasn't passed yet whereas Crysis has.

[QUOTE="skrat_01"][QUOTE="Pro_wrestler"]

This thread is funneh. Though it doesn't rape Crysis but it does have Crysis beat in some areas.

Crysis:
+Higher range lighting/More realistic lighting
+More realistic color pallette
Far Cry 2:
+Larger in size/scope
+Physics and weather system

Those are the advantages they have over each other IMO.

Pro_wrestler

Though Far Cry 2s game design is much more intesting. Im very intrested in seeing how Ubi pull it off....

And keep in mind that Crysis was designed to look even better on future hardware, so even if FC2 gets somewhat close to the graphical fidelity of Crysis, it certainly wont' stay that way.

An example of what I mean:

Thats from inCrysis on very high spect DX10

I think there is a barrier of realism that FC2 hasn't passed yet whereas Crysis has.

Crysis is ahead of its time, its just waiting for hardware to take the full advantage of its capabilities.

The devs said they're toning it down for consoles. I remember reading it in Edge Magazine :|thrones

Hope it doesn't affect the PC version

The devs said they're toning it down for consoles. I remember reading it in Edge Magazine :|thrones

[QUOTE="cobrax25"][QUOTE="Nameless-Hero"][QUOTE="cobrax25"][QUOTE="Nameless-Hero"]

thats right i said it, Farcry 2 has equeled Crysis graphically if not surpassed it in some areas. it has a better lighting system, better physics engine, its more destructable and its coming to the XBOX 360 and Playstation 3. if this game is not downgraded on consoles will hermits admit that Crysis was possible on consoles all along. thanks to new compression technology they can fit much more vegetation on screen than befor without using much memory, and the 360 and PS3 have more than enough cpu and GPU muscle to handle the engine.

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/30936.html

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/30927.html

Nameless-Hero

please elaborate on how this doesn't look close to Crysis?

do you actually think the game will look anything like that on a console?

and no....it deffinetly doesnt look as good as crysis.

let me remind you what Crysis looks like in case you have forgotten.

and I have seen nothing to sugest that farcry 2 will be more destructable...or that it will look anything like that on a console.

easily countered without cherrypicking

last time i checked you couldn't burn the grass in crysis, or shoot off individual leaves and branches of trees.

[QUOTE="cobrax25"][QUOTE="Nameless-Hero"][QUOTE="cobrax25"][QUOTE="Nameless-Hero"]

thats right i said it, Farcry 2 has equeled Crysis graphically if not surpassed it in some areas. it has a better lighting system, better physics engine, its more destructable and its coming to the XBOX 360 and Playstation 3. if this game is not downgraded on consoles will hermits admit that Crysis was possible on consoles all along. thanks to new compression technology they can fit much more vegetation on screen than befor without using much memory, and the 360 and PS3 have more than enough cpu and GPU muscle to handle the engine.

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/30936.html

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/30927.html

Nameless-Hero

please elaborate on how this doesn't look close to Crysis?

do you actually think the game will look anything like that on a console?

and no....it deffinetly doesnt look as good as crysis.

let me remind you what Crysis looks like in case you have forgotten.

and I have seen nothing to sugest that farcry 2 will be more destructable...or that it will look anything like that on a console.

easily countered without cherrypicking

last time i checked you couldn't burn the grass in crysis, or shoot off individual leaves and branches of trees.

Shouldn't of posted those screens, it doesn't support your arguement. Crysis clearly looks better.

[QUOTE="Nameless-Hero"]

thats right i said it, Farcry 2 has equeled Crysis graphically if not surpassed it in some areas. it has a better lighting system, better physics engine, its more destructable and its coming to the XBOX 360 and Playstation 3. if this game is not downgraded on consoles will hermits admit that Crysis was possible on consoles all along. thanks to new compression technology they can fit much more vegetation on screen than befor without using much memory, and the 360 and PS3 have more than enough cpu and GPU muscle to handle the engine.

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/30936.html

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/30927.html

cobrax25

do you actually think the game will look anything like that on a console?

and no....it deffinetly doesnt look as good as crysis.

far cry 2 will blow crysis out of the water on pc. not consoles.

20 seconds into the first trailer... you see shadowing effects neither the 360 or PS3 even support. If you seriously think this game is going to look like this on consoles, you are going to be sadly disappointed when it's released.

With that said, what evidence do these videos do not provide any evidence that this engine is more capable then the Crytek2 engine. In fact, it's evidence against it if you have even a mild understanding of what is technically happening on screen.

Few things.... Natural Mod 2 for Crysis puts the lighting in that trailer to shame. Heck, even vanilla Crysis puts it to shame but PARTICULARLY Natural Mod 2.

Also, Far Cry 2 isn't pushing nearly as many polys and it isn't pushing nearly as many physics objects. The physic objects are sparse at best(trees aren't dense). Crysis not only has the trees but it also has literally HUNDREDS of other objects. People seem to forget that EVERY SINGLE OBJECT can be picked up and thrown in Crysis. That means that all of those objects need physics applied to them. That is more demanding than any simulated wind effects or some trees....

The textures in Crysis are EXTREMELY high res. The tree leaves have veins in them... The ground has all sorts of tiny details. Not only that but Parallax Occlusion Mapping is a resource hog. Making a 2D texture have real time 3D shadows... well... that isn't easy. And it makes a huge difference graphically. Now, you COULD have pre-rendered shadows for things but that doesn't look natural when the time of day changes and it doesn't match up. Anyway....

On to Battlefield: Bad Company.... Don't give it so much praise. All of those "destructible walls" are simply untouched walls getting swapped by a destroyed section(that is always the same) under cover of a particle effect. They throw up a cloud of dust and some "chunks" of wall to make people think they are doing something special when they aren't....

Overall, the way they designed Dunia, it isn't a real resource hog. It looks good and has some nice simulations but the underlying tech isn't overly demanding. The dynamically destructible trees is sort of demanding, but not THAT demanding(that isn't what is demanding in Crysis... The ridiculous numbers of said trees is what is demanding). Their lighting engine while impressive isn't overly demanding because it doesn't apply fancy tricks like Parallax Occlusion Mapping. Again, fairly demanding but not THAT demanding. They also make heavy use of streaming. CryENGINE 2 has limited streaming but not much. It puts too much strain on the HDD to have constant streaming, but Ubisoft has decided to go that route.... That lessens the requirements because it means that the map doesn't need allocated memory. Also, the AI, while good, isn't that great. They don't use cover and they don't actively seek to outmaneuver you. They simply brute force you and be as aggressive as possible. Now, this fits in with the story of Far Cry 2 with them being mercs after all but that isn't that demanding... Finally, the game doesn't have to worry about water physics at all... Water physics are annoying to implement because they are just so hungry for CPU, GPU, RAM and just about anything you throw at them. The physical calculations on the CPU are ridiculous because water isn't exactly something that has simple physics... Simulating water is like simulating a bi-polar schizophrenic. You never know what is going to happen with it... It is GPU hungry because to do real-time light refraction and reflection, it is going to spend a LOT of time asking for light renders and different lighting calculations. It is RAM hungry because it wants more RAM to ease the CPU's workload and allow more places for physics calculations to be done. So yeah... Water = annoying. Far Cry 2 has very little water... EVERY level in Crysis (with the exception of the ice levels) has at least one large body of water in it.

[QUOTE="cobrax25"][QUOTE="Nameless-Hero"]

thats right i said it, Farcry 2 has equeled Crysis graphically if not surpassed it in some areas. it has a better lighting system, better physics engine, its more destructable and its coming to the XBOX 360 and Playstation 3. if this game is not downgraded on consoles will hermits admit that Crysis was possible on consoles all along. thanks to new compression technology they can fit much more vegetation on screen than befor without using much memory, and the 360 and PS3 have more than enough cpu and GPU muscle to handle the engine.

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/30936.html

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/30927.html

jimhogg

do you actually think the game will look anything like that on a console?

and no....it deffinetly doesnt look as good as crysis.

far cry 2 will blow crysis out of the water on pc. not consoles.

Did you just ignore everything in this thread?

thats right i said it, Farcry 2 has equeled Crysis graphically if not surpassed it in some areas. it has a better lighting system, better physics engine, its more destructable and its coming to the XBOX 360 and Playstation 3. if this game is not downgraded on consoles will hermits admit that Crysis was possible on consoles all along. thanks to new compression technology they can fit much more vegetation on screen than befor without using much memory, and the 360 and PS3 have more than enough cpu and GPU muscle to handle the engine.

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/30936.html

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/30927.html

Nameless-Hero

Not even close

Farcry2= 4D:P

crysis isnt techinically possible on the consoles (without being downgraded horribly).....consoles lack ram....Dante2710

Where is your proof that if it was fitted for the Console, it would be "downgraded horribly". I think i've heard that a hundred times by differen't people and I'm guessing you don't have much clue about anything technical. The limited use of Ram can be covered in many ways. They could limit texture variation, resolution, field of vision, view distance. Or perhaps they rebuild the engine.

[QUOTE="Dante2710"]crysis isnt techinically possible on the consoles (without being downgraded horribly).....consoles lack ram....monkeychris

Where is your proof that if it was fitted for the Console, it would be "downgraded horribly". I think i've heard that a hundred times by differen't people and I'm guessing you don't have much clue about anything technical. The limited use of Ram can be covered in many ways. They could limit texture variation, resolution, field of vision, view distance. Or perhaps they rebuild the engine.

it is simply the way Crysis was designed. Everything that is there is there. Even masking some of it wouldn't change that... The very design of the game REQUIRES 2GB of RAM on anything above Medium settings...

Fc2 on a PC will be different than the consoles. Ps3 and 360 are already very outdated compared to hypercharged rigs you can get nowadays. The textures have been downgraded on the consoles and there have been some changes regarding memory issues. After all, the RAM in the ps3 and 360 are outdated as well. Plus, the res will only be running at like 720p or lower possibly. Comparing both versions of this game will be like comparing a 360 or PS3 game vs. a wii version of the same game.

Few things.... Natural Mod 2 for Crysis puts the lighting in that trailer to shame. Heck, even vanilla Crysis puts it to shame but PARTICULARLY Natural Mod 2.

Also, Far Cry 2 isn't pushing nearly as many polys and it isn't pushing nearly as many physics objects. The physic objects are sparse at best(trees aren't dense). Crysis not only has the trees but it also has literally HUNDREDS of other objects. People seem to forget that EVERY SINGLE OBJECT can be picked up and thrown in Crysis. That means that all of those objects need physics applied to them. That is more demanding than any simulated wind effects or some trees....

The textures in Crysis are EXTREMELY high res. The tree leaves have veins in them... The ground has all sorts of tiny details. Not only that but Parallax Occlusion Mapping is a resource hog. Making a 2D texture have real time 3D shadows... well... that isn't easy. And it makes a huge difference graphically. Now, you COULD have pre-rendered shadows for things but that doesn't look natural when the time of day changes and it doesn't match up. Anyway....

On to Battlefield: Bad Company.... Don't give it so much praise. All of those "destructible walls" are simply untouched walls getting swapped by a destroyed section(that is always the same) under cover of a particle effect. They throw up a cloud of dust and some "chunks" of wall to make people think they are doing something special when they aren't....

Overall, the way they designed Dunia, it isn't a real resource hog. It looks good and has some nice simulations but the underlying tech isn't overly demanding. The dynamically destructible trees is sort of demanding, but not THAT demanding(that isn't what is demanding in Crysis... The ridiculous numbers of said trees is what is demanding). Their lighting engine while impressive isn't overly demanding because it doesn't apply fancy tricks like Parallax Occlusion Mapping. Again, fairly demanding but not THAT demanding. They also make heavy use of streaming. CryENGINE 2 has limited streaming but not much. It puts too much strain on the HDD to have constant streaming, but Ubisoft has decided to go that route.... That lessens the requirements because it means that the map doesn't need allocated memory. Also, the AI, while good, isn't that great. They don't use cover and they don't actively seek to outmaneuver you. They simply brute force you and be as aggressive as possible. Now, this fits in with the story of Far Cry 2 with them being mercs after all but that isn't that demanding... Finally, the game doesn't have to worry about water physics at all... Water physics are annoying to implement because they are just so hungry for CPU, GPU, RAM and just about anything you throw at them. The physical calculations on the CPU are ridiculous because water isn't exactly something that has simple physics... Simulating water is like simulating a bi-polar schizophrenic. You never know what is going to happen with it... It is GPU hungry because to do real-time light refraction and reflection, it is going to spend a LOT of time asking for light renders and different lighting calculations. It is RAM hungry because it wants more RAM to ease the CPU's workload and allow more places for physics calculations to be done. So yeah... Water = annoying. Far Cry 2 has very little water... EVERY level in Crysis (with the exception of the ice levels) has at least one large body of water in it.

horrowhip

Excellent post but I'm sorry you wasted all that time. Everyone is just going to argue around your post because they don't have the technical knowledge to address anything you said.

Excellent post but I'm sorry you wasted all that time. Everyone is just going to argue around your post because they don't have the technical knowledge to address anything you said. Kantroce

eh.... that is fine. Nothing anybody ever says gets anywhere in SW...

[QUOTE="naval"][QUOTE="cobrax25"][QUOTE="Nameless-Hero"]

thats right i said it, Farcry 2 has equeled Crysis graphically if not surpassed it in some areas. it has a better lighting system, better physics engine, its more destructable and its coming to the XBOX 360 and Playstation 3. if this game is not downgraded on consoles will hermits admit that Crysis was possible on consoles all along. thanks to new compression technology they can fit much more vegetation on screen than befor without using much memory, and the 360 and PS3 have more than enough cpu and GPU muscle to handle the engine.

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/30936.html

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/30927.html

Nameless-Hero

do you actually think the game will look anything like that on a console?

and no....it deffinetly doesnt look as good as crysis.

true, it doesn't looks as good as crysis and i really don't think console version will look anything like that

ok so if it doesn't look as good on consoles what about the PC version u cant deny tht it looks good and is an unfinished game, and from what i hear Crysis was not well optimised even top of the line hardware struggles to run it at max settings above 1080

yet consoles struggle to run cod4 @ 600p :lol:

[QUOTE="skrat_01"][QUOTE="Nameless-Hero"]

thats right i said it, Farcry 2 has equeled Crysis graphically if not surpassed it in some areas. it has a better lighting system, better physics engine, its more destructable and its coming to the XBOX 360 and Playstation 3. if this game is not downgraded on consoles will hermits admit that Crysis was possible on consoles all along. thanks to new compression technology they can fit much more vegetation on screen than befor without using much memory, and the 360 and PS3 have more than enough cpu and GPU muscle to handle the engine.

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/30936.html

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/30927.html

Nameless-Hero

Prove them.

You cant?

Surprise surprise.

Crysis possible on consoles - even Crytek disagrees with you.

Prove it.

You cant?

Surprise Surprise.

ITs as if you desperatley want a game that is of Crysis level on consoles, and will scream every second a game seems to come close.

Even convincing yourself the 360 or PS3 can run Crysis is a laughable stance.

typical hermit cant see past his computer moniter, as i have already said the weather system is more advanced, vegetation is burnable moving realistically with the wind, actual tree branches are destructable and almost every leaf, and the lighting effects look better imo no way to really convince you.

surprise surprise what are u 10? lol

and typical consolites can't see past the pc screens of pc/x360 games to see that the game wont look like that on consoles. just look at farcry pc vs farcry instints or hl2 pc vs xbox. really what are you trying to prove with this thread? that there are more great looking pc games just round the corner? the console version isn't out for ages while the pc version isn't far away

[QUOTE="Lonelynight"][QUOTE="Nameless-Hero"]

typical hermit cant see past his computer moniter, as i have already said the weather system is more advanced, vegetation is burnable moving realistically with the wind, actual tree branches are destructable and almost every leaf, and the lighting effects look better imo no way to really convince you.

surprise surprise what are u 10? lol

Nameless-Hero

Do you have proof that it will all look like that when it is release?

well if anything it will only look much better as more advanced hardware is released, ya know thats usually how game development goes along and the graphics are most likely still not polished

on pc maybe on consoles no chance in hell

[QUOTE="AdrianWerner"]

It doesn't look anywhere near as good as Crysis. Dunia's greatest assets are gameplay-enchancing features, not the graphical quality.

Oh..and if you think console versions will look anywhere near as good as PC version you're in denial.

PS3_3DO

No you're in denial of the power of the Xbox 360 and PS3! :x

no your in denial about their lack of power. a 8600gt runs every game better than the 360. 512mb TOTAL RAM while most gaming pcs have that just for the graphics now with 2gb for the system

I don't think they can tone it down that much, difference in other PC/Console games is only slight, not huge.rolo107

I just got done playing Crysis, on the Abyss level. I play on Medium/High graphics... and I'm sorry, but I have yet to see a game look half as good as what I experienced on a 360.

I don't think they can tone it down that much, difference in other PC/Console games is only slight, not huge.rolo107

Far Cry 2 is different becaue it has been in development only on the pc for a while, so they would have to tone down a few things, especially texture quality, resolution, draw distance, etc.. Don't expect Far Cry 2 on consoles to look as good as what we're seeing now on the PC version. You guys act like the 360 or PS3 can hang with high end PC's...

Far Cry 2 looks nice and very good; however, Crysis just overall has more color and the guns are model a lot better, and overall I think the Cryengine 2 is far beyond the far Cry 2 engine I mean come on the Far Cry 2 engine is based off the engine that was made by Crytek. So its no wonder they look similar but overall Cryengine 2 is probably the most advanced engine to date and when they release screenshots of Crysis 2, which nobody but a lucky few will get to play on medium probably, but nonetheless will show the true potential of the Cryengine 2.

If you get the chance to play through crysis on very high you really then get a feel for how GOOD the game looks.

I don't think they can tone it down that much, difference in other PC/Console games is only slight, not huge.rolo107

slight..... its big.

8800 is like double the power of a 360/PS3 GPU now with the new ati card out and the new nvidia it will be even bigger.... but the main difference is the scale of game a PC can output, so much larger than the counterpart of what the console can produce

[QUOTE="horrowhip"]

Few things.... Natural Mod 2 for Crysis puts the lighting in that trailer to shame. Heck, even vanilla Crysis puts it to shame but PARTICULARLY Natural Mod 2.

Also, Far Cry 2 isn't pushing nearly as many polys and it isn't pushing nearly as many physics objects. The physic objects are sparse at best(trees aren't dense). Crysis not only has the trees but it also has literally HUNDREDS of other objects. People seem to forget that EVERY SINGLE OBJECT can be picked up and thrown in Crysis. That means that all of those objects need physics applied to them. That is more demanding than any simulated wind effects or some trees....

The textures in Crysis are EXTREMELY high res. The tree leaves have veins in them... The ground has all sorts of tiny details. Not only that but Parallax Occlusion Mapping is a resource hog. Making a 2D texture have real time 3D shadows... well... that isn't easy. And it makes a huge difference graphically. Now, you COULD have pre-rendered shadows for things but that doesn't look natural when the time of day changes and it doesn't match up. Anyway....

On to Battlefield: Bad Company.... Don't give it so much praise. All of those "destructible walls" are simply untouched walls getting swapped by a destroyed section(that is always the same) under cover of a particle effect. They throw up a cloud of dust and some "chunks" of wall to make people think they are doing something special when they aren't....

Overall, the way they designed Dunia, it isn't a real resource hog. It looks good and has some nice simulations but the underlying tech isn't overly demanding. The dynamically destructible trees is sort of demanding, but not THAT demanding(that isn't what is demanding in Crysis... The ridiculous numbers of said trees is what is demanding). Their lighting engine while impressive isn't overly demanding because it doesn't apply fancy tricks like Parallax Occlusion Mapping. Again, fairly demanding but not THAT demanding. They also make heavy use of streaming. CryENGINE 2 has limited streaming but not much. It puts too much strain on the HDD to have constant streaming, but Ubisoft has decided to go that route.... That lessens the requirements because it means that the map doesn't need allocated memory. Also, the AI, while good, isn't that great. They don't use cover and they don't actively seek to outmaneuver you. They simply brute force you and be as aggressive as possible. Now, this fits in with the story of Far Cry 2 with them being mercs after all but that isn't that demanding... Finally, the game doesn't have to worry about water physics at all... Water physics are annoying to implement because they are just so hungry for CPU, GPU, RAM and just about anything you throw at them. The physical calculations on the CPU are ridiculous because water isn't exactly something that has simple physics... Simulating water is like simulating a bi-polar schizophrenic. You never know what is going to happen with it... It is GPU hungry because to do real-time light refraction and reflection, it is going to spend a LOT of time asking for light renders and different lighting calculations. It is RAM hungry because it wants more RAM to ease the CPU's workload and allow more places for physics calculations to be done. So yeah... Water = annoying. Far Cry 2 has very little water... EVERY level in Crysis (with the exception of the ice levels) has at least one large body of water in it.

Kantroce

Excellent post but I'm sorry you wasted all that time. Everyone is just going to argue around your post because they don't have the technical knowledge to address anything you said.

Ya unfortunately

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/30965.html

This is a good video that kind of demonstrates how well the engine, that is Cryengine 2, can render real world environments. The engine is here we just need AMD and Nvidia to jump on the ball and release a card that will release the beast's potential.

I don't think they can tone it down that much, difference in other PC/Console games is only slight, not huge.rolo107

The 360 for instance is pretty much a low end gaming PC by all means.

[QUOTE="cobrax25"][QUOTE="Nameless-Hero"][QUOTE="cobrax25"][QUOTE="Nameless-Hero"]

thats right i said it, Farcry 2 has equeled Crysis graphically if not surpassed it in some areas. it has a better lighting system, better physics engine, its more destructable and its coming to the XBOX 360 and Playstation 3. if this game is not downgraded on consoles will hermits admit that Crysis was possible on consoles all along. thanks to new compression technology they can fit much more vegetation on screen than befor without using much memory, and the 360 and PS3 have more than enough cpu and GPU muscle to handle the engine.

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/30936.html

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/30927.html

Nameless-Hero

please elaborate on how this doesn't look close to Crysis?

do you actually think the game will look anything like that on a console?

and no....it deffinetly doesnt look as good as crysis.

let me remind you what Crysis looks like in case you have forgotten.

and I have seen nothing to sugest that farcry 2 will be more destructable...or that it will look anything like that on a console.

easily countered without cherrypicking

last time i checked you couldn't burn the grass in crysis, or shoot off individual leaves and branches of trees.

Lol are you serious?

[QUOTE="cobrax25"]

and I have seen nothing to sugest that farcry 2 will be more destructable...or that it will look anything like that on a console.

FrozenLiquid

It's made by Ubisoft, and Ubi = FAIL.