[QUOTE="MC3887"]

Not really, they may have pooled more the consoles resources into lighting then other places and of course "optimization", the consoles obviously fall short in other places so it makes sense.

AnnoyedDragon

I'm afraid I don't believe optimization is magical making the same lighting that brought high end PCs to their knees; run on consoles 2005 hardware. Regardless of any compromises they may have made elsewhere.

Undoubtedly It's been reduced in some manner, and thinking that way is just common sense. Console hardware is old, optimization and compromises can only do so much.

Also why are you guys complaining so much if Crysis 2 on PC still looks better then like 99% of PC games? I would start blaming other devs at this point lol, other PC only devs haven't beaten C1 either...

MC3887

That argument is about as relevant as the people saying "it's great by cross platform game standards, so why complain?".

There is one standard that Crysis 2 is being measured up against, and that is Crysis 1.

What I am saying is that the lighting alone didn't make the PC fall to its knees it was a combination of effect. The consoles are probably slightly more advanced it certain areas and MUCH less advanced in others.

This is only a backlash for the "PS3 is teh suprior" talk. Crysis also performs better after the first two levels.

[QUOTE="MC3887"]

Who said paintings are always detailed?

Orchid87

Just check how much detail KZ2 and KZ3 environments have. It pretty much does to the FPS genre what Metal Slug does to 2D side-scrolling games detail wise.

To me it looks detailed in specific places but other than that it just looks soft to me.

[QUOTE="Innovazero2000"]

Diving into this deeper that's not true at all. Consoles do have GI + HDR. However, it is not full GI as we were lead to believe (only the sun and larger areas effected by sun is true GI). The rest is a mix of multiple differed lights + Texture baked shadows (in which you are referring to in a previous post). An LPV system at the very least. The PC on the other hand in Very High and Extreme only does infact do everything in realtime. (High does not, which is the console spec) (However in Mutliplayer ill-regardless of setting GI is turned on)

AnnoyedDragon

I don't think someone can say that consoles are doing something, and then call it the same. One games HDR isn't equivalent to another games HDR, there are varying quality levels of the same technique, such as bit precision and complexity.

I quite frankly consider it common sense that consoles would not have the horsepower to duplicate, never mind beat, the lighting we saw in Crysis 1. Crysis brought even high end systems to their knees with its Vhigh settings, and some people want us to believe Crysis 2 is using those same/better! lighting settings than that?

Honestly, the suggestion is laughable.

Not really, they may have pooled more the consoles resources into lighting then other places and of course "optimization", the consoles obviously fall short in other places so it makes sense. Also why are you guys complaining so much if Crysis 2 on PC still looks better then like 99% of PC games? I would start blaming other devs at this point lol, other PC only devs haven't beaten C1 either...

[QUOTE="MC3887"]

C2 is more detailed to me. Smooth? probably KZ3.

Orchid87

C2 looked like MW2 on steroids for me. Same fake-looking sterile shiny plastic environments. KZ3 looks like a painting in motion.

Who said paintings are always detailed?

C2 is more detailed to me. Smooth? probably KZ3.

Going by the title, no it wasn't on consoles when they were dragging the guy who got shot they were pressing S

TheEpicGoat

Oh okay I was about to say.

People are basing off a visual standpoint not a technical one. If it was it seems C2 is doing a good amount of more advanced affects then other console games.

Those Crysis 2 shots look just as good as the KZ2/3 ones to me. Still, if Crysis 2 does run like ass with glitches up the aforementioned ass, as I've heard, then fair point.Floppy_Jim

I have heard that it runs much better in the later levels. The first two are supposed teh bad part.

[QUOTE="i5750at4Ghz"][QUOTE="soapandbubbles"]hope so...the textures are bad. soapandbubbles

The textures you are reffering to is the worst part of the vid, but they seem more avg res then horribly low res. The overall look is outstanding.