Crysis 2 Graphics: PC Vs. Xbox 360

Stone Cold said:
Crysis2 is poorly optimized for the PC, that's the only reason it's "system intensive".
Click to expand...

I don't think you can make that statement. There are so many aspects to the scene on the PC that simply are being faked on the xbox or done in a much lower resolution to be able to function.

The water effects are DX9 which the Xbox was designed for and nothing really changed between Cry1 and 2. Also Bioshock had similar water effects. You can see a HUGE difference between the PC actually doing cloth physics vs the xbox faking it by bending large sized poly's and layering them to look like it's doing the same thing...it's not. There are many many more poly's/vectors being computed on the PC vs the xbox as well. The shape of objects are much more jagged vs the pc counterpart. It's not just a matter of textures. Also you pointed out correctly, that the xbox is most likely running this at something like 1055x650(or something similar) to again make up for it's drawbacks.

All this and it runs very similar to Cry1/Warhead in terms of fps on the same settings(Hardcore=Enthusiast).

This is not to say the game is better/blah blah blah, but your statement in my opinion is lacking any evidence.
 
dandapice said:
LOL...Dearly beloved, we are gathered here today to pay our final respects to the PC as a gaming platform. Due to consoles becoming the next "big thing" for the corporate whores, we PC gamers are a dying breed. A truly sad time is coming....Are there ANY gaming software companies out there who actually still believe in the PC?.....
Click to expand...

Valve.
 
I always find such comparisons some what pointless, I mean specifications of PCs are so different from one to another and can be upgraded whereas the Xbox 360 will always be the same and the only enhancements come through understanding the hardware better and thus better programming. At the same time you have to considered my Graphics card cost more than 3 Xbox's.
 
Ducman69 said:
That didn't happen with the Xbox 360 or PS3 release, so why would it happen this time around?

This is from my 2006 Dell Laptop @ 1080p:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/153/436936698_953d771fe4_o.jpg

And Xbox 360 @ 720p:
http://xbox360media.ign.com/xbox360...der-scrolls-iv-oblivion-20060324070902088.jpg

Ground textures on the 360 are horrible, the draw distance ridiculous, no AF enabled at all, low res LOD textures, etc. Now you can say that perhaps Oblivion was horribly ported to the Xbox, but try Mass Effect side-by-side for example, its like night and day.
Click to expand...

lol I think you missed the point. When the 360 was released in 2005, my system (and many others) at the time couldn't keep up with it. You have to remember that we still only had single core P4 or AMD64 processors and our most advanced GPU at the time was pretty much on par with what the 360 came with (along with the added overhead of the windows OS).

I specifically remember buying NFS:MW and having to crank down just about every setting to get playable framerates out of it with my AMD Athlon 64 3000+ and 7800 GS (actually, I think I still had my 9700 Pro at that time) configuration while the 360 was able to get great framerates and looked a lot better doing it, despite the lower resolution.

It wasn't exclusive to that title either... oblivion took a MONSTER of a machine to get the same level of performance that the 360 was able to produce. Hell... I wasn't even able to turn on HDR until I got my 8800GT unless I wanted my frame rates to plummet when I got to a populated area or near water. Rainbow 6 Vegas too... if I turned on all the bells and whistles, the performance went to shit while the 360 was able to run great and look good in the process.

My point was that, compared to the hardware avalible when it launched, the 360 held it's own against the PC... 5 years later and it's starting to show it's age (and thus, games have stopped pushing the graphical envelope). When the next generation consoles show up, you will once again see developers pushing hardware to it's limits.
 
Watching the video and reading some of the comments here, I noticed that the PC version has better textures on just about all of the objects, and especially on foliage. The brightness seems different on Xbox and PC, but it's sometimes brighter on Xbox, other times on PC, so I don't know about that.

One thing that the video doesn't explore is the look of the game when not using equivalent settings. If you cranked up both of those to 1080p, the Xbox would be blowing up a low-res output and the PC with a 460 would be rendering native 1080p. It would destroy the Xbox game's IQ, plus you have mouse + keyboard.

Whatever, to each his own, I hope you guys enjoy the game. I won't be buying it till it hits the bargain bin.
 
You guys who bag on the 360 should also consider that for a lot of people, pouring money into a PC to fool with drivers and programs and all that jazz isn't everyone's cup of tea. With a console like the 360 you pop in the disc, and boom, you're playing. The initial investment is also $300 for many years of enjoyment, on the PC you're doing good if you spend less than $300 in two years on upgrades. If you are willing to invest in a good PC, yes you get better graphics, but the 360 still gives much better IQ than a $300 PC can, and it's fuss-free. So PC !> console, as long as you're playing the game you win.

My $0.02.
 
Scottw said:
Run the PC version on a $300 PC and then compare... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

A $300 pre-built at that, lol.

I'm gonna wait till it actually gets released and I see some reviews on SP before buying. Crysis has always been about the SP aspect of the game. If it's got a decent Sp then I might pick it up. While Crysis has also been about the graphics I'm sure it will look good enough to get by on. While I do prefer it to look great, I can also let some things go if it is fun. hell alot of us still play some older games that honestly look like shit but are damn fun so why should this be any different.
 
dr.stevil said:
lol I think you missed the point. When the 360 was released in 2005, my system (and many others) at the time couldn't keep up with it. You have to remember that we still only had single core P4 or AMD64 processors and our most advanced GPU at the time was pretty much on par with what the 360 came with (along with the added overhead of the windows OS).

My point was that, compared to the hardware avalible when it launched, the 360 held it's own against the PC... 5 years later and it's starting to show it's age (and thus, games have stopped pushing the graphical envelope). When the next generation consoles show up, you will once again see developers pushing hardware to it's limits.
Click to expand...
No, I think you missed that I'm showing you a screenshot taking from a Dell Inspiron 9300 from 2006 (albeit w/ a alienware GPU upgrade that I slapped in since they shared the same chassis at the time). The Xbox 360 was released late 2005, so those are similar age systems.

The screenshots clearly show that the Xbox 360 graphics looked like butt compared to a gaming laptop released within a year of it.

The 2006 computer laptop walked all over the late 2005 Xbox 360, release in many parts of the world in 2006.

Cliffs Notes: The PS3 and Xbox360 (and definitely the Wii) were NOT better than PC graphics available at the time, and thats not likely to change with the next release. It will likely be even with a upper-midrange gaming computer at its release, but will not be upgraded for seven years if recent cycles are anything to go by.
 
We can vote with our wallets. If we don't buy unfinished games then this should make the developers out out a better product.
 
XacTactX said:
You guys who bag on the 360 should also consider that for a lot of people, pouring money into a PC to fool with drivers and programs and all that jazz isn't everyone's cup of tea.
Click to expand...
Agreed, the 360 is a turnkey solution, and that has a lot of value with the tech illiterate. Zero argument.
XacTactX said:
The initial investment is also $300 for many years of enjoyment, on the PC you're doing good if you spend less than $300 in two years on upgrades.
Click to expand...
This statement makes no sense. Just because you CAN upgrade your PC doesn't mean you are obliged to. A gaming computer built in 2006 thats the same performance as the Xbox 360 will still be the same performance as an Xbox 360 in 2011. You merely have an OPTION of spending more money to get more performance and graphical features on games by turning the settings up, with the Xbox you have no such options.

Also, computers tend to be multi-function machines. The fast processor in my computer isn't for gaming, its for everything else as well, and I wouldn't be running an Intel Atom processor even if I didn't game. Really the only difference is buying a high-end GPU versus a low end one, and $300-$600 (360/PS3 historical pricing) for a graphics card buys very high performance hardware.

Gotta compare apples to apples. :)
 
besides the soft look and lower contrast the 360 looks pretty damn good. i expected more from the PC but then again it was youtube 720p quality, and a console port.


really guys still arguing 360 vs PC, isn't 5 years enough. you would think you could learn to just let it go. as a PC gamer i am frequently impressed by 360 games. i only wish devs put in the same effort for make PC's up to their full potential.
 
Ducman69 said:
This statement makes no sense. Just because you CAN upgrade your PC doesn't mean you are obliged to. A gaming computer built in 2006 thats the same performance as the Xbox 360 will still be the same performance as an Xbox 360 in 2011. You merely have an OPTION of spending more money to get more performance and graphical features on games by turning the settings up, with the Xbox you have no such options.
Gotta compare apples to apples. :)
Click to expand...

While i do agree with you to a point I also gotta say one thing. Take a PC that was built at the time the 360 came out and try to play BC2 or Crysis 2 on it with no upgrades. If you could I would then like to see some screenshots to see what one looks better. Now that would be more of an apples to apples comparison.

While i hate playing on a console myself I can understand why some people prefer them over a PC for gaming. They are purpose built for it where as with a PC you end up with having to use this driver or that one for certain games along with countless other possible issues. I'm not saying that consoles are without problems either but there are far less. Most of the time you just pop in the disk and go.
 
Having played the demo on both the 360 and my PC I can tell you that the difference is night or day. That video doesn't really show you how much different they look. The resolution boost alone is huge.
 
dandapice said:
LOL...Dearly beloved, we are gathered here today to pay our final respects to the PC as a gaming platform. Due to consoles becoming the next "big thing" for the corporate whores, we PC gamers are a dying breed. A truly sad time is coming....Are there ANY gaming software companies out there who actually still believe in the PC?.....
Click to expand...
To add to Inacurate who pointed out Valve: Blizzard. (Though they keep threatening to release console games again, we haven't seen one in years)


A game designed to run on the PC will look better than a game designed to run on a console. The hardware difference is pretty huge (memory on consoles being a big limitation, open detailed environments don't exist in games released for both, because the console just can't do it). PC gaming is typically more cost effective if you don't care about the online console communities (and there are plenty of online gaming communities as well, but it can be harder to setup for grandpa).

I say more cost effective because most households will have a PC. So throwing in a $100 graphics card will typically allow them to play modern games at 720p resolutions. Also, alot of PC games are cheaper. I understand parents preferring consoles - they have more control over the settings and it keeps the kids off the computer where they can cause more trouble.

It all depends upon your assumptions. Most people aren't deciding between a $300 Xbox and a $300 PC. Usually other factors are impacting their decision than image quality of the game.

And graphic quality/$$$ don't spell the death or life of a gaming unit. The wii does well not simply because of cost, but because it's FUN.

If there was a $500 console with a dual TV tuner with DVR capability, Blu-ray player, web browser, and Steam library integration that drove 1080p... (and handled NAS streaming and netflix and all the other jazz consoles already can do) I'd be down with it. For the record, the PS3 is pretty darn close to that...
 
dandapice said:
LOL...Dearly beloved, we are gathered here today to pay our final respects to the PC as a gaming platform. Due to consoles becoming the next "big thing" for the corporate whores, we PC gamers are a dying breed. A truly sad time is coming....Are there ANY gaming software companies out there who actually still believe in the PC?.....
Click to expand...

DICE/EA
battlefield 3 was made with the PC in mind and then ported to 360/ps3 and from videos i've seen it looks insane!
 
Sir Stealth said:
I honestly doubt Crytek has any intentions of patching in DX11 and if they do it will be something thrown together to shut people up.
Click to expand...

As much as they are supposedly being paid by nVidia, I seriously doubt they are going to half ass the DX11 patch. However I simply DO NOT buy unfinished games and will not be buying this game until the DX11 support is added. Once that happens, i'm going to wait until it goes on sale simply because I can wait. There are lots of good games to play right now.
 
I think the PC version looks better, but I can't afford PC gaming hardware right now. I'll have to stick to getting the PS3 version when it comes out.
 
03grandam said:
While i do agree with you to a point I also gotta say one thing. Take a PC that was built at the time the 360 came out and try to play BC2 or Crysis 2 on it with no upgrades. If you could I would then like to see some screenshots to see what one looks better. Now that would be more of an apples to apples comparison.
Click to expand...
I'd be surprised if I couldn't, although I no longer have that hardware. I would imagine you would just have to reduce the resolution to 720p and visual quality settings to low and GPU to performance over quality, which is essentially how they get hardware as old as the 360 to play these games. :)
 
03grandam said:
While i do agree with you to a point I also gotta say one thing. Take a PC that was built at the time the 360 came out and try to play BC2 or Crysis 2 on it with no upgrades. If you could I would then like to see some screenshots to see what one looks better. Now that would be more of an apples to apples comparison.
Click to expand...
At a sub-1280x720 resolution? Fairly easily, I'd suspect.
 
-Sn1PeR- said:
Having played the demo on both the 360 and my PC I can tell you that the difference is night or day. That video doesn't really show you how much different they look. The resolution boost alone is huge.
Click to expand...

agreed. the resolution boost makes a huge difference. i tested both versions on the same monitor. and considering my monitor doesn't like anything lower than 1920x1080, the 360 version was a blurry mess.
 
Scottw said:
Run the PC version on a $300 PC and then compare... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

its possible, with some savvy buying, and deal hunting....

of course the smarter thing would be to just take any 1/2way decent semi-modern PC (core 2 era or better... so anything bought after 2006), and slap in a halfway decent video card.... like for example, the HD4850s that have been popping up on deal websites lately for 50 or so dollars....

but if you wanna go with the whole price thing... I'll take the PC with its much cheaper games, and ridiculous sales (steam, d2d) over consoles any day of the week....

what can I say? I'm a cheapskate, so consoles definitely arent for me...
 
Not so sure how much i'd count valve as being PC, with how much they are pushing steamworks to PS3, and trying to bribe PS3 owners into playing portal 2.. "Look we even throw in a free PC copy!"
 
fact:
pc is clearly superior in graphics, and that's the only thing that matters, because this game is only about graphics, and not gameplay.
 
brucedeluxe169 said:
What can I say? I'm a cheapskate, so consoles definitely aren't for me...
Click to expand...

Really? I hear the exact same thing said over and over about when I ask someone about gaming PCs...

"I don't have $3000+ to buy a gaming PC every two years..."

"I'd rather have a laptop.

or the extra infuriating:

"Consoles are better than PCs so I don't bother."
 
dr.kevin said:
fact:
pc is clearly superior in graphics, and that's the only thing that matters, because this game is only about graphics, and not gameplay.
Click to expand...

If it was only about graphics, they wouldn't be bothering with the console versions, or the DX9 version.

I played the demo on both, and in the end I'll probably end up with both the console and PC versions, PC for single player once the DX11 version is done and it's on a steam sale. console version for multiplayer, because even tho keyboard + mouse is superior, finding matches will always be easier, with a wider range of possible matches .. and with less chance of hacks / cheats on console (not that it dosn't happen there aswell, just not quite as wide spread).
 
150$ system looking good enough to me, vs a high end PC. I wont be buying this on either system anyway. Game is all about looks. Never could get into the alleged gameplay previous crysis games had.
 
03grandam said:
While i do agree with you to a point I also gotta say one thing. Take a PC that was built at the time the 360 came out and try to play BC2 or Crysis 2 on it with no upgrades. If you could I would then like to see some screenshots to see what one looks better. Now that would be more of an apples to apples comparison.

While i hate playing on a console myself I can understand why some people prefer them over a PC for gaming. They are purpose built for it where as with a PC you end up with having to use this driver or that one for certain games along with countless other possible issues. I'm not saying that consoles are without problems either but there are far less. Most of the time you just pop in the disk and go.
Click to expand...

Apparently you have never play games like Ninja Gaiden...

Pop in the disk and Rage if that is what you mean there... :p
 
Mr. Bluntman said:
Really? I hear the exact same thing said over and over about when I ask someone about gaming PCs...

"I don't have $3000+ to buy a gaming PC every two years..."

"I'd rather have a laptop.

or the extra infuriating:

"Consoles are better than PCs so I don't bother."
Click to expand...

IMHO, its just a lack of understanding on their part. PC games in *general* drop in price much faster than console games, and with mod support, they usually have a much longer lifespan (although, sadly, MODs seem to be public enemy #1 to current developers.... but thats for another thread).

and yea, as I said before, the many, excellent online sales put the PC over the edge....

and besides, I can do whatever the hell I want to do with my $300 PC.... a console? not so much...

PC really is just the better value over time for someone truly on a budget...
 
Zarathustra[H];1036947296 said:
Doing some sort of split screen instead of a squished full version on each side likely would have made this difference rather striking. In this video it isn't.
Click to expand...

actually, the differences are HUGE. The Xbox lack a lot of clarity, shading, and depth. The xobx version looked flat where at the PC version didn't. A lot more detail.

Not sure how much better they can show a comparison, it was pretty easy to see the difference. PC much higher quality hands down.
 
How many times have we seen tech demos of new game engines that have everyone drooling to see the final games only to be served up a hot steamer when said game is sanded down for cross platform release.
The same was with Alien vs Predator; eye popping tech demos of a game engine that made full use of DX11 and to find little to none of it when the game was released.
 
While I think the PC version is more "lifelike" and detailed with better lighting I think the XBox version would be more easily playable duye to those very reason. There is something to be said to "dumbing" down the game for console players. It makes the game easier to play even if it is just in the graphics department. Unfortunately, for the PC gamer who wants the challenge and the full immersion something will be loss due to the cross port. Still the original Crysis was challenging for even most high end computers when it was released. Making it so the XBox will play it has to mean that most good gaming computers will handle it pretty well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top