[360, PS3] Crysis 2

Yeah, wisest move would be to wait for the DigitalFoundry analysis. Then again it might be too late to license the engine for this generation of consoles at that point, right?

 

In what?

When it comes to Crysis games there are several extensive parts which in different combinations will tax differently. Physics, AI, particles, procedural navigation system, procedural destruction/veg generation, shading etc. Better at all or some parts or just better on average?

1%, 5% or 10%... who knows.

 

This generation seems like it may extend very far indeed. Who knows, there is no sign of next gen yet is all we can say, and Xbox is almost 5 years old which was the old length of a generation. This gen basically appears indefinite for the time being. I think you're looking at at least 2012, possibly even something like 2014 which would give some time.

 

A bit hyperbolic but sure, why not? The image quality in that vid doesn't merit the "best console graphics" praise at all. I sure hope the game doesn't ship looking like that.

 

Personally, i never observed those shortcomings you are refering too, but on the other hand the slow, perfectly timed night to day transition in Act2 was one of the most awe inspiring moments i had in this gen's gaming. So i guess, unless one is a hardcore techie guy (i mean no offense, honestly), the benefits definitely outweigh the shortcomings

 

Yep, and everybody knows that not being the best ever automatically means utter crap.

 

Being touted as best-ever, and then releasing video that --never mind falling short of "the best ever"-- fails to meet the standard of your average console shooter while generally looking like utter crap to boot is one way to go about marketing Crysis 2: the worst. I almost think they're trying to preemptively lower expectations with that vid.

In all seriousness, it's not trolling for people to think it looks terrible at this point. Because it does, and it's still far from launch.

 

It's trolling to call it broadly crap - criticism should be qualified. eg. "The IQ is terrible in the console vids," identifies the problem. Despite lack of IQ and texture fidelity, there was plenty shown that's pretty good, so unless your idea of console gaming is staring at pretty, supersampled eyecandy, the entire game shouldn't be consigned to the compost heap on account of zero AA...

 

So, are you kind enough to give us details on what in your opinion was actually pretty good?

 

Yea that GDC version looks bit rough,but that was not to show the world how Crysis 2 looks but rather to show what are features of engine and its implantation on console.Final version WILL look better,as a matter of fact,latest build(that press saw) looked miles better,at least according to this:

- "I'm not sure how this got confused, but we were not watching a video of gameplay. The Executive Producer of Crysis 2 played in a huge screen auditorium on an early Xbox 360 dev build. The game looked amazing. More importantly, it had the same C1 feel, but with some new features. While other sites report of some frame drops and screen tears, which there were, they were the same drops in C1 when you're in God Mode and the game wants to kill you, but then it has to override that and let you play on. At one point, Nathan died several times in a row in succession while doing his best Terminator impression. While cinematic and smile-inducing, the beat writers chalk the frame drops to C3 performance issues. There were no new ones that I could see."

- "So I said earlier that I think it's the best looking game I've ever seen. I'm sticking to that statement, but with some added considerations. First of all, I knew there wasn't going to be all the post-processing affects available (AA/AF, etc). So I don't hold it against CryTek or C3 that they're not there. Second, a lot of you posted replied based on screenshots or videos released to the public thus far. Compared to this build, they look ancient. The build was so new that Cevat said in one of the interviews that he was just happy it ran."

http://www.incrysis.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=30411

I think people need to calm down a bit and wait for official videos...

 

What I think is that the unquestioning praise of Crytek should maybe take a break instead.

 

Yes, when it comes to graphics, everything but AA and texture filtering is completely and utterly irrelvant...

 

Um, surely the same positive poits apparent to everyone? Are you suggesting there was nothing good to see and you'd miss it if I didn't point it out?
Off the top of my head, the destructibility was better than average; animation and AI looked promising; lighting was good.

 

Godmode or no godmode only difference you dont get killed. Anyway I am positive it will be a good looker but that quote from the person which said C2 pre-alpha on 360 makes Crysis maxed look like FC1 vs Crysis... well go figure since either previous Crysis games maxed looks far better than promo shots sans SSAA!

Anyway hype is getting ridicolous.

 

No, I just wanted to double check what you guys think! This gives me the chance to compare it to my own perception...
(I hope this is allowed?...Sir, Mr Mod, Sir )

 

Oh god, really? The game has terrible IQ and somehow I'm being irrational by pointing that out? And it's not just the texture filtering that's bad, it's the textures themselves. Currently the global lighting solution does a poor job lighting the scene; not enough light bounces, too much contrast. Like I've said numerous times, it's early and I expect significant improvement, but I won't pretend these screens are the least bit impressive when they clearly show a lot of work needs to be done.

 

Not being impressive != Utter crap.

 

What's the release date for this game ? Not announced yet ?

 

http://www.richardkmorgan.com/news/552/volcanic/

Holiday 2010.

 

Can you post a screenshot example of the terrible image quality? And also name a console game that you think has very good image quality?