Crysis 2 Retail Benchmarked

[Veliko]

Console drones will buy any crap you give them, PC gamers are a tad more picky.

This a common claim but one borne out of vanity rather than evidence.

 

[finbarqs]

Well.. this game wasn't as fun as crysis 1, i can tell you that!

 

[santz]

This is utterly shameful. I hate you Crisis developers, HATE U.................Coffee anyone?

 

[nemesismk2]

I am liking Crysis 2 more than I first did with Crysis 1. Atleast I didn't need to upgrade everything just to get Crysis 2 running well

 

[GaiaHunter]

This a common claim but one borne out of vanity rather than evidence.

I'm not sure if they are drones or not, but I'm willing to bet PC gamers are on average older than console gamers.

PC gamers will also invest much more time on a single title - I played thousands of hours on diablo II, warcraft 3 and I'm currently over 8000 hours on guild wars.

And then you get mods.

How many console games will allow players to do that?

Additionally PC gaming is more expensive in terms of hardware.

Different needs, different markets.

 

[Cookie Monster]

I still think the original crysis is the best of the series so far. Crysis2 although fun, over the top cheesy, cool cut scenes etc had parts where I was to myself "wow this really feels like a console game". The last battle was a little bit anti climatic compared to the original..

Is it me or crytek games are not that well polished or in other words has bugs + glitches at times?

 

[MrK6]

BF:BC2 did, and they said BF3 is being built around the PC as well.

I'm going to refresh your memory regarding your statement because it seems you've forgotten it:

Who cares what the ratio is between platforms? Total profit matters. If you can make more proft from the PC game by catering to PC gamers, then you should do it. Console drones will buy any crap you give them, PC gamers are a tad more picky.

And again, I'll go back to my original statement - they can't. PC games cost more to develop and are sold for less. And no, they do not make up for that in sale volume, as the numbers Skurge posted show. Therefore, asking a developer to spend more time developing a product that will make less money is ludicrous in this day and age. Most gaming companies are purely businesses now, with very few in it for the love of gaming, and asking them to cater to your finicky tastes and sense of entitlement is laughable at best.

It goes to show if you give PC gamers quality content, you will make money.

Less money. That's the problem. And when the ROI becomes disadvantageous to a company, they'll drop the platform faster than you can say "Gabe Newell."

I still think the original crysis is the best of the series so far. Crysis2 although fun, over the top cheesy, cool cut scenes etc had parts where I was to myself "wow this really feels like a console game". The last battle was a little bit anti climatic compared to the original..

Wow, bolded that last part as that's saying a lot. The end of the original Crysis made be believe I was six again playing Contra, the last battle in Crysis 2 must be some other kind of crap...

Is it me or crytek games are not that well polished or in other words has bugs + glitches at times?

The original Far Cry and Crysis were, took them a couple of months to get both games full functional (Far Cry more so), I don't see why a platform change would make them any more competent.

 

[OILFIELDTRASH]

You guys make a strong case against pc gaming yet you all are pc gamers?
If it's not profitable to developers and the games we get are nothing more than console ports with better lighting then why do y'all continue to game on the pc?

I just bought a ps3 and a few games. To say it's nothing more than some lighting added to the games is laughable. Playing streetfighter 4 on the pc vs the ps3 version was eye opening. I'm even playing the newest version super streetfighter4 on ps3. On pc everything is sharp and clean. It's like looking at the original drawings in all of it's sharpness and color like the developer meant it to be. Action is so much smoother on the pc as well. Playing with a GTX 580 and an i7 gives me no slowdowns. On the ps3 everything looks much duller. Lines not nearly as crisp and the color just seems to lack the pop the pc does. It also has major slowdowns that get very annoying.
I can only imagine the difference in a demanding game such as metro 2033. I'd like to see Russian play metro 2033 on his pc with the graphics cranked and then sit down and try it on the ps3 then hear his thoughts.

 

[finbarqs]

graphics aside, crysis 1 was still more fun! You run faster, jump higher, and you can pick up those korean bastards! lol

 

[GaiaHunter]

You guys make a strong case against pc gaming yet you all are pc gamers?
If it's not profitable to developers and the games we get are nothing more than console ports with better lighting then why do y'all continue to game on the pc?

It is profitable for developers that create good games. It isn't profitable for crap games.

 

[Obsy]

graphics aside, crysis 1 was still more fun! You run faster, jump higher, and you can pick up those korean bastards! lol

I remember making my strength something like 300x, and whenever I punched something, it flew a mile away. Punched Koreans into each other, cars into Koreans

 

[OCGuy]

*snip*

You still arent telling me why BF:BC2 and BF3 are/were developed around the PC format if it isnt making them money to do so?

Console gamers dont care if a game was meant for PC and scaled down to their hardware. PC players do mind if a game looks like it was built for 5 year old hardware.

 

[RussianSensation]

I can only imagine the difference in a demanding game such as metro 2033. I'd like to see Russian play metro 2033 on his pc with the graphics cranked and then sit down and try it on the ps3 then hear his thoughts.

I am not saying Metro 2033 doesn't look better on the PC. It certainly does. My point is that given the hardware performance differences, developers could have extracted a lot more out of PC hardware. Unfortunately, in most cases this is just not financially viable. Also, your idea of significant differences and mine is likely very different. I linked the types of examples where I think the differences are material. To me using AA or no AA is not a material difference.

To your point as to why I still play PC games. A few reasons:

1) PC games are cheaper. I pick up most of my games on Steam. Consoles games cost a lot more $ and retain value longer (which means you can't pick up a $5-10 game for a long time). Over the long haul, console gaming is more expensive imo. I already need a PC for other functions. So adding a graphics card is not more expensive than buying a console.

2) There are certain games which I prefer on the PC due to superior controls (FPS), and superior execution of the genre (strategy games and to some extent racing games). That's not to say I can't enjoy other genres on consoles more (such as sports or fighting games).

Graphics is not the only motivator on why I choose to play a certain game on the PC over consoles. Generally speaking, I'll choose a cross-platform game for the PC since the graphics are slightly better and the game is cheaper. That still doesn't invalidate my point that PC graphics should be far superior compared to consoles than they are today.

You still arent telling me why BF:BC2 and BF3 are/were developed around the PC format if it isnt making them money to do so?

He isn't telling you because it isn't true. :hmm:

You can believe that all you want but it's all marketing speak on DICE's behalf. BF:BC2 looks nearly identical on the consoles as it does the PC (AA and better shadows/a bit more details on the PC). Maybe BF3 will be different, but I am not just going to take their word for granted.

Here is even a 5-minute video to show you:

http://www.eurogamer.net/videos/digitalfoundry-battlefield-bad-company-2-ps3-vs-pc-face-off

MrK6 and I never said PC developers cannot make $ from investing more into specific games (i.e., esp those with a massive online/fan base following). BF series happens to be one of the few exceptions. At the end of the day, Dice knows they have to say they are catering to PC gamers after seeing what happened to Crysis 2. We'll have to wait to compare PS3/360 versions of BF3 vs. the PC before we can claim the PC version is a lot better. According to Dice, the console versions will be just as impressive.

 

[finbarqs]

damn... Consoles are coming up! We need more talented programmers!

 

[finbarqs]

what happened to NURBS?

 

[railven]

Have you seen Metro 2033 on the consoles? The differences in Metro 2033 on the PC are largely related to global lighting (SSAO), higher-rez textures and greater levels of details. But all in all, Metro 2033 doesn't look much different on consoles vs. PC.

^^^^ Does this look 2 times better on the PC to you?

The better question is - have you seen Metro 2033 on consoles? And I don't mean on Youtube, I mean actually played it? I beat Metro 2033 on the 360 before I got the PC version during a Steam sale.

When you stop the game and look just at character models and textures, sure you can make a simplified arguement, but turn on the PC exclusive goodies and suddenly the games are night and day different. One you start using DoF the immersion factor changes.

This is exactly the same as in Crysis 2 on the PC vs. 360. The PC version has better textures, lighting and much higher level of details, but it doesn't wow you in any way.

I think you keep ignoring people's arguements about who the developers are. Crytek is known for pushing the boundaries. This time around they played possum. There is nothing in Crysis 2 that isn't amazing or hasn't been done.

Actually while playing through it there are more glitches/issues that I'm amazed they released this game. At least it doesn't have the DX10 memory leak Crysis 1 had - at least not that I know of, yet haha.

Consider that GTX480 is 10x faster than a 7900GTX. We should expect to see these type of difference between consoles and PCs in 2011:

So why aren't we seeing these types of differences on the PC given we have 10x as powerful hardware? Because developers don't find it economically viable to spend millions of dollars on PC development when consoles won't be able to run those games. That's why at best we get games with some DOF, SSAO and higher textures, but that's it. Fundamentally it's just a slightly better looking game, but nothing to write home about.

DX9 is going on 10 years old. We need developers to step it up and move on - explorer the other options. Instead they are all cash cowing. You seem to agree with this but seem to get defensive when we as a collective who are use to boundry pushing games are upset one of our tier 1 developers sold out.

I don't own stock in Crytek nor do I work for them. Regardless of their reasoning they delivered a substandard product to me. I'm going to complain. You can defend them all you want and then compare FarCry on what the GC to Crysis. It isn't going to prove your point.

And I'm still waiting for your source on the 15-20:1 CoD sales ratio.

 

[WMD]

You can believe that all you want but it's all marketing speak on DICE's behalf. BF:BC2 looks nearly identical on the consoles as it does the PC (AA and better shadows/a bit more details on the PC). Maybe BF3 will be different, but I am not just going to take their word for granted.

Here is even a 5-minute video to show you:

http://www.eurogamer.net/videos/digitalfoundry-battlefield-bad-company-2-ps3-vs-pc-face-off

Good find! The P3 version looks remarkably close to the PC version. The only advantage of PC version is higher resolution and slightly more shadows, otherwise they are the same.
Not surprising as it is far more economic to reuse much of the game's assets instead of redoing everything from ground up to take advantage of PC hardware and DX10/11.

I agree about BF3. While they may advertise special attention to PC, it makes no sense that they will not follow what BFBC2 did: just port the same dx9 multi-platform game on consoles to DX11 game on PC. They most likely removed XP/ DX9 support to save development cost and give the impression of uncompromised DX11 support. Even though ironically, the underlying game will be designed for DX9 hardware on the Xbox/PS3 LOL.

BTW I want to believe real progress have made with newer DirectX but I have yet to see a DX10 or DX11 game having a night and day difference over a DX9 game. Crysis and Crysis 2 in DX9 looks way better than DX10 exclusive Just Cause 2. The usual arguments of "being a console port" or "not built from the ground up therefor not showing DX11's potential" is getting old and seems to be pure speculation.

 

[finbarqs]

just cause didn't look that good anyways! But crysis 1 on DX10 is pretty amazing compared to Crysis 2. Not saying crysis 2 doesn't look good... but just not as jaw dropping as crysis 1... one of the amazing feat of crysis was the water! You can even fly the helicopters!

 

[RussianSensation]

You seem to agree with this but seem to get defensive when we as a collective who are use to boundry pushing games are upset one of our tier 1 developers sold out.

I am just saying financially it makes sense what they did. You don't have to agree with my opinion. Of course I would like the best graphics for Crysis 2 as a gamer. As a business person, I can definitely understand their decision though.

And I'm still waiting for your source on the 15-20:1 CoD sales ratio.

VGChartz.com - Modern Warfare 2

Modern Warfare 2
360 = 12.37 Million
PS3 = 9.14 Million
PC = 0.69 Million

Retail sales ratio of consoles to PC = 31:1

According to Gamespot, about 50% of PC sales come from online. So doubling PC sales to add the online portion, you'll get 15:1 for this game.

VGChartz.com - Black Ops

Black Ops
360 = 12.17 Million
PS3 = 9.8 Million
Wii = 0.9 Million
DS = 0.23 Million
PC = 1.09 Million

Retail sales ratio of consoles to PC = 21:1

So perhaps 10:1 if you include 50% of online sales.

Regardless of their reasoning they delivered a substandard product to me. I'm going to complain.

You can complain all you want. I only proposed a reasonable explanation as to why they didn't invest a lot of $ (I said the first game was more of a marketing expense to get their name out. As a result they needed to make something about the game standout; and they chose to focus on graphics. After they have developed a reputation in the industry, they chose to focus on making $ with the 2nd game which means curbing development costs).

It still amazes me that PC gamers won't acknowledge that in general cross-platform games sell better on consoles than they do on the PC, outside of very few rare exceptions. The bottom line is we will see far better graphics when next generation of consoles ships simply because developers will be willing to invest more into development costs since they would be able to amortize these costs across multiple platforms.

 

[DrBoss]

New BF3 trailer
http://www.gametrailers.com/video/grinding-trailer-battlefield-3/712889
Hopefully DICE doesn't pull a Crytek

 

[railven]

I am just saying financially it makes sense what they did. You don't have to agree with my opinion. Of course I would like the best graphics for Crysis 2 as a gamer. As a business person, I can definitely understand their decision though.



VGChartz.com - Modern Warfare 2

Modern Warfare 2
360 = 12.37 Million
PS3 = 9.14 Million
PC = 0.69 Million

Retail sales ratio of consoles to PC = 31:1

According to Gamespot, about 50% of PC sales come from online. So doubling PC sales to add the online portion, you'll get 15:1 for this game.

VGChartz.com - Black Ops

Black Ops
360 = 12.17 Million
PS3 = 9.8 Million
Wii = 0.9 Million
DS = 0.23 Million
PC = 1.09 Million

Retail sales ratio of consoles to PC = 21:1

So perhaps 10:1 if you include 50% of online sales.

Since I'm behind a firewall at work and I can't check the sales numbers, can you check the ratio for CoD4.

Did you notice the change in just your two examples between MW2 and BOs? Remember the big fiasco about IW removing dedicated servers from MW2? Clearly this reflects the notion - if the developers screw the audience, the audience doesn't respond. I'd wager the margin of difference is smalled with MW1. By the time BOs was out, the PC community moved on (I recall BFBC2 taking a giant portion of the PC community away from MW.)

You can complain all you want. I only proposed a reasonable explanation as to why they didn't invest a lot of $ (I said the first game was more of a marketing expense to get their name out. As a result they needed to make something about the game standout; and they chose to focus on graphics. After they have developed a reputation in the industry, they chose to focus on making $ with the 2nd game which means curbing development costs).

I was under the impression Far Cry came out before Crysis. Crytek established themselves as a dev with that title. They used Crysis as the game to set themselve apart from the every day dev. They wanted that gold seal if you would. And they did. We came to know Crytek as a dev that pushed the standard. And this time around they didn't even bother. They didn't use anything new - this is the main complaint. You argue it was finacial, for lack of a better phrase - no sh*t. They sold out. Plain and simple.

It still amazes me that PC gamers won't acknowledge that in general cross-platform games sell better on consoles than they do on the PC, outside of very few rare exceptions. The bottom line is we will see far better graphics when next generation of consoles ships simply because developers will be willing to invest more into development costs since they would be able to amortize these costs across multiple platforms.

I don't think anyone here is claiming otherwise. We know why they did it - selling out. They went against their previous actions in order to make money. IW did it. id is doing it. Hell, Epic did it incredibly (opting to not release some of their titles on PC.)

I don't know about you guys, but in the past - my PC got the eye candy, my consoles got the crap. Suddenly things changed when Microsoft started whoring out PC features on a console at a cost and the masses (ie those too dumb/not willing to tinker with a PC) slurped it up. When did consoles dictate the growth of technology in gaming?

 

[RussianSensation]

can you check the ratio for CoD4.

COD4: Modern Warfare 1
360 = 8.46 M
PS3 = 5.64 M
Wii = 1.33 M
DS = 1.27 M
PC = 1.26 M

Ratio of console to PC sales = 13:1

Did you notice the change in just your two examples between MW2 and BOs? Remember the big fiasco about IW removing dedicated servers from MW2? Clearly this reflects the notion - if the developers screw the audience, the audience doesn't respond.

Do consoles have dedicated servers?

When did consoles dictate the growth of technology in gaming?

I would say it really started after 2005 when Xbox 360 arrived. It's not that consoles dictate the growth per say, it's rather they hold back growth of technology.

 

[notty22]

Have not seen much mention of this factor to. Crysis 2 features a native 3d in the xbox 360/PS3/ PC version. So this is a plus/draw for many that have bought 3d televisions. Many of which probably own a console.
So unless your a hater of 3d, this is good for the PC effort as well consoles. Things can be good for both/ especially when we hit the next-gen of consoles. Sadly thats probably 3-5 years away.
Crysis 2's 3D tech is unbelievable


Sony Exec Predicts 2011 Will Be the Year of 3D for PlayStation 3

While big games like Electronic Arts’ Crysis 2 from developer Crytek, which has sold over 1 million copies in its first two weeks globally, offer stereoscopic 3D gameplay across PC, PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360; Sony Computer Entertainment has been the major player in pushing 3D into homes around the world

 

[darkswordsman17]

Definitely costs are up there. That is the key factor. Not sure if you guys noticed, but the economy in general has not been the best the last few years and there's been a lot of studio closures and downsizing in the industry. Its just not a time that they can sink money into developing something really exceptional. Look at id and how long its taking them to get an engine that even really takes advantage of the current consoles.

I get the feeling that also developers have been kinda in a state of waiting namely for the next consoles, so that then they can kinda figure out to push a game with what's out now, or maybe hold it off for the next gen. There's a lot of questions, like what control scheme, 3D, format (digital distribution, discs, what space constraints they might have), and other things that would have a big impact on their games.

 

[dualsmp]

there is something terribly wrong with with the cpu numbers at techspot. like I mentioned earlier if an 8500 could only average 23fps then people would be complaining all over the place about that. heck the majority of people playing that game probably don't even have a cpu that fast.

well a guy on another forum did some benchmarks with his stock E8400 and sure enough it blows those pitiful 23 fps numbers out of the water. even with a 6950 unlocked to 6970 his results are much better than they showed with the E8500 and gtx590.

these were on extreme settings and 1920x1200 just like at techspot. he also lowered the res to show even at 3.0 he was not fully cpu limited either.



Setting "User/Graphic Options/resolution" => "1280x960"
****************************************************
Benchmark started: benchmark.cfg
****************************************************
PlayTime = 32.589600
FrameCount = 2000
AverageFps = 61.369270
MemoryWorkingSet = 1186
MemoryPageFile = 1302
MemoryPageFaults = 941684
Benchmark ended

Setting "User/Graphic Options/resolution" => "1920x1200"
****************************************************
Benchmark started: benchmark.cfg
****************************************************
PlayTime = 39.299587
FrameCount = 2000
AverageFps = 50.891117
MemoryWorkingSet = 1209
MemoryPageFile = 1318
MemoryPageFaults = 1349707
Benchmark ended

Could be the dual core is choking on the SLI config since the 590 is SLI on one card. Looks like with a single video card a dual core is plenty. Even ABT shows that a quad core is necessary for SLI across many games.