Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Crysis 2 Confirmed For Multiple Platforms

Posted by Soulskill on from the specifically,-roadrunner-and-blue-gene dept.

EA and Crytek teamed up for an announcement at E3, confirming that Crysis 2 was under development for the PC, PS3, and Xbox 360. Details are scarce (and the trailer is no help), but the game will use CryENGINE 3, which will be able to scale performance such that it will look good on consoles while still pushing the limits of PC graphics. Quoting: "When asked if that sounded like a contradiction, [Crytek's Cevat Yerli] responded that you have to think of technology as a tool that can scale. He said the game's content scales to the platform it's on. 'The PC version will look better, because of the fact that the PC can do more. It will be scaling up. But on the consoles, you're competing with console games,' he said. 'The goal is to be the best looking game on PS3 [and] the best looking game on 360 in the entire market.' On the PC front, Crysis 2 will compete with the original Crysis, which still sets the bar for PC graphics."

61 comments

  1. Cool by TheLink · · Score: 5, Funny

    The popular PC graphics benchmark is going multi-platform :).

    --
    1. Re:Cool by polle404 · · Score: 1

      But will it run on my netbook?

      --

      ~men are from earth. women are from earth. deal with it.~
    2. Re:Cool by The+Grim+Reefer2 · · Score: 1

      But will it run on my netbook?

      Does your netbook run Crysis (1)?

    3. Re:Cool by elrous0 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Only if you brought it back from the distant future.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    4. Re:Cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, the question is: Will it blend^H^H^H^H^Hrun?

  2. Wait by shellster_dude · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Didn't we have post running several months ago, bitching about how Crytek was going under because of all the piracy? Didn't they claim that because of the "evil pirates" there would be no sequel? Maybe I am confused, my memory isn't as good as it used to be.

    1. Re:Wait by ardor · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Cevat Yerli likes to yell. This was no exception. So, take his complaints with a grain of salt. Crysis sales did not suffer from piracy, they suffered from Crysis' insane price for what basically is a techdemo with a little bit of gameplay. The times where the hype about the graphics was enough to sell a game are definitely over. Crytek didn't learn this lesson yet.

      --
      This sig does not contain any SCO code.
    2. Re:Wait by wintermute000 · · Score: 4, Informative

      C'mon crysis's gameplay is nowhere as bad as its detractors say it is. Its not a patch on FarCry (the original) but still its a good game. The second half shooting matrix sentinels bit was a boneheaded move though. I had tonnes of fun in the first half of crysis and most people would be of the same opinion: give us more time to play predator with hapless grunts lol.

      Still, I prefer my FPSes on PC (heck insert 'demand' instead of prefers lol) and from a purely selfish perspective, boohoo, but obviously this will help their bottom line so as long as they keep making good games its all gravy. Yes I have owned many consoles, the right tool forthe right job and all that (I would much rather play action games, racing games, fighting etc.on consoles).

    3. Re:Wait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I did get a pirate version of Crysis.

      But I didn't bother with Crysis Warhead. Is it worth it? I mean other than as a computer system benchmark...

    4. Re:Wait by Jurily · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Didn't we have post running several months ago, bitching about how Crytek was going under because of all the piracy? Didn't they claim that because of the "evil pirates" there would be no sequel? Maybe I am confused, my memory isn't as good as it used to be.

      Turns out they don't actually lose money every time someone copies their game, and they still get money every time someone buys it.

    5. Re:Wait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was not bad, just short.

    6. Re:Wait by ardor · · Score: 1

      If they didn't include these lame aliens, it would have been a nice game indeed. The way the enemies behave and sound is even hilarious at times. But the second half ruined everything, and proved to me that Crytek mostly cared about the tech.

      --
      This sig does not contain any SCO code.
    7. Re:Wait by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      What do you mean they dont' lose money?! You wouldn't shoot a policeman and steal his helmet, then go the toilet in his helmet, would you?!

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    8. Re:Wait by wintermute000 · · Score: 1

      Yes if they gave us a sort of sandbox to play predator in, like FC1, then it would have been a brilliant game. They could have easily rehashed the first half and made it twice as long to boot (another tank level or two comes to mind).

      No idea why they didn't leave it at that, it would have been easier to do as well (i.e. no need to create the alien models, AI, weapons and behaviour etc.).

    9. Re:Wait by jgtg32a · · Score: 1

      A while back someone did a little "study" on what Crysis's market penetration was, I think he used the hardware reports from steam and then the sales figures and found that crysis had something like an 80% rate of purchase by people who could actually run the game

    10. Re:Wait by Sibko · · Score: 4, Informative

      You know, a lot of people out there keep smashing Crysis as being a tech demo. I thought the same thing until I actually PLAYED it.

      The game is fun. Honestly, one of the better PC shooters I've played in a long while, and it has a pretty nice looking mod [Mechwarrior Living Legends] in development for it.

      Crysis only falls flat on its face when it comes to:
      - The AI [The biggest issue is their lack of taking cover and inability to find you when you stealth.]
      - The aliens [Boring to fight compared to the north koreans]
      - Wide expansive levels that you really can't go anywhere on.

      At everything else, all I can do is shake my head and wonder just what the hell people are expecting a shooter to be doing.

    11. Re:Wait by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      No FPS shooter is an island. They must compete for customer $ and customer time (time is a critical issue). So Crysis short and a bit boring with some real logic breaks. Pretty but the gameplay isn't as good as say, STALKER, Call of Duty, Half Life 2 or even Far Cry to name just a few games.

      So reality versus the reviews, just check the number of public multi-player servers and the number of people playing.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    12. Re:Wait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they didn't say that. They said that they would no longer be making PC exclusives because of piracy, and would focus more effort on console games. That is exactly what they have done here.

    13. Re:Wait by sponga · · Score: 1

      You are confused, as far as I can tell as a long time heavy PC game user with experience.

      That is why they are bringing it to the PS3 and Xbox along with the original PC; expand the market to the heavy hitter DRM systems like consoles where it is a lot harder for your average person to pirate it unless you have your system modded. I know "yeaaa for the dead PC gaming at Slashdot", prepare for the ultra DRM machines consoles now. Say, how is that cracking of the Blu-Ray games going?

      Obviously the pirate market forced or made their decision easier to expand it to the console market, which will later be reflected by maybe dropping PC support.
      I know the sentiment around here is to turn a blind eye to pirating and the likes; but pirating is hurting the PC gaming market and absolutely devastating the little developers.
      Open your eyes a little and see that there are Warez groups behind these things you download from Piratebay and as much as you don't want to ackowledge that pirating hurts.
      Open one of the .txt files that come with the game you download with your game/movie you downloaded, you will start noticing a trend in their acknowledgement that pirating it hurting. Let me burst your little virgin pirate bubble by posting a little text from the people who crack your games and movies.

      " 1. Unpack release
                  ± à 2. Mount image or burn it
                  Ã Ã 3. Install game
                  Ã Ã 4. Play the game
                  Ã Ã
                  Ã Ã Indie developers like the ones who are behind this cool title
                  Ã Ã needs support. Think before you choose not to pay for the
                  Ã Ã software you enjoy. Worst case senario is a dead PC game iso
                  Ã Ã scene, just like that happened with our beloved Amiga game
                  Ã Ã scene.
                  Ã Ã
                  Ã Ã People called it evolution, perhaps, but don't let it be
                  Ã Ã exclusion of our perfered game scene. Microsoft, Nintendo and
                  Ã Ã Sony wont let the same mistakes happen again, so think twice
                  Ã Ã before you choose not to support an PC developer. Ã Ã
                  Ã Ã
                  Ã Ã Don't let the consoles win! Rise of the PC machines! "

      I downloaded this game and liked it shortly, but I didn't buy it. Why the hell would I buy it when I can download it for free as long as it doesn't require online play. Pretty simple economics setting aside morals and such, much like this deal to expand the market.

    14. Re:Wait by donscarletti · · Score: 1

      the second half ruined everything, and proved to me that Crytek mostly cared about the tech.

      Then don't play the second half, it's not as if the game was particularly short. Crysis suffered from the same "second half syndrome" that Farcry did (where you fight those mutants), Halo did (where you fight those zombies), Drake's Fortune did (where you fight those mutant zombies) and happens time and again. It is a law that every outstanding game where you fight intelligent enemies needs a terrible second half where everything just runs right for you, like FEAR's mercifully short "shooting at ghosts" bit. I was surprised that Gears of War didn't degenerate into merely a fight against wretches half way through.

      In my opinion, Crysis was a far above average FPS with far above average gameplay. The tactical options it gives you with the open game world and its weapons and suit capabilities are amazing, there is just so much fun that can be had, doing things just a little bit differently each time, sneaking up on guys, blowing up shacks, jumping onto things, crashing vehicles into enemies, etc.

      Compare it to the games released around the same time, Bioshock is an immersive atmosphere with grinding combat and stupid AI, Halo 3 was essentially an upgraded version of the last two (not a such a bad thing), UT3 never pretended to not be a reskin of an old franchise, Resistance: Fall of Man was a fairly good execution of a game I swear I've played before, I'll admit that CoD4 was awesome. These ganes were all good (2007 was an AMAZING year for the FPS genre), but I don't see any of them having clearly better gameplay than Crysis as far as the parts of the game you can actually interact with, I'm having to say that Crysis was one of the better ones, yet it always seems to get the criticism.

      If all Crytek cared about was the tech, why would they have bothered with the first half? My theory is that Crysis' problem is that it had brilliant tech, which has become a very fashionable thing to complain about these days for some reason. They put in some awesome gameplay, some terrific game art (those alien things look really good) and as good a story as you can expect from this genre. The tech shines so much that people can't look at these things though.

      --
      When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
    15. Re:Wait by antdude · · Score: 1

      "Crysis only falls flat on its face when it comes to:
      - The AI [The biggest issue is their lack of taking cover and inability to find you when you stealth.]
      - The aliens [Boring to fight compared to the north koreans]
      - Wide expansive levels that you really can't go anywhere on."

      Will Crysis 2 fix these issues? Far Cry 2 still has problems too.

      Does Crytek sell their game engines to other companies like id Software does?

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    16. Re:Wait by somersault · · Score: 1

      I haven't tried half of those games, but in Resistance you can't even turn off the auto-aim, the enemies are both heavily scripted and incredibly dumb and the maps feel very linear (of course in almost all games progress is linear, but not all games make it feel so contrived).. it reminded me of the Unreal 1 and Halo 1 single player modes (not good at all). I don't see how anyone who has ever played stuff like Deus Ex, Half-Life/Counter-Strike/Day of Defeat/Opposing Force would consider something like R:FoM a 'good' game? Is it perhaps just the fact it was one of the first multiplayer FPSes on PS3 that has made it popular? I only tried the multiplayer very briefly with friends - we got bored within 5 minutes and went back to Rock Band.. the single player I played through the first 3 or 4 levels but don't feel any urge to complete it. Maybe it's just me but I get bored quickly with games where you have to pummel laser blast upon frickin laser blast into enemies rather than just being able to take them out with one well aimed shot at the head (and vice versa, I chose to play Deus Ex on 'realistic' mode for example).

      And just out of interest did you ever play No One Lives Forever? I had completely forgotten about it until thinking back on all the FPSes I've played over the years.. most popular FPSes for the last say 4 years still seem to be the same old WWII team based/whatever rehash (though I admit the first Battlefield game I ever played was a demo of Bad Company, and I bought it straight away because it is a good game), no originality whatsoever. Another example is The Darkness, you can pick it up dirt cheap but all the customer reviews for it on Amazon were very positive, so I bought it and lo and behold it is a good fun game with an original take on the FPS, yet it seems to have been overlooked by the masses.

      --
      which is totally what she said
  3. bespoked for each platformm, good luck by Necroloth · · Score: 1

    This I gotta see to believe. I hate playing games ported because you always feel that it wasn't a bespoke game and at worst, is completely fubar'd ... Juiced 2, I'm looking at you! The only game I know where you have to disable the sound to be able to play it!

    1. Re:bespoked for each platformm, good luck by playerone · · Score: 1

      Most multi-platform games are actually made with the other platforms in mind, so all the assets and engine are separate from the hardware as much as possible.

      Some studios are better than others at getting the last little bit working well on each though.

      P1

      --
      --Question Authority--
    2. Re:bespoked for each platformm, good luck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only game I know where you have to disable the sound to be able to play it!

      Damn kids.

    3. Re:bespoked for each platformm, good luck by hairyfeet · · Score: 2, Insightful

      While this is true, I can't count the number of times I've picked up a new game, installed it, and within 30 seconds of firing it up got slapped in the face that it not a multiplatform game but was in fact a console game ported to PC. In fact I would say most "multiplatform" games are exactly that.

      One word: Controls. A good control scheme for the PC and one that works well for consoles is two totally different things and sadly most "multiplatform" games just give us PC gamers crappy console controls jerry rigged for the PC. Most of the time there is little to no customization and the developers never bothered to play it without a PS3 or 360 controller in their hands so they have no idea how bad their controls suck for the PC gamer. Just picking three off the top of my head, Cold Fear, Turning Point: Fall of Liberty, and GTA:SA. Cold Fear was pretty much unplayable due to its bad console based controls, Turning point has a serious lag in the controls and sometimes refused to do a simple command like change weapons, and while GTA and GTA:VC had great layouts the ones for GTA:SA just never made you feel "in control" like the ones for GTA and VC.

      So with them saying it will be "multiplatform" from the start will already have me leery of touching it. Too many times I have been burnt by a multiplatform that is just a console game badly ported. Controlling a game with keyboard and mouse is simply too different for them to just port the game without putting in the time and thought to the controls, and if they don't? Well it'll just be another suck game that I'll end up getting in the $10 or less bin just to see if I can squeeze a few bucks worth of fun like I'm trying to do with turning point now.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  4. User Friendly by bmo · · Score: 4, Funny

    "On the PC front, Crysis 2 will compete with the original Crysis, which still sets the bar for PC graphics."

    Waaavy lines back to the days of UT, but substituting C2:

    "Nice slide show, Stef, what is it?"
    "Crysis 2"

    --
    BMO

    1. Re:User Friendly by master_p · · Score: 1

      Now that you say that, here is a crazy idea: instead of making the PC faster, why not make the player slower? isn't there a drug that can slow down perception? a video game running slowly will seem like being fast under those conditions.

    2. Re:User Friendly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah man. I played Crysis the other day, and it was totally super fast on my Vista thingamagig. I don't understand why people are always being so negative about Crysis on Vista. It's like a beautiful scenic thing that makes you want to cry because it's so beautiful and stuff.

    3. Re:User Friendly by The+Grim+Reefer2 · · Score: 1

      Now that you say that, here is a crazy idea: instead of making the PC faster, why not make the player slower? isn't there a drug that can slow down perception? a video game running slowly will seem like being fast under those conditions.

      Hmm, there's a way to beat piracy. I'd like to see how you could Bittorrent the "medication" needed to play the game.

  5. Maybe this time by Caboosian · · Score: 2, Interesting

    They'll actually put out a game instead of a fucking tech demo. The first game was pretty awful.

    1. Re:Maybe this time by tapo · · Score: 1

      What? Have you played through Crysis? The sandbox style of gameplay and the choice between multiple suit powers actually made it an excellent game, if a little graphically intensive.

      --
      "Joy is contagious," he said, peering into the microscope.
    2. Re:Maybe this time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, after dropping my upset at some EA / Crytek tactics it *is* a good game. But I'm not sure the actual craft of some of the levels is top notch. Look at some Steam Half-Life levels which are master pieces of dynamic movie like editing and design.

      Maybe it's expectation. Crysis never looked as good as the tech demo's to me. Anyway why is it the graphics that have to make a game ? Everyone knows this in movie land - "all special effects, but where is the story?" ... .... what happened to the "nice graphics shame about the game" mantra that goes back to Sinclair Spectrum days ?

      Nevertheless, goodluck to Yerli and Crysis 2 !

    3. Re:Maybe this time by hairyfeet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      To me what is really really irritating about all this focus on graphics is while the games have gotten prettier I swear the AI seemed better five years ago than what they use now. I picked up the Medal of Honor anniversary pack recently and just got a chance to install and play the latest one Airborne. After I had piled about a dozen Nazis up by this crate that when they hid behind it let the top of their heads stick out by a good half a foot and watched with amazement when yet ANOTHER Nazi goes to stand behind the exact same crate where all his buddies bodies were piled neatly beside I thought "Geez, can you game designers spend even a little bit of time on the AI, please?"

      Look, game designers, we ain't asking for rocket scientists here, just bad guys that ain't as dumb as a stump. I personally would be happy with 2004-05 level graphics in return for some halfway decent AI. Give me a little fight, okay? And before anyone comments, yes i was playing on hard, although for most games I have stopped playing on hard and gone back to playing on regular because they just use EA style cheating to ramp up the difficulty level. You end up with bad guys that know where you are exactly even if you are hidden in the densest jungle, low level grunts that can pull off a half a mile shot with a shitty rifle, meanwhile your gun may as well be a daisy rifle for all the damage you're able to do with it.

      I just hope the law of diminishing returns will kick in on the graphics soon so designers might actually start giving us a little bit of decent AI. We have these multicore CPUs which end up doing a little of nothing or epeen physics while the bad guys trip over themselves to which one can get slaughtered next by picking the shittiest cover imaginable or not noticing they just walked into the killing fields with all their buddies lying in piles. That is seriously lame game designers, and seeing as how there have been games in the past with AI that would put up a halfway decent fight (Far Cry 1 comes to mind) it isn't like it has never been done before. Please quit wasting all the development time trying to turn our PCs into slideshows with the graphics and give us at least a halfway decent AI to fight. And no, giving us multiplayer isn't the same because if I wanted to spend all my time dealing with foul mouthed teabagging asshats and campers I would be playing Halo. I like having a little story with my killing, thanks.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    4. Re:Maybe this time by justinlee37 · · Score: 1

      What? No it wasn't. It was thoroughly entertaining. The stealth system was well implemented; the cloak was unique and the ability to use the game's foliage as cover from enemies was something that hasn't been seen in many games. The AI was pretty good too.

  6. Crysis 2 Confirmed For Multiple Platforms... by BraulioBezerra · · Score: 5, Funny

    Yes, to run Crisis 2 you will need 5 PCs, 3 Macs, 7 PS3s, 4 XBox'es...

    1. Re:Crysis 2 Confirmed For Multiple Platforms... by BraulioBezerra · · Score: 0, Troll

      Moron, its CrYsis...

    2. Re:Crysis 2 Confirmed For Multiple Platforms... by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 0, Redundant

      A game that will actually require a beowulf cluster of PS3s!

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    3. Re:Crysis 2 Confirmed For Multiple Platforms... by underqualified · · Score: 0

      just a little bit more then you'll be able to run java

  7. "Crysis 2 Confirmed For Multiple Platforms " by DamienNightbane · · Score: 5, Funny

    But will it actually run on any of them?

    1. Re:"Crysis 2 Confirmed For Multiple Platforms " by Late+Adopter · · Score: 2, Funny

      No, you misunderstand. It requires ALL of them.

  8. Memes by papabob · · Score: 4, Informative

    I wonder how many of the "but this time it will run on ...?" guys actually tried Crysis. The same with the "Vista is awful and slow and terrible" meme. How did they start? Maybe one guru posted it in his blog and everybody repeat it as a mantra? I feel curious...

    BTW yes, I played Crysis with a nvidia 9600GT (I think it's now under $100) at native resolution with 'Ultra-Quality' settings, and it didn't loss any frames. And it was on Vista. And I still have to see a BSOD.

    1. Re:Memes by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 2, Funny

      If your native resolution is 1024x768, I'll believe you.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    2. Re:Memes by FreonTrip · · Score: 2, Interesting

      But Vista was awful and slow and terrible for me. Following the application of the first service pack the OS stopped loading the display drivers and cited a Code 43 error, and no power on heaven or Earth could get them working again. Performance was consistently slower than XP even on a Core 2 that was comfortably better-specced than Microsoft's recommendations, and in the end I found too few reasons to stick with it. As for Crysis, I thought it was pretty but otherwise played out like a Sci-Fi movie of the week with great production values. Combined with Vista it was a system-devouring sight to behold...

    3. Re:Memes by je+ne+sais+quoi · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I've never had stability problems with Vista but my big gripe with it is that it's kind of slow. My 5 year old dual 2.7 GHz G5 at work seems to respond and run anything but graphics more rapidly than my brand new PC at home running a dual core 2 duo, 3.24 GHz. I find it incredibly strange, I feel relieved that I only require Vista for games and the rest of the time I'm running a very snappy e17 with the ecomorph composite manager.

      --
      Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!
    4. Re:Memes by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of an answer I overheard at a local game store a while back.

      Customer: "I have the latest system running the latest processor and the latest videocard. How much memory do you recommend I add for Crysis?"

      Clerk: "How ever much you got."

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    5. Re:Memes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So it should run acceptiablly on an Athlon X2 4050e with 2GB of RAM and HD 3870 at 1440x900 with decent graphics?

    6. Re:Memes by ir · · Score: 0

      Re: vista, I think it is more about people who are afraid of change or just trying to run it on obsolete PCs.

      --
      Irina Romanov
    7. Re:Memes by Late+Adopter · · Score: 1

      And it was on Vista. And I still have to see a BSOD.

      Well, if you absolutely have to see a BSOD, then I suppose Windows isn't a bad operating system to use.

      (I kid, I kid...)

  9. Multiple? by Tinctorius · · Score: 2, Funny

    Does that mean there exists more than one PC in the world that is capable of running it?

  10. XBox version by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Achievement unlocked: 10 FPS

  11. PC is Linux, not just Windows by BloodyIron · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    So, what distros are they going to support? Because Windows isn't the only OS on the PC.

    1. Re:PC is Linux, not just Windows by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      If you don't mind the risk of your computer exploding, you could try it under Wine.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    2. Re:PC is Linux, not just Windows by WiiVault · · Score: 1

      Or Virtual PC for PPC Macs. FPS? No no no. FPH is more like it.

  12. Multiple platforms by V50 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Little mentioned is that by "multiple platforms" they mean you will NEED multiple platforms to run a single copy of it.

  13. Simple, really... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anecdotes become as good as empirical data when they align with groupthink. Thanks to the Internet, many people cannot even tell the difference between the two or, worse, why they should have to.

    (Don't get pissy at me kids, you know its true.)