Or does anybody else feel like this game is going to be somewhat of a let down?

Redorangejuice, what do you think will happen when the PS3 is finally "maximized"? Do you think it will output anything that looks even remotely as good as the first Crysis? Its not going to happen, its a console....

first they bash console games...now they bash the consoles themselves....every article on Crysis 2 either deals with how it was impossible to do on consoles, how the PC version is going to OWN, how KZ2, Halo, MW2 are pathetic when compared to Crysis 2...i really dont understand how bashing a product that is suppose to make you money a sound business decision...its like they keep making excuses for themselves if the game doesnt do that well, and what we will get is "oh, they are console ports", "you know how consoles are......"(ill let you guys finish that sentence)

It'll probably look damn good but I have a feeling it'll be boring as hell.

lol crytek really likes to talk. They better deliver or else their gonna look really stupid.

there seems to have been a major downgrade.

The first few demos show a lot of promise. Hopefully they'll be able to get the game up to that quality again on consoles.

"Crysis 2 on console 'looked impossible' until we dumbed down the PC version to compensate for what couldn't be done on consoles."

fixed?

When you make the textures as awful as in their console version screenshots, it shouldn't be too difficult.

Ya, they are really starting to sound stupid, I'm gunna laugh so hard if the game fails.

I'm not expecting much anymore.

well from what I've seen "Crysis" on the console still does look impossible.

Crysis 2 on console 'looked impossible...'

Which if you finish the sentence for them goes something like this......but we figured out a bunch of compromises against the PC version and cut content from it so its the same on consoles. Sad but also surely true, at least for fans of the original

ouch TD just turned Xgamer into an Ex-gamer.

Nice link TD I seen something very eye opening though. Less than 6% of the the people on that survery play their games in 1080p and that most of the games are being played between resolutions of 720 and 1080i. Also most have dual cores which is hardley enough power to output games higher than normal console specs. PC gamers like to brag ya we have the "potential" to do 1080p @ 30-60 in almost any game but how many really can do that. I bet most pc gamers here have slightly above average computers especially the 1s that try to act high and mighty.

'Nice link TD I seen something very eye opening though. Less than 6% of the the people on that survery play their games in 1080p and that most of the games are being played between resolutions of 720 and 1080i. Also most have dual cores which is hardley enough power to output games higher than normal console specs. PC gamers like to brag ya we have the "potential" to do 1080p @ 30-60 in almost any game but how many really can do that. I bet most pc gamers here have slightly above average computers especially the 1s that try to act high and mighty'

Check again. Over 75 percent of the gamers on Steam play at a resolution ABOVE 1280 x 720. Even the most popular 1280 x 1024 is a 40 percent increase in resolution over 1280 x 720, that is, if the console actually outputs the game 720P. COD for example displays just over 600k pixels on console. A gamer running 'just' 1280 x 1024 enjoys twice that resolution......Try some maths too, 1920 x 1200 and up is more than 1920 x 1080, 1600 x 1200 is near as makes little difference to 1920 x 1080. So your figures are presented misleadingly.

A dual core machine is more than capable of completely outpowering either of the current HD consoles coupled with a decent video card, say an nvidia 9500 or better, which is at least half of the graphics cards on steam seen on the survey.....

lol dual cores overpowering console?? Even the 360 processors topple the processors most of the gamers claim they use. The cell is just better than everything stated on that site. 26% use quads which are not in the same league as the Cell and only 12% have 3.0+ ghz which anything below that is average for gaming.

Ok I was a bit misleading w/ the resolution thing but let me be more accurate this time. 34% of gamers claim they use resolutions close to 1080p and i repeat close because only 15% of those are actually hitting full 1080p rest of the numbers are between like I said 720-1080i which is 66% of PC gamers. I have a ps3 and only own like 1-2 games below 720p native rest range from 720-1080i and all can be upscaled to higher, just like pc games. My point is there is not much difference between an AVERAGE PC gamer and a console gamer. I just hate when the pc idiots come here and act like they have like the best shyt ever when they know they have an average computer and cant output anything higher than I can play on my ps3. I know it is possible to have games running much higher settings but when you come down to earth only a small percentage of PC gamers actually play like that.

"lol dual cores overpowering console??"

Its clear you know very little about PC, or technical matters as it is. 360's processor is extremely small, and slow compared to a modern dual core for gaming. Three tiny in order cores with a piddling 1Mb cache versus a desktop X86 dual, even like a creaky old pentium D? Not nearly as fast. Just how a tiny dual core in order intel atom is still slower than an ancient single core pentium 4.

CELL is a hybrid. Its somewhere inbetween a CPU and a GPU, but the compromise means that as expected, its neither as fast as a dedicated general purpose CPU or a dedicated GPU at their specific tasks. Jack of all trades master of none if you will. As such that means it isnt particularly suited to gaming code that is typically run on a central processor, so its no match for a PC processor where you need good branch prediction (like GAMES!), it has hardly any centralised cache which is important (for GAMES!), and the one in PS3 is next to useless for double precision. In fact most developers look to CELL to perform some very limited GPU duties, mainly because RSX is slower than a five year old PC GPU(7800GTX).

Its also no match for a modern GPU when it comes to massively parallel floating point performance (because of course, thats what a dedicated GPU is specifically designed for!) Which brings me to the point you seem unaware of, modern games rely more on the GPU than the CPU. Although its a team effort the GPU is carrying nearly all of the tools for graphics tasks. Much like how you wouldnt expect a dozen soldiers with pistols to engage a tank effectively, you know just a single dude carrying the javelin missile launcher might be better equipped! Example: Something with an uber six core CPU and a 9500GT GPU will lose heavily pretty much every single time in games to a dual core machine with say a GTX480, the same way CELL and RSX combo loses horribly to any X86 dual core and say.... 50 quids worth of radeon 4670. Simply because even a mere 4670 knocks RSX/xenos out of the park and CELL cant do nearly enough with RSX to change that. This is why even a modest PC is provably faster in games than the consoles.

"I know it is possible to have games running much higher settings but when you come down to earth only a small percentage of PC gamers actually play like that."

Go back to what i said previously and read it. Quite clearly a large percentage of gamers possess the hardware to exceed the consoles, and the display to run significantly higher resolutions. Even if that may only be a dual core and a 4670/9600 etc on a 1280 x 1024 screen, in relative terms, its some way beyond the capabilities of PS3 and its library of mostly 720P games, with a couple higher and many sub HD. Ditto 360.

Sort of true, most people on N4G toss around p and compression not knowing what they mean.

Fallout 3 was huge and fit on one DVD9 for 360, still fun and large, a lot of the problem with DVD9 is games with a lot of cutscenes, (ff13 I'm looking at you) or high res textures, compression can work wonders with images like textures, you can save one as a PNG and it's several megabytes, know how to use save for web and devices in photoshop though and you can get a JPG that looks just as good unless you're examining every little detail of it, for probably a fourth of the size.

and p (pixels) are the number of lines horizontally, which is the output the console/pc puts out and is displayed on your screen, you can give a game 2160p and it won't help the graphics any, it just affects picture quality, such as comparing a DVD (480p) to a Blu-Ray (1080p) the blu-ray isn't necessarily more detailed, but it has better picture quality to it, which makes it look better. A lot of people can't tell the difference beetween blu-ray and DVD at first glance, some people can, some can't, of course to compare them you have to downscale the blu-rays resoloution to the DVD's resoloution making them nearly equivelent. You also won't see any difference if your TV doesn't support full HD (1080p) or it's so small you can't make out a difference from how far away you are (see chart)

http://img208.imageshack.us...

actually FFXIII is 3 discs but okay...