Tech Analysis: Crysis 2 (360 vs PS3 vs PC)

So here we are, with one of the biggest releases of this year. Crysis 2 finally comes storming out through the gates after a myriad of techinical demonstrations and effects showcases designed to big up the CryEngine 3 to the gaming fathfull. Crytek are masters of producing high-end visuals that require high-end hardware to run. But what about designing the same cutting-edge content to run on what can only be considered five year old, low-end tech?

Well, that is exactly what we're here to find out as we lay out a triple platform tech analysis of the developers latest visual spectacle, Crysis 2. First we begin with the consoles, before moving onto our more direct PC comparison.

Crytek have made it no secret that their CryEngine 3 technology has been made in such a way as to scale between different platforms, each with varying specs while keeping the core components (GI lighting, advanced shader effects, real-time shadows etc) intact. Instead, compromises have been made in other areas, from shadow quality, resolution, LOD, right down to how perameters for each of these components operate.

While PC owners will eventually get the full, untapped potential of the engine (The game only supports Direct X9 at launch), console users on the other hand get a scaled back revision that impressively implements some of the high-end features found only in the upper settings of the computer version. In that respect they get a nicely balanced blend of compromised image quality at the expense of some loverly GI-based lighting, god rays, and other cool touches.

But how does each one fair? Lets get on with it...



As always we start off by taking a look at the framebuffer of both console versions and see how they hold up. While PC owners obviously get a choice of native rendering resolution - regardless of actual hardware specs - on consoles it isn't quite so simple. The framebuffer is restricted by both available processing power and memory bandwidth; both of which are a limited commodity on consoles compared to the constantly shifting nature of PC hardware.

Crysis 2 renders in 1152x720 on the Xbox 360 and 1024x720 on the PS3, with both versions getting the same use of temporal 2xMSAA (multi-sampling anti-aliasing). And as you can see in the opening screenshots above, the two games aren't far off of each other with regards to image quality. The 360 game is a tad sharper owning to less horizintal upscaling taking place, but at the same time the difference can often be barely noticeably in motion, and neither build features the clearer IQ of a true 720p game.

Interestingly, the HUD elements in the PS3 game appear to be upscaled rather than rendered over the final framebuffer. Quite why this is the case isn't exactly known for sure. But, what we do know is that the RSX GPU provides extremely low cost horizontal scaling, and in order to render the HUD after the FB they'd need more memory to do so.



Regardless both versions still look good however, and It seems that edge post-process effects along with the game's use of anti-aliasing attributes somewhat to its soft look. More so on the PS3 by the looks of things due to the additional upscale taking place, but in practice the difference appears less pronounced than in still shots, and thus less impactful in general.

Crytek's anti-aliasing solution - a temporal form of 2xMSAA which appears to be selective in its implementation on surfaces throughout the scene - has little impact in terms of providing high-level amounts of edge smoothing in highly detailed outdoor scenes. But its effects seem to be variable, with some areas - particuarly inside - faring better than others. Crytek's AA solution also works on various parts of the scene a little differently, using depth buffer info and edge detect on close objects.

Also, as a result of a frame blending technique used to create the AA samples from two seperate frames, we see that a ghosting effect is present during movement, like in the demo. Additionally, it appears that the use of frame-blending, along with edge-post process effects tend to blur the image somewhat on all versions of the game.



The killer point about Crysis 2 on both consoles and on the PC, is the inclusion of Crytek's much talked about single-bounce global illumination (GI) lighting system, whereby sun lighting features a singular, real-time bounce that for the most part accurately resembles real-world light occlusion.

This also means that all shadows and light sources are rendered in real-time through the game. The effects of which are outstanding as a whole. Ambient light and shadows are cast, while the main light-bounce creates a depthy, atmospheric look to the proceedings. Along with this we get the usual lens flaire and bloom effects, plus the addition of real-time, 'proper' sun-shafts too. All of which are equally represented on both PS3 and 360. Bar, except for some mild additional light occlusion in places on both the PC and PS3 codes, which usually darken the scene but seem to add a mildly stronger light bounce in places.



Crysis 2 uses deffered rendering in the form of differed lighting passes in order to deliver many dynamic lights onscreen at a lower overall cost than incurred by traditional forward rendering techniques. It is also an easier and more convenient way for artists to light every scene - they don't have to wait for hours of pre-computation in order to see the end results.

However, use of GI also comes with additional costs - namely memory bandwidth and computational power. Real-time shadows and occlusion means more alpha on screen, while having to calculate the lighting bounce on the fly means more processing power needed per-pixel. As a result we have already seen a reduction in the resolution of the framebuffer on each version, but there are many other parts of the game - visually - that have seen soem compromises in order to accomodate what is arguably the most impressive use of lighting in any console game to date.

By far the most obvious of these is Crysis 2's use of LOD and texture/object steaming. While there is a slight sense that LOD has seen an improvement over the 360 multiplayer demo, we still see many objects that pop-in noticeably as you approcah them. For example, foliage transitions between low and high quality assets fairly close to the player, buildings and other geometric objects too are also affected. Often this can look more than a tad unsightly, but sometimes can also go by without much notice - it all depends on just what the engine is rendering at any given time.

In our demo analysis we also mentioned in closing that a pre-release config file mentioned LOD perameters that were similar, or perhaps even identical across both PS3 and 360. Usually, it is the PS3 code that comes off worse in this area, with less memory and bandwidth to accomodate the same levels of draw distance and LOD update as the 360 in most cases. But in the finished retail game we find that not to be the case - bar one or two oddities that only ocasionally stand out in certain circumstances.




'High' settings

The most noticeable difference is how shadows are handled on both formats. Shadow LOD appears to be a tad stronger on the PS3, with some elements either being rendered in much later, or not at all. Self-shadows too also suffer from the same problem.

Additionally, SSAO initially seems to be cut back on in the PS3 game. Notice in the above shot, by the concrete blocks on the ground, that the effect is present on the 360 but fails to load in at all on the PS3. However, this isn't actually the case at all - SSAO in the PS3 game is in fact a closer match to the PC game.

The PS3 code also benefits from some advantages in other areas. First up, and as you can see below, shadows are filtered using a higher quality implementation compared to on the 360.




'High' settings

And secondly, texture filtering has also been given a significant boost, with bias towards certain surfaces giving ground and enviromental textures a cleaner look compared to on the 360.

According to Crytek, both games use dynamic AF (anisotropic filtering), but in the PS3 version we can see what looks like between 2x-8x filtering compared with much lower amounts in many places on the 360 - what looks like about 4x max, from what we can see. Officially, Crytek say that the PS3 game can switch between using 2x and up to 16x levels of AF.



While these differences are perhaps minor in nature, there's no question that the PS3 game's use of AF and higher quality shadow filtering makes a small tangible differnce. Of course, the lower framebuffer resolution partially cancels out the AF - owing to a blurrier image in general - but there's also a real sense that the two versions are remarkably close to each other given the immense task of rendering a hugely detailed environment, and then lighting it all up in real time.

Far more important however, is how they both perform whilst delivering such intricate visual complexity. And in this respect neither are particulaly excellent, with plenty of impactful frame-rate drops reducing controller response down to unacceptable levels. But this is only half of the story. Performance in Crysis 2 is heavily bound by load, with the 360 version leading in a general sense, but with the PS3 one occasionally doing the same in some chaotic scenarios.



Crytek are targeting a 30fps update for the console releases of Crysis 2, and going by the 360 multiplayer demo code at least, they were doing a rather good job of maintaining it, with very little in the way of frame-rate drops and no screen tearing. However, the single-layer mode is vastly different; there's much, much more going on. And all of this has a might impact on how well the engine can cope as a result.

While the results aren't pretty; both versions are at times very close. It's not always the case that one has a distinct advantage over the other, and both have various ups and downs with regards to keeping that 30fps but in different scenarios. Although, it's often the PS3 version that falls short more than the 360, but not always so.

On both platforms Crysis 2 run with an uncapped frame-rate and with v-sync enabled. However neither version hits the targeted 30fps mark for very long and barely goes above this. In fact, they both constantly fail to reach it in many situations, with or without heavy load. In addition, there is a small difference in how both versions deal with holding v-sync: the PS3 maintains this it throughout, while the 360 game seems to drop it very briefly, perhaps in order to maintain a slightly higher refresh. Tearing however, only occupies the very top of the screen and isn't noticeable during play.

As the video suggests, performance in Crysis 2 can be hugely variable; one minute the game is plowing along smoothly at the desired screen refresh, and then, in just the blink of an eye will drop right down to the mid to low 20's for extended periods of time. The main cause seems to be combat situations. Although, not neccesarily heavy combat - slowdown occurs when small, one or two man firefights break out, and increases dramatically when more starts going on.

Thankfully, somehow Crytek have still made the game playable regardless - in practice due more down to having to work your way around situations rather than going through the whole game and treating it as one giant shooting gallery. But seeing as playing it any other way than with ample thought and especially, a good bit of sneaking/enemy avoidance, makes the challenge just a touch too much to bare, so this negates the issue somewhat.

In any case, the fact that the game still throws everything but the kitchen sink into the console code, means that having it run at all in a playable state - even with the above listed shortcomings - is a pretty mean feat regardless. That said, one could easily argue that performance should have been better, with more careful optimisations, and maybe a few more scant cut backs here and there in order to better achieve that 30fps target.



Despite a few shortcomings, including a loss in IQ, some obvious LOD and streaming issues, plus a decidedly unwheldy frame-rate, Crysis 2 is a technical marvel on consoles. Say what you will about those comprosmises, but the fact that the game provides both scale and detail whilst delivering a fully real-time, shadowing and GI lighting system is it self an incredible feat. The game looks abosutely stunning!

Of course, there are smoother games out there, ones which perhaps excel in other particular areas. But on the whole, Crytek's latest shows that in many ways these five year-old consoles cans till handle - albeit at a significant cost - similarly high-end visuals that grace today's top of the range PC's.

More impressive - although not really much of a surprise considering that a earlier config file hinted as much - is the how well the PS3 code actually matches up to the 360 and PC versions. Its basically as good in many ways, with some very small improvements over the 360 game, and one or two slight (but hardly impacting) cut backs, non of which really impact on the game as a whole in any meaningful way.

As to which one you should pick up. Well, it's fair to say that both versions come recommended, but perhaps the 360 build edges it ever so slightly with mildly better image quality and a smoother frame-rate. But really, it makes very little difference, and I personally found aiming a little easier when using the PS3's analogue sticks despite the sometimes heavier drops in framerate.

So, Crysis 2 has successfully made the translation to console, but how well does it hold up compared to the cutting-edge PC game, and is there any evidence to suggest that it is this version that has in fact been downgraded in order to support the consoles? Moving on to our triple format comparison, let's take a closer look.




'High' settings

The first thing to note, is that unlike the console versions of the game Crysis 2 can be made to run in a range of different resolutions natively, and as a result, even at 720p the game looks noticeably sharper than its Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 counterparts. In addition, there are three distinct graphical settings designed to scale various features in order to gain better performance on lower spec systems, or, to deliver extra visual impact on more powerful, higher-end machines.

Crytek state that the PC game on it's lowest setting 'high' is a good approximate of what the actual console versions look like, but with further tayloring of effects specifically for the computer platform. Although, both console versions actually shape up really, really well in comparison - minus the obvious drop in resolution.

As you can see above, the benefits of the PC game's true 720p output delivers a noticeable sharpness advantage, but we can also see that lighting has been given an upgarde. More light sources are visible with the lighting bounce having more of an overall imapct, casting more shadows as a result.

The other big difference comes in the form of how the PC versions handles LOD - it's far less impactful with details being loaded in much further away from the player. This is down to the fact that on the PC, the game doesn't stream in any assets at all. Instead, it takes advantage of the much larger amouts of memory available on the format in order to avoid doing this, preserving object quality across the entire game.


'High' settings


'Very High' settings


'Extreme' settings

The difference though, isn't alarmingly huge, and there are many aspects of the PC code which look virtually like for like across all three formats, with texture detail being the prime example. In order to really see how far Crytek have really taylored their engine when it comes down to running on mid to high-end hardware, we have to look at the game's highest graphical setting, 'extreme'.

Here we start to see the PC version push ahead with a small wealth of graphical upgrades, although some are pretty subtle in nature and could easily be overlooked given the quality of both console conversions. The most obvious change, is that both lighting and shadowing have both been upgraded. Not only does every light practically cast a shadow, but lighting in general seems to be more refined and accurate in nature. SSAO too has also been given a higher precision implementation, looking a touch cleaner as a result.


'High' Settings


'Very High' settings


'Extreme' settings

Additionally, Crytek's custom temporal MSAA solution offers better coverage across the entire scene, albiet with an incease in image blur. There's less in the way of visible aliasing giving the game a cleaner look on the whole. However, this upgrade is only present when running the PC game in the 'extrme' setting. When playing in either 'high' or 'very high' the game appears to use less samples in order to generate the AA, with similar levels of edge-smoothing as found on the PS3 and 360 versions. But the game looks sharper as a result.


'High' settings


'Extreme' settings

In other areas we see a few more subtle upgrades. The game's representation of water for example appears more complex in nature. As you can see above, there are greater amounts of ripples and waves on show, while the effect is animated with more accuracy than on consoles; a direct result of both an incrase in both geometry and better normal map blending being used to recreate the effect.

Furthermore, other elements such as motion blur and depth of field benefit from higher quality implementations. In particular DOF features an additional layer in the distance not present in the console versions, whilst its resolution is also higher too. Motion blur is more impacting, but the results appear cleaner than either console game while increasing the amount of screen distortion present.



'Extreme' settings

Moving on, and one of the most important factors of PC gaming is being able to bump up the resolution, plaster on all the top-end effects and still run the game smoothly. And while performance across both 720p and 1080p modes (hardware dependant of course) is noticeably better than on the 360 and PS3, there's also a real sense that bumping up the resolution does very little to improve the visuals compared to selecting one of the higher graphics modes.

Below we've listed some shots to show our findings. The two are grabs from the game running in 'extreme' mode, showcasing how 1080p fares in comparision. And as you can see, the differnce isn't particular spellbinding. Granted, on a native 1080p HDTV the jump in sharpness is easily apparent, but at the same time the additional clarity is somewhat reduced by the game's seemingly restrictive art assests. It seems like the baseline visuals were optimised in order to run across a really broad range of specifications, and thus we see no real leap in detail from moving up the resolution chain.


'Extreme' settings - 720p


'Extreme' settings - 1080p

However, without a doubt, Crysis 2 running in 1080p on mid-range or mid high-end hardware is a class act indeed. Graphically, although the improvements are sometimes subtle at best, there's still a sense that you are seeing the game in its most polished form; a form that is unobtainable on any other hardware outside that of a decent gaming PC.

Case in point, running on a i5 CPU and a NVIDIA GTX460 GPU at 720p (1280x720) with v-sync enbabled, and we get a near constant 60fps update when using the 'extreme' setting. While running in 1080p, v-synced and on 'high' you get a solid 60fps update. All of which amounts to an experience way beyond the home gaming systems.

But that said, we can't help but feel that the PC game is in fact being held back slightly by both console versions. Clearly, Crytek have focused on designing an engine around running on age-old hardware with most of its effects correct and present, than in producing high-end tech that requires the most obsecne PC's in order to run. What substantiates this, is that on day one there is no Direct x11 support at all. By contrast, the original Crysis featured a beefed up Direct X10 mode on launch, with further upgrades separating it even further from the older DX9-based configurations contained within.

My best guess is that due to spending so much time on delivering two suitable impressive - and very comparable - consoles expereiences, that a bleeding-edge, highest-end graphical mode simply wasn't ready in time for luanch. Crytek have already confirmed that an 'ethusiast mode' is on its way, along with Direct X11 support, but whether or not it shall yield the same level of technical superiority that Crysis 1 had over its peers is unknown at this point.

Either way, there's still no question that Crysis 2 is a remarkably stunning release on the PC, and what it lacks in pure graphical advantage, it more than makes up for with vastly superior performance. Running the game at 720p, v-synced, and at the console target of 30fps should be no problem for most decent, older PC's, while people with mid-range and cutting edge hardware will easily be able to blow away both console versions entirely.

Overall, it's pretty obvious that the PC version of Crysis 2 is the one to go for given the choice - and you don't even need the very best hardware to do a good job of running it - but you shouldn't discount the PS3 and 360 builds out entirely. What Crytek have manged to achieve on those consoles is nothing short of legendary, and although there are still a fair share of problems which impact on the experience as a whole, they're both beautiful looking games regardless.

Thanks go out to AlStrong for the pixel counting and Richard Leadbetter for use of Digital Foundry's analysis tools.

Tech Analysis: Crysis 2: Multiplayer Demo (360)

Crysis is synonymous with graphics… that much is obvious. With each instalment in the series, Crytek subsequently included everything but the kitchen sink in their approach to real-time rendering. If performance suffers, then you simply throw in a new graphics card, or two. Now, while that might be fine in the PC space, consoles on the other hand, are somewhat more limiting. That said, with Crysis 2, the developers are still implementing their ‘as much as possible’ philosophy, perhaps only downgrading certain parts of the game in accordance with memory and performance restraints.

To that end, the recent multiplayer demo of Crytek’s upcoming tour-de-force, demonstrates that with a bit of chopping and editing, that is possible to deliver some of the high-end visual components usually seen in either the top-end of real-time rendering, or found in lower-quality CGI, but on consoles. We only have the 360 demo to hand – there isn’t a PS3 one yet, nor has there been anything shown of the Sony version since the initial unveiling of the CryEngine 3. But what we have here is a mightily impressive showing of just what can be done.

So, just how good does Crysis 2 look on consoles, or more specifically, on the Xbox 360? Well, before we begin a proper, it’s fair to say that the game is running on the console with what looks like ‘medium’ detail settings on the PC; which means that you get most of the good stuff, but not without some very obvious pairing back of overall image quality as a result. There have also been a few added effects over and above that of the ‘medium’ setting found in the original Crysis, although not compared to the same setting in the sequel.

Let’s take a closer look.



As always, we start off by looking at the framebuffer. Straight away, via both looking at the screens and by playing, it appears that Crysis 2 seems to be rendering in a sub-HD resolution. Initially, this looks like being somewhere in between that of the Call Of Duty games (1024x640) and Halo Reach (1152x720). However, pixel counting reveals that Crysis 2 actually features a 1152x720 FB just like that of Bungie’s title.

Why on first impressions, it doesn’t look as clean around the edges, is down to the fact that Crytek are using a lot of post processing effects on the screen, along with a low resolution depth of field implementation, whereby objects either in front or behind the DOF feature an addition cut in resolution. This means that Crysis 2 does look slightly softer than other games with similar resolutions. Although, there are other factors which also affect this.

In addition, like with many games operating on the more bandwidth restricted PS3, Crysis 2 uses low-res buffers for all its visual effects. Things such as water, smoke, fire, and other effects are all rendered in a resolution that is significantly lower than that of the framebuffer. Sometimes this goes unnoticed, like in the case of small particles and such, but with the larger effects it is far more apparent.


Moving on, in terms of anti-aliasing, when we first looked at Crysis 2 it appeared that the game seemed to have no AA at all. However, initial looks can be somewhat deceiving, as the screenshots tell us a slightly different story. There seems to be evidence of 2xMSAA on some surfaces, but not on others. Perhaps Crytek are using some kind of selective MSAA routine? Although, delving deeper confirms that a selective, plus temporal approach is what is being used.

The effect of this is clearly evident in the screenshot below. Here, we can see a manifestation of double-image ghosting, a common side effect of the frame blending used in creating temporal anti-aliasing. Where Crysis differs, is that the engine is performing AA on both static and dynamic scenes: selective AA is applied to certain parts of the scene in motion, and on more of it when there is no movement. In comparison, games such as Halo Reach on 360, and DMC4 on the PS3 only apply AA on static scenes.

For the most part, the end result is that Crysis 2 looks like it has no AA at all. There is plenty of edge-shimmering and sub-pixel artefacts that extend across the whole scene. Furthermore, this isn’t helped by the high-contrast nature of the stage present in the demo, nor the upscaled FB, both of which accentuates this further.


Image quality then, leaves a lot to be desired. And this isn’t helped by the use of what looks like an aggressive LOD and texture streaming system, in combination with poor quality texture filtering. Though it is comparable to titles such as Halo ODST, which sacrifice IQ for more advanced effects in other areas. Crysis 2 does the same.

In the demo, we can see a few high-resolution, detailed texture maps, alongside many lower quality ones. In fact, to balance out memory usage Crysis 2 actually has more lower res textures than higher res ones. Most look good all things considered. However, actual filtering is decidedly basic. Crysis 2 appears to be using bilinear filtering for most of its textures, with what looks like the occasional bias towards certain surfaces. Then again, the LOD could be affecting this.

As a result of this, and the LOD, many details in the distance are blurred, and lack sufficient sharpness, which isn’t helped by the consistent, and sometimes varied nature of both geometry and texture pop-up.


While playing, you can notice that various textures, and geometric environmental details – such as grasses, metal railings, etc, tend to pop-up as you come close to approaching them. It’s very obvious in nature, with a few instances of high resolution textures not actually appearing until we got around a metre away from the effected surface.

That said, memory constraints, along with the desire to include real-time lighting and shadowing techniques, means that some compromises have had to be made. Even with the Xbox 360’s fast, bandwidth monster that is the Xenos GPU, there still isn’t enough available in order to have hi-res effects, mild LOD, and top-end IQ. But the choice that Crytek have made, appears to be the right one for the game, especially it seems, when you see how most surfaces are normal mapped, and are affected by the surrounding lighting.

You also have to consider the 360’s 10MB EDRAM limit, by which you have to fit the entire framebuffer into, or get an additional penalty in terms of having to use tiling. And, that’s exactly what Crytek are doing for Crysis 2. By opting for a 1152x720 FB they can avoid tiling.


But as I said earlier, this compromise appears to be worth it given the advanced, tech-heavy lighting engine used throughout every area of the game. For those who don’t know, Crysis 2 – on both consoles and the PC – uses a real-time global illumination system for all the main lightsources in the game. We have hear what Crytek are calling ‘single-bounce global illumination’, whereby, as one lightsource casts a light, it is then reflected once back out into the environment on another surface, casting dynamic shadows as it does this.

Not all light sources in the game cast shadows, nor would you expect them to. However, when there is a few lightsources on screen at once in close proximity, a single, main lightsource – of the few - will cast a dynamic shadow onto the environment instead, thus partially negating this. As a result, there is not only a greater sense of depth to the environment and everything in it, but also a more natural look to any given scene as a whole.


The level of accuracy present from this advanced rendering technique is stunning to see compared to other games which simply fake it, using pre-baked environmental lightmaps, or many local dynamic lights – and a fair amount of baked ones too – in order to emulate this. Crysis uses both a single GI solution, along with additional local lights, thus yielding the best results when processing power is a limited commodity.

For example, there are some really cool touches, such as the light reflections coming off the barrel of your gun when fired, or as it passes through other lightsources in the environment. We can also see light reflected off of shiny surfaces, weapons fire, explosions, etc. and sunlight. All of which is very impressive for a console title using what equates to five year-old technology. But then, that’s the magic of closed box architecture; being able to push the envelope in ways not possible on the PC with similar specifications.


Also impressive, is the use, albeit quite limited, of secondary – or indirect – shadowing on a few surfaces. However, seeing as this comes with a heavy impact on performance, in order to keep the game running smoothly, and in-line with memory contrasints, there is a very aggressive LOD controlling the display of these effects. In-direct shadows only appear mere feet away from the player, often too late to really be noticed when playing the game. They are there however, but in limited amounts.

Complementing this, we have the expected return of SSAO (screen-space ambient occlusion), which features heavily in the core make-up of the CryEngine technology – it’s actually a custom implementation I believe, one that works with the company’s GI solution, and as usual bringing additional depth to the scene.


Other nice touches include high quality specular reflections, whereby the actual light point is reflected more sharply than as a simpler rounded shape. The light reflection has less spread, being more focused. Although, this in turn also depends on the level of specularity of the surface light is supposed to be reflecting from. Either way, specular, and indeed diffuse reflections – the two combined – are handled much more convincing than in most titles.

In addition to the standout GI solution, and the lighting in general , we also have a high-quality implementation of high-dynamic-range lighting (HDR), which not only creates a strong bloom effect when the player is facing the sun, but also a nice transition between both the top and low end of the spectrum. Although, as is evident in the screenshots, Crysis 2 definitely favours the extreme top end in various parts of the demo stage – bloom appears almost too overblown at times, with colour tinting on surfaces that this shouldn’t be occurring on.


We can also see that occasionally, and on some surfaces – mainly on background objects – that the game’s use of lighting appears to be simplified, perhaps even paired back by LOD again. Take the buildings in the distance for example, while appearing slightly basic in construction (textured, polygonal boxes basically), the lighting surrounding them has been reduced - It almost looks like the GI lighting model doesn’t apply to them, or that in some cases, real-time lighting isn’t present.

A fogging effect is also present, no doubt to help hide/blend in the distant low-detail objects produced by the LOD system. Perhaps, this is having an additional affect on the lighting in these areas. In addition we see what looks like a basic skybox. Plus, the smoke effects that cover the sky are flat, and also inconsistent in the way they cover the scene compared with the accuracy of the surrounding lighting.


That said, there’s no doubt that Crytek’s use of such an advanced lighting scheme pays dividends to the overall look they are trying to create. The Crysis 2 multiplayer demo is home to some of the most accomplished lighting seen on a console title. It’s not just the use of dynamic lighting – which many games have now anyway, but the extra level of realism provided by the GI system.

Given the limitations in working on aging, memory starved hardware (compared to today’s top-end, even mid-low-range PC’s), some cuts are always going to be made. Although, when you see just how well the demo performs, these look like being worthy compromises.

Crysis 2 targets a 30fps update, and for the most part, manages to near constantly hold it all throughout the entire experience of the demo. The game only very rarely slows down, and even then, it’s only for a split second or so, dropping what looks like a very small amount of frames. Impressively, it even manages to achieve this feat when there is not only a varying amount of particle effects on screen, but also on the rooftops with several people in one place, where the full force of the game’s GI lighting can be felt.

However, on occasion, when outside and there is lots going on, or as I’ve found, after getting killed and seeing a third-person replay of my death when combat is still breaking out, some slowdown will occur.

So, performance in terms of framerate is solid, but here we also see evidence of the game being fully v-synced too. Without equipment to measure if there are any frames being torn – even if it is just a single one in the whole rendering cycle – we can’t say for sure, 100%. But, what is clear, is that throughout the time spent in the company of the demo so far, no screen tearing seemed to be apparent.

In any case, even if one or two frames were being torn, unless there is a steady succession of torn frames in a row, then any screen tearing simply won’t be visible to the human eye. So, it stands to reason that Crysis 2 maintains some kind of v-sync: either a hard sync, or a soft v-sync dependant on rendering load.


One thing that doesn’t feel quite right though, alongside Crysis 2’s smooth 30fps refresh rate, is the noticeable input lag felt when jumping or performing other moves. You can also feel the very same thing as you aim and fire too. So, what could be causing this?

Well, my best guess - seeing as the game appears to be v-synced - is that Crytek could be using a frame buffering technique in addition to a soft v-sync, such as double buffering, whereby two frames are rendered for every one displayed with one being held in reserve just in case the first tears. That would at lest explain the additional latency that we seem to be feeling, although this isn’t a solid conformation on the matter.

Looking at how the game performs under load, the solidness of the 30fps update, we can understand just why some of the less attractive compromises were made. The experience as a whole is a smoother, more succinct one. It’s very impressive on the whole. There has been a balancing act between trading off certain elements in order to get others up and running in budget, per frame no less, and without increasing overall cost in other areas to do so.

In that respect, this is all to be expected on a console release dealing with GI solutions and plenty of dynamic lights. Crytek’s engine does indeed render various parts of the pipeline in different passes, and with varying degrees of quality. Although, it also delivers many high-end effects all in one package, which is something that most console releases fail to do.


The fact is, Crysis 2 currently looks great on consoles. And that can only be a good thing. Sure enough, there have been some downgrades. But, realistically, when you’ve got GI, SSAO and object-based motion blur, that is only to be expected. Plus, in any case, the admittedly low quality IQ does little to spoil the experience, considering what’s included.

Like with the very sub-HD framebuffer in Alan wake, the lack of AF plus a solid AA solution in Crysis 2, are all negated somewhat – though not completely - by the sheer beauty of the game’s real-time lighting, and the interactivity between it and various surfaces present in the world. Near rock-solid performance at 30fps with no screen tearing doesn’t hurt either.

Perhaps all that’s left, is to wax lyrical about the possibilities surrounding the currently MIA PS3 version of the game. However, if you’re looking for talk of the system’s bandwidth limitations potentially resulting yet further downgrades, loss of IQ, then you’ll be somewhat disappointed. If a recent, internal config file of the game is to be believed - the info contained within specifically puts the two versions on a par with each other, with the implementation of v-sync in relation to performance separating them – then this shouldn’t be the case.

The most likely scenario, in the weight of no further evidence being available at this point, is that the compromises found in the 360 demo have been brought about by optimising the engine to run comfortably, and within range of both systems specs, taking into account various nuances, such as 360’s EDRAM, and PS3’s additional CPU processing power. But then gain, we’ll just have to wait and see.

With the demo out of the way, it will be interesting to see what the final game has in store for us - specifically the single-player campaign. Usually, the multiplayer aspect often sees some graphical cut backs in order to maintain better performance for online purposes, and unpredictable load. The demo also showcased a definitive improvement over the old campaign code I played at the EG Expo back in October. So, by that reasoning, it is entirely possible that we could see additional improvements to the game in the final retail version.

Thanks go out to Mazinger Dude for the pixel counting and Shinnn for the screenshots.