PS3 News: Crytek: Crysis 2 "Similar" On PlayStation 3 And Xbox 360 - PS3 News

Members Login: Register | Why sign up? | Forgot Password?

Crytek: Crysis 2 "Similar" On PlayStation 3 And Xbox 360

Crytek has recently revealed that Crysis 2 will be headed to consoles in addition to the PC, and this has sparked a rash of discussion and questions.

To help clear up some of the ensuing confusion, Crytek CEO Cevat Yerli confirmed that this hotly anticipated sequel will be almost identical on both the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360, but the PC version should be the top performer. This isn't much of a surprise, considering the developer's past, but perhaps PS3 owners should take solace in the fact that it'll be very similar to the 360 version. After all, the 360 most closely resembles a PC and one would have to assume that bringing a game like Crysis 2 to the PS3 might pose some new problems. But apparently, we needn't worry. Also, according to a recent interview with Develop, Yerli said he's not trying to prove which of the consoles is more powerful. This isn't about tapping into each system's power; it's about appealing to the widest audience possible with Crysis 2. Many say that the CryENGINE 3 will push both consoles to their limits but clearly, that's not Crytek's intent...the PS3 fans are out there right now, saying, "if you'd only use the PS3, it could excel!" Yeah, well, we'll never know.

Lastly, Yerli confirmed that over 150 people are currently working on Crysis 2, which has been in development for over two years. When we get a release date, you'll know not long afterward.

Related Game(s): Crysis 2

6/3/2009 Ben Dutka

Put this on your webpage or blog:
Email this to a friend
Follow PSX Extreme on Twitter

Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on Google Share on MySpace Share on Delicious Share on Digg Share on Google Buzz Share via E-Mail Share via Tumblr Share via Posterous

New Comment System

Legacy Comment System (30 posts)

Wednesday, June 03, 2009 @ 10:38:40 AM

I will follow the technical developments of this game closely. Right now I don't believe there is a game out there (or to come) that will easily (if at all) surpass what has been achieved by Killzone 2. With the CryENGINE 3 we will not see the best the PS3 can do, even though this would have been a perfect opportunity to show it off.

Let us see what transpires; but I think to surpass Killzone 2, Uncharted 2 and GoW3 in the graphics department is going to be a tall order; not to mention GT5 when it is finally released.


"i am home"

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Wednesday, June 03, 2009 @ 1:02:11 PM

I think Uncharted 2 already pass KZ2 by a long margin,you could put it up there with Crysis.GOW3 didn't look impressive(graphically)thought but who cares any hows.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Wednesday, June 03, 2009 @ 4:35:11 PM

Original crysis looks better on max then killzone 2.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Thursday, June 04, 2009 @ 9:29:17 AM

... with a $2500 computer.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Wednesday, June 03, 2009 @ 11:17:46 AM

I don't think this game will be that great with its mediocre story and AI.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Wednesday, June 03, 2009 @ 12:56:45 PM

Agreed. I enjoyed the gameplay of Crysis, but the AI was terrible. Thats the biggest thing that needs a fix in CryEngine 3. Killzone 2's AI was just amazing and set the bar incredibly high for player/enemy interaction. I hope someone can dethrone KZ2's AI, but it will be tough.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Wednesday, June 03, 2009 @ 11:37:16 AM

wooooo, ive been waiting this for ages! The only thing is is that they should announce Battlefront 3

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Wednesday, June 03, 2009 @ 1:16:17 PM

I agree but I would trade this game anyday for another battlefront game.

Last edited by vicious54 on 6/3/2009 1:17:01 PM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Wednesday, June 03, 2009 @ 11:37:48 AM

Pc more powerful than the playstation 3? Why?

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Wednesday, June 03, 2009 @ 12:00:04 PM

Because a PC can be a multi-socket i7 moster with quad SLI boards featuring dual GPUs. If you have th money to spend you can build a 'PC' with more horsepower than the NSA had prior to 9/11 (that's a guess and an exaggeration - obviously - but you get the point).

Now, a regular PC with a single i7 and 'average GPU? That's a far more even struggle, in the end, the PC will always have more memory than a PS3. More memory is something that graphics developers always enjoy. In pure compute terms the CellBE/RSX combination far surpassed PCs at launch and has continued to be well ahead of average PCs for nearly three years, it's about time that the PCs caught up. But in truth, if you spend a good amount of money on an i7 based system with a couple of moderately high end GPUs you will certainly have a system that surpasses the raw hardware inside a PS3 - it took nearly three years for that to happen though.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Wednesday, June 03, 2009 @ 12:18:26 PM

To me what is even more interesting that a study was done and when comparing raw processing power the CELL B.E. still surpasses Intel's i7. I'll have to dig around to find the article that provided the details.

Knowing this is what really gets me excited about what the PS4 may be capable of. One would assume that Sony would use the billions already spent in R&D for the CELL and utilize the more advanced chipsets that IBM has been working on over the years in the heart of the next console. Not only would it save them a tremendous amount of money, but also please developers by not changing the architecture to keep development costs level with the current generation. Question is how far will Sony go with the PS4, 24, 32, or 64 SPUs? Also, how much memory will they include this time round if they can already save money on manufactoring costs? Hopefully they will look towards GBs rather than MBs.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Wednesday, June 03, 2009 @ 12:41:16 PM


I agree with your analysis of the most likely PS4 direction.

I've seen two roadmaps for Cell, the more recent one (IIRC) has 4 PPUs and 32 SPEs. However consider this the PwerXCell that already exists is an enhanced version of the Cell BE and the double precision performance of the SPEs has been improved drastically - an order of magnitude better than the original CellBE. So by the time that the next generation of CellBE arrives, assuming that the clock speed remains a constant, simply quadding the chip and then adding the existing FP enhancements from the PowerXCell would make for an insanely powerful CPU.

Remember the PS4 will not have to cope with a higher resolution than the PS3 does, TVs are very unlikely to go above 1080p in the next 10-20 years.

The least costly path to the PS4 is to sign on with IBM to take the next generation Cell, get IBM to put in a software switch that allows the system to revert to classic CellBE performance for PS3 software, and go from there. Sony wouldn't even need to replace the RSX since the base resolution won't be changing and the CPU will be doing more of the heavy lift work on the graphics - especially if things move towards real time ray tracing instead of shaders.

Throw in a decent amount of DDR3 (or whatever standard) memory and you're done. A mass storage deive (hard disc) optical drive and network port are what they are, they might be faster and/or bigger by then, but they are what they are.

A PS4 based on a next generation Cell would be more than powerful enough to emulate a PS2 completely in softwre. As such a PS4 based on a next generation Cell BE would literally be THE playstation since it would be capable of playing any game from PS1, PS2, PS3 and PS4 (and if Sony wanted, all PSP games as well).

Good times to come - I hope.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Wednesday, June 03, 2009 @ 1:06:10 PM


I've seen some of the early tech demos of ray tracing. I can only imagine how far it has come since then and how far it will go with the new PowerXCELL (didn't remember hearing that name used). It's exciting stuff.

As for 1080p resolution, I would not be surprised if Sony throws in support for the next step up. From what I've read I think Toshiba (or was it Samsung) have been working on Ultra HD televisions that support 2160p. Why would they? It's Sony, why else. I think if they stuck with the RSX it would hurt them in the long run. Nvidia will want to move forward with their technology and to continue producing older chipsets may only hurt their bottom line (see history with MS, Nvidia, and Xbox). When discussing graphics cards, what I want to know is will Sony go with the new Larrabee GPU Intel has been trying to push or the next Nvidia?

DDR3 should be sufficient for video memory but they'll have to stick with XDR for the main CPU.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Wednesday, June 03, 2009 @ 4:41:46 PM

Because the ps3 has geforce 7800 gpu, that is ~15 times less powerful then modern hi-end pc gpu's.

@ Nyda and Highlander
How many ps3 games that run on pure 1080p do you know?
Please don't say GT5 prologue or Wipeot HD - they are upscaled.

Last edited by vXn on 6/3/2009 4:52:11 PM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Wednesday, June 03, 2009 @ 5:30:56 PM


What's your point exactly, I didn't say that the RSX was a super powerful GPU, it is however more than powerful enough to render in 1080p. The whole design concept of PS3 was originally based around using the Cell to render the graphics, but the decided relatively late to incorporate a GPU.

If you want to argue about the computing power of a modern PC vs a PS3 you have to consider both GPU and CPU, and until i7 came around, even harnessing the computing prowess of GPUs couldn't quite pip the Cell/RSX duo at the post in terms of raw compute power. i7 and the more exotic SLI solutions are game changers in that context, as they obviously allow more fire power and newer components to be broght into the discussion.

However with regard to any future PS4 console, the resolution that the console will have to push is based on the resolution of the average owner's TV, not the latest experimental TVs that Toshiba work on. Unless things change very drastically it will take 5-10 years for 1080p HD panels to reach the same level of market that CRTs have enjoyed for a couple of decades. Broadcast standards are only now settling on 720p/1080i. Therefore it is entirely reasonable to presume that the highest domestic video standard that a game console will need to be able to handle will be 1080p, for at least the next 10-20 years.

The PS3 can already handle that standard, as can the 360. The next developments in games is most likely to be real time ray tracing which is not something that the RSX is going to be very good at. However Sony already has licenses to use the RSX, and they know it's architecture. So if games are being ray traced in real time on a new, and much more powerful Cell processor, what's your issue with having a venerable old RSX sitting there as a service chip and post processor for each frame that is ray traced? If we're looking ahead at a supposed PS4 architecture it sure as anything makes more sense to keep the Cell/RSX architecture if possible. If Sony decided to, for example, jump to Larabee it would be a pointless exercise in annoying their developers with yet another new architecture. It would also make it far harder for any PS4 to emulate a PS3.

If on the other hand a PS4 used some future iteration of Cell with an RSX GPU, emulation would be unnecessary. Because this generation of video game console has arrived at the start of the HD TV standard we have a situation we've never had before in video games. When the Atari 2600 arrived the TV standard was already set to NTSC or PAL - at best 480 or 576 lines, in full color. But the early game consoles were absolutely incapable of anything like that resolution. consoles developed, SEGA and Nintendo did their thing, and we eventually arrived at the PlayStation age. Even with access to all the data of a CDROM, the PlayStation still didn't come close to using the full NTSC or PAL resolution or color range. Moving forward we come to the GameCube, orginal Xbox and PS2. Sticking to the PS brand, the PS2 was capable of true 480p display, the maximum NTSC resolution. But this was as good as the PS2 could do.

This time round the TV standard is commonly referred to as HDTV and consists of 720p/1080i and 1080p resolutions. With 1080p being the highest resolution defined. Broadcasters are settling into the 720p/1080i range for their services, BluRay has set the standard at 1080p. People are buying millions of TVs now specifically capable of these three resolutions. The CRT days of NTSC and PAL are over, the new video standard is a combination of the three 'HD' resolutions 720p/1080i/1080p. Now, unlike the early days of video games the first generation of systems in this new age of video are already capable of the maximum resolution specified. So if there is ever a PS4, what will it need to be able to do? It won't need to push a higher resolution than the current hardware can handle. But it might need the computational grunt to do real time ray tracing.

I just don't see that either the PS3 or Xbox360 will need to undergo much, if any, change with regards to video. Computing power on the other hand may be the issue that eventually brings a new generation.

But you know what, for most people, it's safe to say that 1080p is more than good enough.

Last edited by TheHighlander on 6/3/2009 5:33:28 PM

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Wednesday, June 03, 2009 @ 6:20:32 PM


I'm just going to ignore vXn's comment, don't feel like wasting my time (have infamous waiting for me)

I do agree that the path that Sony would most likely take is recycling the RSX. Although as I mentioned before, I'm not sure how well that would work out being the GPU is manufactured by Nvidia who would probably not want to commit development of what would be considered a legacy device in the early or mid-lifespan of the PS4. I just find that hard to accept. Now, keeping with a similar chipset would be more likely and still guarantee backwards compatibility with PS3 games.

Sony could possibly lengthen the lifespan of the RSX by licensing out the technology for manufacturing the chip themselves. Again, I just can't see Sony sticking with the exact same GPU that I am sure Nvidia will wish to drop within 10 years time.

As always, reading your well written technical posts are always a learning experience and a pleasure. ;)

Last edited by Nynja on 6/3/2009 6:23:13 PM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Wednesday, June 03, 2009 @ 7:43:40 PM

@ Highlander
No, 1080p is just unreachable for both 360 and ps3. I dont argue about the fact that we will see few 1080p games at the dawn of this generation. I'm just dissapointed because sony claimed that 1080p would be the standart for the ps3 platform.

You are claiming that cell is superpowerfull cpu, right? Yes it is, if used for some purposes, such as number crunching. But tasks that are set by games have nothing common with that. Personally I think that usage of such cpu in gaming machine is just a headache for developers, that can make same things work on other cpu's much faster and easier.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Wednesday, June 03, 2009 @ 10:31:15 PM

Sorry, but you are wrong on both counts. The GPU in both the 360 and PS3 can render 1080p. If the PS3 could not render 1080p, then BluRay playback would be impossible.

As for the CellBE, it's rated speed for single precision floating point math calcs is 25.6 GFLOPS per SPE, which in a PS3 yields 179GFLOPS just from the SPEs. The PPE also handles floating point math calculations bringing that Cell alone to a performance approaching 200GFLOPS. Ah, but you say that "but tasks that are set by games have nothing common with that." Oh, really? So what do you think calculates all the physics in the game world? What do you think calculates the path of every particle in motion? In truth the kind of branchy code that people presume the Cell is no good at comprises the minority of video game programming and a very small proportion of the code actually executing at any time. Where you may be going wrong is by presuming that the SPE is useless for anything except being a fancy math co-processor. The trouble with that thought is that each SPE is in fact a highly capable RISC processor with all the general purpose instructions required for 'normal' code, as well as the very efficient single precision math.

The use of a CPU such as the Cell in no way causes a headache for developers. The headache comes from trying to force the system to work in the same way as it does on a PC or the Xbox 360. That doesn't work, you can't force it to work, you will get a headache, instead you have to modify your approach. Once you accept that and do it, there is no problem, and no headache.

Honestly, if computer scientists had such an inflexible approach to problems, we'd still be running businesses on the abacus.

I suspect you are a very PC oriented person, or are just looking for an argument.

Last edited by TheHighlander on 6/3/2009 10:33:15 PM

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Thursday, June 04, 2009 @ 3:11:42 AM

Of course rsx can do 1080p, I just meant that rsx is not enouph powerful to push games with good gpaphics in 1080p. I understand what you mean, but I'll just keep my opinion.

No, I'm not a pc-oriented person. But right now I'm really stuck with pc. I made my desigion which console I will buy in the future long time ago, but right now I just can't afford it:'(

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Thursday, June 04, 2009 @ 12:25:35 PM


You need to check out this article. It's old but hopefully can help you understand the difference.

Maybe you could provide a link to the source you found that disagrees with site above describing native vs scaled.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Thursday, June 04, 2009 @ 1:00:10 PM

Just a small facet for this discussion of scaling. Wipeout HD is a 1080p game. It actually is a 1080p game, truly.

However, as I found out, doing some reading this lunch time Wipeout HD uses a very interesting technique to maintain it's framerate. If there is too much happening on the screen at once due to intense action or in split screen mode, for example. Rather than drop frames the game dynamically changes the resolution is will render. The image is always scaled back to 1080p, so the user never sees the resolution drop, or a dropped frame. So it's possible for the game to drop the render resolution during intense sequences and then push it back up to full 1080p.

Rather than drop the native resolution of the game, or it's framerate, with WipeoutHD (for example) the developer used a clever strategy to allow the game to dynamically alter the render workload. Very smart stuff.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Thursday, June 04, 2009 @ 4:19:41 PM

Thx for the link.
I know a really good article too, but it's in russian)
Check out this site, these guys are analysing technology in modern games, i think Highlander definately will like it too

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Wednesday, June 03, 2009 @ 11:49:32 AM

wait? no difference between the PS3 and 360? so in other words they aint putting any effort into the PS3 version which could do so much more than 360. yeah bravo to them lmao

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Wednesday, June 03, 2009 @ 12:04:39 PM

Whoa, slow down. They are unlikely to build completely separate versions of their engine for each console. They clearly have a single PC game engine that has been scaled where necessary and appropriate to run at console resolution. I'm certain that they have done some optimization on each console in an attempt to make each perform as well as possible, and certainly the PS3 version will have to be considerably different to the Xbox360 version simply because of the major differences in the CPU architecture. However it's not in their interests to take the development of the engine on the PS3 any further than they take the 360 version. Much like Criterion (and any other multi-platform developer) they know that if they tailor their game engine too closely to the platform, they have to spend more time implementing the actual game on that engine because each platform will require more work because of the engine 'enhancements' done. Burnout Paradise on 360 and PS3 is largely identical and that has enabled Criteion Games to keep the DLC releases on the two platforms synchronized (mostly). I'm certain that Crytek will want to do the same.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Wednesday, June 03, 2009 @ 5:33:37 PM

I just read on Playstation Universe CEO Cevit Yerli stated that Crysis 2 will push PS3 to it's limits. He then said they did a performance analysis on the PS3 devkit, and the cell, cpu's, and the gpu's were at the needle of the limit. Maxed out. Then referring to the 360 he said that the game will pretty much be identical on both systems in the end. That the 360 would also be maxed out.

How the hell could that be possible. Is Microsoft paying him to say that the PS3 was also maxed out when the 2 are compared for performance specs when it comes to running this game? I smell some politics here.

There is no way that game could be equally the same if they made a maxed out version for 360 and a maxed out version for PS3. Knowing Crytek is a PC developer and the architecture of the 360 is pretty much the same, these guys truly don't know the full abilities of the cell at this point in my mind.

There is no way 360 could run Uncharted 2, or Killzone 2, Gow3, GT5, Heavy Rain, MGS4.

Oh well that game running on 360 like that will be a time bomb for a RROD S**T Taking.

Last edited by HOODGE on 6/3/2009 5:40:41 PM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Wednesday, June 03, 2009 @ 7:32:43 PM

Well, I could max out an i7 with a hand coded loop that just stuffed the instruction pipeline with no-op instructions.

I can in no way criticize their code, and would never do so. However it is always fair to point out that less efficient code can max out a processor. This is their first stab at a console game on either the 360 or the PS3. If you take an application coded for s traditional architecture such as the PC and try to port it to consoles, the Xbox is your easier target. Partly because of the dev tools being similar, and partly because the system architecture is homogenous - there is only one kind of CPU. So you don't have to break down your application and consider whether a particular task is best suited to the PPU or an SPE, or whether you can run something through the SPEs more efficiently in series or parallel.

So it's quite possible that by choosing one way, they get their application to work, and feel like they are driving the platform hard. Only to find out later that by adopting a different approach, they could have achieved the same result with less work.

This is the very problem that Gabe Newell has complained so bitterly about in the past. John Carmack too has complained about having to change the mid set and think differently. However as Insomnia and others have shown, learning the platform and making the mindset change allows you to reap great rewards.

Last edited by TheHighlander on 6/3/2009 7:32:59 PM

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Thursday, June 04, 2009 @ 1:49:39 PM

Honestly , though the tech discussion here has been pretty good I really don't think it's all that relevant to a cross platform engine maxing out both PS and 360, is it?

Crytek are a talented bunch BUT ALL their exp is PC based(which is why they obtained FR-where's my effin TS4 btw?)and the engine , by it's mp nature isn't optimal to either PS or 360-though with the 360 architacture it will likely be closer to the ideal for that console rather than the PS3s. Hence the fact(or the carefully defused statement!)that they say both are maxed out means nothing at all.

They're so used to PC set ups that there's bound to be a far less efficient way they bring to the table for the PS3 than for the 360, and far less efficient than the GG or ND PS based engines powering Killzone2 and Uncharted1 and 2. Once again a multi plat game, even made by perfectionisrs like Crytek, cannot show either playform off to it's best by both it's mp nature AND, more importantly, the fact that they don't want to pi55 off half the prospective market they have.

Honestly, there will be nothing proved by this game, allied to the fact that right now the PS3 is totally alien to them while the 360 will be a very familiar kind of set up, no?

Edit:highlander-Carmack has pretty much come around to seeing the worth of both the cell and BR in gaming-not as an ideal but certainly as a good, if different, way of doing things and the better way for some.

Gabe, on the other hand, is a bit of a MS cheerleader and even when trying to reach out with an olive branch to PS and Sony gamers still managed to work himself into a state. I would have expected a great dev like Valve to relish the gauntlet thrown down by GG, Insomniac et al but it seems, sadly , they wish to remain in theur PC based comfort zone. Very sad all round-for PS3 gamers and Valve, imo.

Last edited by mastiffchild on 6/4/2009 1:55:19 PM

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Thursday, June 04, 2009 @ 12:12:24 AM

I'm getting quite a eduamakation here, LOL

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Thursday, June 04, 2009 @ 1:57:33 PM

Biker saint-is that dog making you inject Nazi crank/meth/speed/crack/coke?heroin?

Sheesh man, dogs can really screw you up. I never thought I'd see the day when they turned the tables like this-and they said cats were the clever ones!

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Thursday, June 04, 2009 @ 4:11:43 PM

That's "Lil Demon".
He carrys liquid drano so he can stick people he doesn't like.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Leave a Comment

Please login or register to leave a comment.

Our Poll

How often do you visit the site?
Once a day
Several times a day
Every few days
Once a week
This is my first visit
I've never been here, even now I am not here

Previous Poll Results