Official Crysis 2 Thread

[KashunatoR]

crytek promissed amazing graphics and didn't deliver. that's a fact. there was nobody stopping you to lower your settings in crysis 1 if your pc couldn't handle it maxxed out. this was great because it made you want to play it again as soon as you got better hardware and enjoy more and more eyecandy. if you max it out now on a gtx 460 there's no point in playing the game again a year from now with a gtx 680 for example

 

[anonmoniker]

Most games look like crap (and worse, run like crap) on even midrange hardware with midrange settings - and the FPS (even the multiplatform FPS) is the largest example.

What is this I don't even...

90% or more of FPS to come out in the last couple of years can be maxed at decent resolution on old mid-range cards from previous generations like the 5850. People with mediocre PCs practically have the entire market to themselves. Crysis 2 was supposed to be the one game for the true enthusiasts, but because Crytek decided to prostitute itself we can't even have that.

 

[AthlonXP]

crytek promissed amazing graphics and didn't deliver. that's a fact. there was nobody stopping you to lower your settings in crysis 1 if your pc couldn't handle it maxxed out. this was great because it made you want to play it again as soon as you got better hardware and enjoy more and more eyecandy. if you max it out now on as gtx 460 there's no point in play the game again a year from now with a gtx 680 for example

+1 my man, they totally dropped the ball on this one.

 

[PGHammer]

I don't have any issues with the mid-range crowd, but the answers I'm getting for you and others around the web is the "either or" effect, one or the other, both can't exist(mid-range and high end performance). I remember a business diagram that had segments of Cheap, Quality, Time or something like that. Companies can only get two of the three to overlap i.e. Cheap and fast, quality but longer production time etc.

I can understand the choices companies have to make, but the game went in a totally different direction from the first, that doesn't happen often. Once they said the next game was going to take place in New York, I immediately knew it was because of it becoming multiplatform. Think about the effect this would have on other games if they left their current environment for another, how well it would be accepted? There will be more than a few moans and groans.

Didn't Crytek in fact, intimate that Crysis 2 would head in a different direction than the first game?

However, a different direction need not necessarily be a *bad* direction, and Crysis 2 certainly proves that.

Most developers tend to stick to one sort of game, and one sort of hardware target (even the major developers, such as id and Epic, are that pigeonholed). The reason that sort of direction-change doesn't happen often is that it seldom is even remotely successful (let alone well-received by the developer's fanbase - look at how bad *Blizzard* has been whacked over Starcraft 2, let alone GPG/Square Enix over SupCom 2; while SupCom 2 has been barely successful, Starcraft 2 has done very well, yet it has cut no ice with the critics of Blizzard's move). Crysis 2, strictly as a PC title, could actually be successful in a way that no PC FPS since HL2 has been (largely because it is not as much of a hardware beast as the first) - however, it largely won't get any respect for it.

 

[quackduck]

the game looks great, imo, the best graphics of any game I've played, but not that much better than Crysis 1. When I bought Crysis 1, no one could even play it on max settings. And yet I can play Crysis 2 on max settings with only one video card (because crossfire and sli are bugged and make the game unplayable)

So, yea, it's slightly disappointing. I hope the multiplayer has more replay value.

 

[WorldExclusive]

The are some parts of the game that looks up to par and then there are other parts, the tunnels, inside rooms etc. are lacking quality. The outside environments looks much better than the inside environments, pretty similar to the first ironically. The character models are generic, especially the person you have to find and others that actually have faces. It's Crytek, I thought they could deliver a great experience to mid-range and high-end gamers, I guess not.

All hope isn't lost, I'll hold onto it for another week in anticipation for a DX11 patch. If it takes more than a week, I'm sure my friend will enjoy the game more than me.

 

[SoFGR]

if you max it out now on as gtx 460 there's no point in play the game again a year from now with a gtx 680 for example

Please get serious or GTFO, the freaking game got released FOUR YEARS AGO, a midrange 2010 graphics card should SMOKE IT. What's the point of playing a mediocre 6 hour long singleplayer campaign over and over again ? I'm actually tempted to get a nvidia card for my second build so i can play crysis 2 SP in 3D since i already own a 120hz monitor, thanks for posting your feedback heatlesssun, too bad that you have to type the same thing over and over because of all this senseless non stop bashing that is going on in this thread.

 

[PGHammer]

What is this I don't even...

90% or more of FPS to come out in the last couple of years can be maxed at decent resolution on old mid-range cards from previous generations like the 5850. People with mediocre PCs practically have the entire market to themselves. Crysis 2 was supposed to be the one game for the true enthusiasts, but because Crytek decided to prostitute itself we can't even have that.

HD5850 was a high-end (not midrange) card of that generation ; the HD5750 was the midrange card of that generation.

And very few FPS titles of the past two years look decent on even the HD5750 (the exception, so far, has been Metro 2033, and even that requires tweakage to get).

You were expecting another hardware-enthusiasts' title because that has, historically, been what Crytek was about.

Why did you expect Crytek to shrug off all the brickbats they had gotten over the beastliness of Crysis (most of which even Kyle admits they deserved)?

That's why the real issue is that Crytek actually listened to the critics, and changed their target (and by and large did so successfully - not many multiplatform titles, and none in the FPS space, have done as well). You wanted another hardware beast, but didn't get one.

 

[rantanamo]

LOL, what do you guys consider decent looking?

 

[Silus]

The are some parts of the game that looks up to par and then there are other parts, the tunnels, inside rooms etc. are lacking quality. The outside environments looks much better than the inside environments, pretty similar to the first ironically. The character models are generic, especially the person you have to find and others that actually have faces. It's Crytek, I thought they could deliver a great experience to mid-range and high-end gamers, I guess not.

All hope isn't lost, I'll hold onto it for another week in anticipation for a DX11 patch. If it takes more than a week, I'm sure my friend will enjoy the game more than me.

Do you know that DX11 brings almost NOTHING visually, when compared to DX9 ? So what will DX11 change in your view of Crysis 2 ?

Is it just for the "hey I'm playing a game that has settings set to DX11" factor ? That's...well...ridiculous...

 

[WorldExclusive]

Do you know that DX11 brings almost NOTHING visually, when compared to DX9 ? So what will DX11 change in your view of Crysis 2 ?

Is it just for the "hey I'm playing a game that has settings set to DX11" factor ? That's...well...ridiculous...

Here's hoping for better textures, lighting, shadows etc. not just bumpy surfaces(DX11 covers DX10), there are DX10 files in my Crysis folder. The interior textures are lacking compared to the outside environment.
In the first Crysis Very High had to be enabled in DX9 for the visuals to improve. That's not the case in Crysis 2, there's no level above the three settings. DX10/11 would brings us a true Extreme setting.

 

[-Tetsuo-]

Some of you guys are really going overboard. Crysis 1 does not looks better than Crysis 2 at all. Modded, you might be able to compare them but vanilla is just crazy talk. It runs worse, as well.

 

[defiant007]

Running Crysis 2 on hardware 4 years more recent than what was available when Crysis was released and then claiming Crysis 2 is better optimised is not based on a fair comparison.

Someone run it on hardware that was available back then and tell us how well it performs.

 

[shansoft]

Some of you guys are really going overboard. Crysis 1 does not looks better than Crysis 2 at all. Modded, you might be able to compare them but vanilla is just crazy talk. It runs worse, as well.

Huh? That might be your personal opinion.. but the majority, including me see the entire opposite..

Not mention in Crysis 2 everything is made with low resolution texture and minimum polygon usage.
Tree's and other object are horrible compare to the first game...

Shader, shadows, DX10 motion blur, smokes, particle effects, water effect.. All of them are better in Crysis 1.. No idea where you see how its better than Crysis 2..

 

[WabeWalker]

Some of you guys are really going overboard. Crysis 1 does not looks better than Crysis 2 at all. Modded, you might be able to compare them but vanilla is just crazy talk. It runs worse, as well.

It's crazy talk. Some of these levels are mind blowing. This is an amazing engine. I hope that other developers choose to license it.

 

[Silus]

Here's hoping for better textures, lighting, shadows etc. not just bumpy surfaces(DX11 covers DX10), there are DX10 files in my Crysis folder. The interior textures are lacking compared to the outside environment.
In the first Crysis Very High had to be enabled in DX9 for the visuals to improve. That's not the case in Crysis 2, there's no level above the three settings. DX10/11 would brings us a true Extreme setting.

For it to have higher res textures, it doesn't need DX11. DX10/DX11 will not bring a true extreme setting, because DX10 in Crysis 1 didn't either. It was practically identical to the experience with DX9...DX11's worthy feature is tessellation and is something that you won't notice in a fast paced shooter as Crysis 2 is (much like you don't notice its use in games like Dirt 2)

The only gripe I have with Crysis 2, is the fact that I don't have as much graphical settings to fiddle with, as I had in Crysis 1, but there are console commands for that...so I sitll have some choice in that regard. Motion blur is a bit exaggerated in some portions, but overall, Crysis 2 looks amazing and I'm still waiting to see a better looking game. Is it much better than Crysis 1 ? No, I would actually say on par, although the setting of both games, makes it hard to compare. But it looks awesome from any perspective.

And I can't even play it in 3D, which is something I would like to try out, since everything I read about Crysis 2 experience in 3D, is very good.

 

[anonmoniker]

HD5850 was a high-end (not midrange) card of that generation ; the HD5750 was the midrange card of that generation.

And very few FPS titles of the past two years look decent on even the HD5750 (the exception, so far, has been Metro 2033, and even that requires tweakage to get).

You were expecting another hardware-enthusiasts' title because that has, historically, been what Crytek was about.

Why did you expect Crytek to shrug off all the brickbats they had gotten over the beastliness of Crysis (most of which even Kyle admits they deserved)?

That's why the real issue is that Crytek actually listened to the critics, and changed their target (and by and large did so successfully - not many multiplatform titles, and none in the FPS space, have done as well). You wanted another hardware beast, but didn't get one.

Bullshit. The 5850 launched at $250 and was decidedly a mid-range card. The high end cards of that generation were the 5870, GTX 480, and 5970, launching at $380, $500, and $600 respectively and that does not even represent the true high end due to so many people running SLI/CF. What you are talking about with a 5750 is not a "mid-range" card. It is a budget card. Get your tiers straight.

 

[shansoft]

For it to have higher res textures, it doesn't need DX11. DX10/DX11 will not bring a true extreme setting, because DX10 in Crysis 1 didn't either. It was practically identical to the experience with DX9...DX11's worthy feature is tessellation and is something that you won't notice in a fast paced shooter as Crysis 2 is (much like you don't notice its use in games like Dirt 2)

The only gripe I have with Crysis 2, is the fact that I don't have as much graphical settings to fiddle with, as I had in Crysis 1, but there are console commands for that...so I sitll have some choice in that regard. Motion blur is a bit exaggerated in some portions, but overall, Crysis 2 looks amazing and I'm still waiting to see a better looking game. Is it much better than Crysis 1 ? No, I would actually say on par, although the setting of both games, makes it hard to compare. But it looks awesome from any perspective.

And I can't even play it in 3D, which is something I would like to try out, since everything I read about Crysis 2 experience in 3D, is very good.

The motion blur is what it change the game for me in Crysis DX10..

The DX9 version is just horrible, and Crysis 2 is just even worse and making me sick while playing it..

 

[WorldExclusive]

For it to have higher res textures, it doesn't need DX11. DX10/DX11 will not bring a true extreme setting, because DX10 in Crysis 1 didn't either. It was practically identical to the experience with DX9...DX11's worthy feature is tessellation and is something that you won't notice in a fast paced shooter as Crysis 2 is (much like you don't notice its use in games like Dirt 2)

The only gripe I have with Crysis 2, is the fact that I don't have as much graphical settings to fiddle with, as I had in Crysis 1, but there are console commands for that...so I sitll have some choice in that regard. Motion blur is a bit exaggerated in some portions, but overall, Crysis 2 looks amazing and I'm still waiting to see a better looking game. Is it much better than Crysis 1 ? No, I would actually say on par, although the setting of both games, makes it hard to compare. But it looks awesome from any perspective.

And I can't even play it in 3D, which is something I would like to try out, since everything I read about Crysis 2 experience in 3D, is very good.

I'm only asking for DX10 because there's not a level above DX9 high in Crysis 2, the very high and extreme settings are placebos at best. DX10 could be Very High and Extreme could be DX11, just speculation on my part.

Well we have an about hour to Nvidia's GTX 590 announcement, if no word about Crysis 2 DX10/11, the game will be sold today. I'll buy it again when the price is around $20 after everything is patched up and the SDK/mods are released.

Question for anyone:

When you first started the game and checked you graphic settings, what was the default setting, High, Very High or Extreme? What model of video card are you using?

 

[Buxaroo]

Do you know that DX11 brings almost NOTHING visually, when compared to DX9 ? So what will DX11 change in your view of Crysis 2 ?

Is it just for the "hey I'm playing a game that has settings set to DX11" factor ? That's...well...ridiculous...

I had no idea blind people could post on these forums.

Play Metro 2033 in DX9 mode. Then play it in DX11 mode. Get back to me if you don't see any visual changes. Or is it because you are speaking out of your ass?

EDIT: reference for differences/comparisons

Source: http://forums.extremeoverclocking.com/showthread.php?p=3662742



Some pictures showing the differences in tesselation:

DX9:

DX11:

 

[orangeblue]

Okay, I'm still getting the "network error" when trying to create a multiplayer account! How do I fix this this? Also, when you apply console changes, do they stay permanent, or do you have to modify them each time you enter the game?

 

[piscian18]

I had no idea blind people could post on these forums.

Play Metro 2033 in DX9 mode. Then play it in DX11 mode. Get back to me if you don't see any visual changes. Or is it because you are speaking out of your ass?

EDIT: reference for differences/comparisons

Source: http://forums.extremeoverclocking.com/showthread.php?p=3662742

Some people get DX11 confused with DX10. If it helps people you can also check on the Stalker DX11 vs DX9 comparisons on youtube. There's just a lot more things you can do with DX11 you can't do in DX9

 

[Nytegard]

crytek promissed amazing graphics and didn't deliver. that's a fact. there was nobody stopping you to lower your settings in crysis 1 if your pc couldn't handle it maxxed out. this was great because it made you want to play it again as soon as you got better hardware and enjoy more and more eyecandy. if you max it out now on a gtx 460 there's no point in playing the game again a year from now with a gtx 680 for example

Another +1.

Yes, people whined when Crysis 1 came out, about how it would not run maxxed out with 4xAA on their hardware. They were spoiled by other companies who would release watered down games for the masses, rather than listening to a company which stated the game would have next-gen graphics. I wasn't one to whine about how my PC couldn't run it with every option on at the time though, and was willing to live with playing on mostly high with a couple medium choices. Even with that it still looked better than every other game out at the time. I've stated before back then that had Crytek just released the game without the Ultra settings and called High settings the Ultra settings, everyone would be gushing over how great it looked, etc. But because they offered you the future today, people would see the difference in visual quality, and automatically think that they were playing a game which looked worse than Half-Life 2.

Sadly, Crytek did just that. They took their lower quality settings and labeled them as the best settings, and all those people who were complaining about not being able to run on Ultra, suddenly saw their "horribly ugly unoptimized game" turn into "the best looking game ever".

Believe it or not, there is a place for the hardware enthusiast. Now, they might not be as influential as they might like to believe, but gamers everywhere owe them at least a little, as someone has to be moving into the future. Their willing to spend the big bucks which help drive down the prices and make it more affordable for the masses. As previous posters have stated, why upgrade if I won't see any immediate improvement? How is NVidia or AMD going to convince you to purchase their new 680's and 7990's if gamers are still stuck on DX9 with XBox quality graphics?

I'm sorry, that's what we're on, 2005 XBox 360 quality graphics. I don't care if the resolution can be increased, because in the end, the game is just the same, only with smoother edges. But we don't live in 2005, we live in 2011. Crysis was a step in the right direction towards the evolution of gaming, and now we've just taken a step back into last generation.

 

[g-money]

I had no idea blind people could post on these forums.

Play Metro 2033 in DX9 mode. Then play it in DX11 mode. Get back to me if you don't see any visual changes. Or is it because you are speaking out of your ass?

EDIT: reference for differences/comparisons

Source: http://forums.extremeoverclocking.com/showthread.php?p=3662742



Some pictures showing the differences in tesselation:

DX9:

http://forums.extremeoverclocking.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=146451&d=1269907996

DX11:
http://forums.extremeoverclocking.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=146452&d=1269907996

To be fair Silus did say almost nothing. However the reality is that the reason you see far more stunning effects with DX11 is because it also encompasses DX10. Therefore, just as you are backing up there is a visual difference between DX9 and DX11. But the real difference is that DX11 performs as well as DX9 with those extra effects.

Properly stated, I am disappointed that Crysis 2 isn't implementing DX10 effects with DX9 performance by way of DX11.

 

[WorldExclusive]

No word on DX11 still after the Nvidia announcement, they ran Crysus 2 in DX9 with a GTX 590, wow. This game is outta here. What a disappointment.
Even the "hold my hand" gameplay couldn't keep me interested.

Press F to Look , Q for Armor Mode, E for cloak, Tactical options available etc.
They won't clear off the screen until you press the key.

A floppy penis of a game, indeed. Maximum Blue Balls.

 

[GregP24]

My buddy picked it up and says it's pretty fun. I don't have the money for it right now, and I'm not a thief, so I plan to wait until the dx11 patch to get it. Or a good sale.

 

[Diseaseboy]

You're going to have to face that fact this is a no win situation. If you don't buy a PC game then there is no incentive for someone to make them- if you buy a PC game that is essentially a console port then you keep encouraging it. I agree with Kyle in that Nvidia and AMD/ATI need to be worried. I am not buying $400.00 video cards for 1 or 2 games a year anymore. I honestly think AMD and Nvidia kind of know this- that is why they are not just about high end PC graphics anymore. I did get a chance to play Crysis 2 on the 360 last night, and to be honest , it really is not a bad game at all and looks quite impressive for a console title. I had a good time playing it. I suspect this is going to be an ongoing conversation around here- I am willing to bet the same conversation will come up when DNF, Rage and BF3 come out. I know they are saying BF3 will be more PC specific but I just can't believe them at this point.

 

[sd11]

I hate to say this, but the people complaining that their high end SLI rigs aren't pushed, are the real problem with PC gaming and the real people hurting it and killing it off.

Most PC's don't have, and never will have high end cards. Part of it is a fact that they just cost way to damn much and are only worth it for video games, and part of it is that most computers being sold today are laptops or thin and light desktops.

So if a company designs a game to really use, they just made a game that is crap for the 95% of potential PC customers that don't have that. So what you have is a very vocal minority screaming at the top of their lungs that a company take a massive financial risk by developing a game only they can truly enjoy, and then the company not being shocked at all when the game doesn't sell well and the other 95% people feel ripped off because they can't run it.

And you know what, this trend and this gap is only going to continue and those high rigs are going to be a smaller and smaller minority, and there is going to be less and less profit in catering towards you guys. I won't even go back to the 90's as things were far cheaper then and a lot more people could enjoy games properly. But I paid about 300 for a 9700pro fastest you could get at the time and you could drop one in any PC. I paid about 400 for a 6800 ultra and then had to upgrade a PSU bringing it up to 500. Then I had a 7900 SLI configuration that cost about 1000 bucks, required a massive PSU and you couldn't fit that and a PSU in most cases. Then I had a 1100 buck 8800 SLI configuration with an even more massive PSU in an even more massive case, now I have a tri-sli configuration that cost over 1300 bucks requires an even larger PSU and sucks power like a mule.

If you can't tell, the ability for most people with computers to play games compared to the high end has become non existent, and with most people buying laptops or small desktops, they couldn't even start to upgrade towards the high end even if they wanted to.

It makes zero sense for a company that wants to sell it's game to sell it to that fraction of a portion of people who have that sort of horsepower in their box, and it makes no sense for the other 95% of people to pay for a game where the entire point is the visuals if they aren't going to be able to enjoy it, and "enjoy it later" doesn't count because by the time they can the game is old hat, nobody is playing it, and something else is out.

I'm rather shocked that people who insist on racing towards being even more of a fringe and niche market get so mad when they realize that people don't bend over backwards to please them when there isn't enough of them to really make a good profit off of, and blaming "the consoles" isn't going to help here. There are more PC's out there than consoles, they just aren't cutting edge. If PC gaming is going to take off again and grow, and get proper attention, it's not going to be from catering to an ever shrinking minority of high end owners no matter how vocal they get. It's going to be from AMD and nvidia focusing on quality IGPs, quality mid/low end and mobile parts that sip power, and developers being able to take those items to the max so they can sell games like gang busters.

 

[Modred189]

I'm rather shocked that people who insist on racing towards being even more of a fringe and niche market get so mad when they realize that people don't bend over backwards to please them when there isn't enough of them to really make a good profit off of, and blaming "the consoles" isn't going to help here.

You miss the point entirely. DX11, high end graphics, and open world gameplay were promised TO THE PC MARKET, by their CEO. based on those promises, many PC gamers bought the game, only to find that they were stuck with NONE of those things, and in fact a regression on several of them.

THAT is the issue. THAT is why people are pissed off.

We were promised yummy pastrami sandwiches, and instead got fecal-salad on south-beach diet style flatbread.

 

[Silus]

I had no idea blind people could post on these forums.

Play Metro 2033 in DX9 mode. Then play it in DX11 mode. Get back to me if you don't see any visual changes. Or is it because you are speaking out of your ass?

EDIT: reference for differences/comparisons

Source: http://forums.extremeoverclocking.com/showthread.php?p=3662742



Some pictures showing the differences in tesselation:

DX9:

snip

DX11:
snip

No, not speaking out of my ass, but you do have your ass in your mouth.

Tessellation IS the only graphical difference and some of your examples show it being used in a benchmark, not a game. The Metro 2033 shots are minimal as well (and the thread you link to shows that). Plus it's something you won't even notice in movement, much like you don't notice it being applied to people in the crowd in Dirt 2. No one is saying DX11 is crap, but the visual difference is almost none existent, with the exception of tessellation, of which there aren't even many cases of proper use.

So please, instead of wanting to start some stupid flamewar, actually do some research on the real differences between DX9, DX10 and DX11.

 

[Modred189]

My buddy picked it up and says it's pretty fun. I don't have the money for it right now, and I'm not a thief, so I plan to wait until the dx11 patch to get it. Or a good sale.

+1 I'm going to be getting several games, for full price, before C2; AssBro, Lego Starwars (don't judge me!), DA2, got Shogun for free, and soon Portal 2.

C2 can wait.

 

[Silus]

To be fair Silus did say almost nothing. However the reality is that the reason you see far more stunning effects with DX11 is because it also encompasses DX10. Therefore, just as you are backing up there is a visual difference between DX9 and DX11. But the real difference is that DX11 performs as well as DX9 with those extra effects.

Properly stated, I am disappointed that Crysis 2 isn't implementing DX10 effects with DX9 performance by way of DX11.

DX9 to DX10 brought the basic differences between DX10 and DX11 i.e. almost nothing.
DX10.1 had some real improvements in efficiency, but not visuals. DX11 is D10.1 with proper tessellation support and obviously even more efficiency tweaks.

So visual quality wise, DX11 doesn't really bring much to the table. Now if you want to bring efficiency to the table, as you did, I would have to agree.

 

[WorldExclusive]

You miss the point entirely. DX11, high end graphics, and open world gameplay were promised TO THE PC MARKET, by their CEO. based on those promises, many PC gamers bought the game, only to find that they were stuck with NONE of those things, and in fact a regression on several of them.

THAT is the issue. THAT is why people are pissed off.

We were promised yummy pastrami sandwiches, and instead got fecal-salad on south-beach diet style flatbread.

Not even DX10 that was in the first game. So Crytek takes DX10 because it doesn't make a difference when the majority of PC gamers have DX10 cards? Yeah ok.
The detail isn't there. People are saying the sunlight and water reflections look great, what about the walls, road/ground, aliens, human faces and hair? Low res textures. Some areas look better than others, but as a whole, there was no real focus on the PC version. I can't get immersed in the story when the facial animations look like most console titles, a step back from C1 and Warhead. Look at Psyco's face in Warhead, then look at the scientist face or the female solider and the male solider that's with her in C2. Big difference.

 

[Silus]

Some people get DX11 confused with DX10. If it helps people you can also check on the Stalker DX11 vs DX9 comparisons on youtube. There's just a lot more things you can do with DX11 you can't do in DX9

Not me. I'm perfectly aware of what I said and I stand by it. Other than tessellation (which I already explained is rather irrelevant because of the way it's being applied now), show me examples of this great visual difference between DX9 and DX11.
Since this is a Crysis thread, you can always start by the "big" difference between Crysis DX9 and DX10 (that will be fun to watch).

Here's an example: http://www.gamespot.com/features/6182140/index.html

Then some other game (can be Metro 2033), with the differences between DX9 and DX11

And here's an example too: http://www.overclock.net/pc-games/690645-metro-2033-dx9-vs-dx11-without.html

Can you see the big difference ? You'll be lying if you do

 

[sd11]

You miss the point entirely. DX11, high end graphics, and open world gameplay were promised TO THE PC MARKET, by their CEO. based on those promises, many PC gamers bought the game, only to find that they were stuck with NONE of those things, and in fact a regression on several of them.

THAT is the issue. THAT is why people are pissed off.

We were promised yummy pastrami sandwiches, and instead got fecal-salad on south-beach diet style flatbread.

There aren't enough DX11 cards in the wild for it to really matter, and the effects are coming later.

And the only PC "Gamers" I see pissed off are the ones on enthusiast forums who care more about benchmarks and being able to post pictures of fancy rigs than actually playing the game. People on gaming forums (you know, those sorry saps who only have a single GPU and it's a mid range one and cheaper systems) seem rather happy with it as they can actually run this game compared to the other one and enjoy the game play.

So yeah, the tiny percent didn't get treated like special children and the majority of gamers got a product that they can run and is thus a better product for them than Crysis 1. It looks like Crytek got their head out of their ass.

 

[Modred189]

Not even DX10 that was in the first game. So Crytek takes DX10 because it doesn't make a difference when the majority of PC gamers have DX10 cards? Yeah ok.
The detail isn't there. People are saying the sunlight and water reflections look great, what about the walls, road/ground, aliens, human faces and hair? Low res textures. Some areas look better than others, but as a whole, there was no real focus on the PC version. I can't get immersed in the story when the facial animations look like most console titles, a step back from C1 and Warhead. Look at Psyco's face in Warhead, then look at the scientist face or the female solider and the male solider that's with her in C2. Big difference.

Yea, Crysis and Warhead were both DX10

 

[magoo]

I don't think we, as a minority in the gaming crowd are ruining anything.
I don't think that it is unreasonable to want a graphical experience that pushes the hardware.

If it was unreasonable, why are there top of the line GPUs in the market?

It would be completely understandable for Crytek to release a console version and a separate PC version, no? More cost, probably. But why not develop the thing seperately and sell a real PC version with all the bells and whistles? We know they are capable of putting out killer packages.

I'd pay more for the PC version if I knew it had something for me that was better than the 360......

But, that's fantasy I think. This may be our demise.....and I hate consoles.

 

[FranklyShankly]

It would be completely understandable for Crytek to release a console version and a separate PC version, no? More cost, probably. But why not develop the thing seperately and sell a real PC version with all the bells and whistles? We know they are capable of putting out killer packages.

They jacked up the price on PC $10 and not on any other platform. That money should have gone to cover extra development cost for the PC, but it clearly didn't.

Aside: Remember how everyone used to say there's no such thing as future-proof? I think sadly, now there is, and a lot of us are already there.

 

[ex0du5]

Tactical Options available! You can sneak here! You can ledgegrab here! You can avoid combat here!

I find this rather insulting.

Game is still kind of fun, and it looks very nice...but yeah I'm definitely feeling the consolization in terms of game presentation. It wouldn't be so bad if they game let you discover things on your own.

Oh, and again, I have a high-end SLI rig, and I prefer the graphical approach they've taken here. I, for one, don't want another Metro 2033 or STALKER. My rig can't even run Metro 2033 at 30fps most of the time. I can find better and more creative ways to push my hardware and maintain a stable framerate: triple monitors, supersampling, 3D, etc... I'm glad we're moving away from games that can't hold a solid framerate on top-end gear.

 

[Dan_D]

Tactical Options available! You can sneak here! You can ledgegrab here! You can avoid combat here!

I find this rather insulting.

Game is still kind of fun, and it looks very nice...but yeah I'm definitely feeling the consolization in terms of game presentation. It wouldn't be so bad if they game let you discover things on your own.

Oh, and again, I have a high-end SLI rig, and I prefer the graphical approach they've taken here. I, for one, don't want another Metro 2033 or STALKER. My rig can't even run Metro 2033 at 30fps most of the time. I can find better and more creative ways to push my hardware and maintain a stable framerate: triple monitors, supersampling, 3D, etc... I'm glad we're moving away from games that can't hold a solid framerate on top-end gear.

But Crysis 2 doesn't really push the boundaries too much either. I'd like to see a game that makes upgrading my hardware compelling again. Crysis wasn't that game. I didn't upgrade for it. I upgraded it then always tried to see if Crysis ran well on it but I wasn't that concerned about the game itself because it wasn't that good. Honestly I haven't really played anything worth upgrading for in years.