Official Crysis 2 Thread

Reality said:
I'm running a 5870 2GB (Sys in Sig), and the game runs like shit at 3518x1920 + Extreme :(
Click to expand...

You are, or rather your video card is rendering more than 3 times as many pixels, its a pretty steep comparison though your card is faster.
 
I bought Crysis 2 to test if my 2.5+ year old system can still handle it. To my amazement, it still can! I'm even playing at 1920x1200 extreme settings with 50 fps average. ATM with my current rig, I can still run my other games at max settings too. This is the reason why I'm still holding off upgrading.

I really thought that Crysis 2 will convince me to upgrade soon, but I guess not.
 
I'm still plagued by strange skipping around using mouselook...yet playing with a pad is as smooth as silk.
 
Dan_D said:
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.
Click to expand...

QFT.

Honestly, I don't foresee anything coming in the near-future that even hints at making any further upgrading worth it or necessary. It's a little disappointing, given how much enthusiasts enjoy and spend on hardware/upgrading, to get the best experience possible.

Both my wife and I are hardcore gamers, into FPS, RPGs etc., and neither of our systems are even being remotely pushed. I'm running an i7 950, GTX 580, 6GB RAM @ 1920 res, and my wife's rig is running an E8600 dual (3.33), GTX 580, 4GB RAM @ 1920 res, and neither of our systems are pushed by anything currently on the market.

I also agree with the post stating that, if you have enter console commands and/or mess with files just to increase the quality or performance of a game, that the software and design is flawed. Doing it for fun is one thing, but "having" to do it to make a game look better, well, if it's possible to even do at all, then it should have been released in such a quality in the first place.

Honestly, I miss the days when you could just install a game, max-out the visuals in-game, not have to deal with editing .ini files, online activations and such garbage, and just play the damn game. I don't mind using great mods or messing with settings to really push visuals etc., but it shouldn't be "necessary" these days, just because too many devs are catering to the console crowd.

There's so much "drama" in the industry at this point, especially with PC gaming, that it's actually put me off from more games over time than I would have expected. I'm finding myself looking forward to certain games then, in the end, scratching them off my list for one reason or another. Either they're too "consolized", and/or the DRM scheme is just unacceptable and ridiculous, and/or games are just turning out to be far lower in quality than they used to be, and also shorter, for the most part.

The only games coming up this year I feel I can even "take seriously" at this point, are Battlefield 3, Guild Wars 2, Dungeon Siege 3 and maybe Brink.

As for Crytek, they're just generally full of shit, always talking out both sides of their mouths regarding PC gaming, and I cant stomach their attitude regarding anything anymore.
 
chaos4u said:
So yeah the true hardcore among us are going to turn our nose up at these companies releasing mediocrity on to the masses. because we have truly been there done that and done it again .

what we really want is to be truly dazzled by new technology and new game engines that actually push the envelope of gaming beyond whats already been achieved .
Hell we have the new technology but where is the game engines that take advantage of it ? unfortunately the engineers are probably to busy trying to fit what should be a 5 gigabyte game into 512 megabytes. so yeah console are ruining gaming because it severely limiting the amount of creative minds from working on grand projects and instead has them playing mind games like how many clowns can fit into a yugo and still go. this very puzzle has probably set a large percentage of our software engineers back 20 years.
Click to expand...

Amen. Been playing FPS games since Wolf3D myself and I see the advertisements and previews for all these "innovative" FPS games and realize it's all marketing hype. Have to love consoles where you cannot usually play a trial version of a game. You purchase the full release version and if you don't like it, too F'n bad. Also, how many Street Fighter / Marvel / Capcom games are we going to see get released. I wonder how many kids playing those 2D fighting games know they are playing the same thing many of us did in the old arcades.

About the "making it fit" on a console, Final Fantasy 14 development is a prime example of that. The environments, textures, enemies, all are endlessly repetitive because the game has to work with a console. Square Enix will spend more time trying to figure out how to program everything to fit in the PS3 memory array than it took to code the game for the PC. (Yes I know FFXIV blows, just using the PC-console differences and conversion problems.)

To those who mentioned Electronic (F)Arts, I have hated them ever since they screwed with Need for Speed. NFS3 Hot Pursuit was some of the most fun I'd had on the PC, and every NFS after that one had AI that cheated worse than Bernard Madoff.

To Kyle: Keep it up. At least I know there is one computer enthusiast site that will never accept money for a good review. I've always respected [H] and will always know the truth resides here.
 
Last edited:
Buxaroo said:
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:

attachment.php


DX11:
attachment.php
Click to expand...

Metro really only looks vastly different in DX11 mode because of the aggressive depth of field, which is just non existent in the DX9 mode - I'm not convinced, however, that it actually is a DX11 feature.

And the pictures you've provided above are obviously not from a game. That's from a tech demo. All that does is demonstrate what's capable in a tech demo. A game obviously needs to draw on multiple resources from a computer, and that demo is focusing on tesselation. In real world applications tesselation has been a bust. If Crysis 2 were tesselated that aggressively nobody would be able to run it.
 
Well damn. Setting a high FOV (I tried both 75 and 90, since Crysis seems to use vertical FOV) results in the camera clipping into the environment at the edge of the screen. It happens when you approach the designated "cover spots" where Alcatraz will point his gun up and you can use the mouse to aim around the cover. If you pan the camera so that the right or left edge of the screen is against the cover (and Alcatraz is still pointing his gun up), you can see right through that piece of cover.

I guess it's back to the default FOV (55) until they fix this.
 
I hate to break it to you, but a lot of "dumbing down" is not because of consoles, it's generational.

I've gamed on consoles since the NES, arcades since the golden capcom and neo-geo era, and PC's since Wolf3D.

The truth, all platforms are getting dumbed the fuck down at the same rate. This is not caused by any particular platform. It's a universal trend wherever you look and "old school' or "hardcore" gamers, regardless of platform are universally pissed.

Take Street Fighter 4 which is a cross platform game, it's the most watered down and simplistic SF game that ever came out. It's universally hated by old schoolers for those reasons.

The reason is pretty obvious, games cost more money to make than ever. So they need to maximize sales. And gaming is no longer part of nerd culture, it's main stream. So companies need to sell a ton of games to people that did not grow up gaming through the 80's and 90's, they need to cater to a ton of people that need a lot of hand holding, and this holds true no matter the platform.
 
Dan_D said:
Honestly I haven't really played anything worth upgrading for in years.
Click to expand...

+1

There is just an enormous amount of shit being released right now, I'll be upgrading for BF3 but other than that, there is literally nothing else that has me the slightest bit interested in upgrading.

My next electronic toys budget is being put towards a 1080p projector, slowly lost all interest in my PC over the last few years, the 5970 was the last treat and wont be replaced for a while at this rate.
 
WabeWalker said:
A game obviously needs to draw on multiple resources from a computer, and that demo is focusing on tesselation. In real world applications tesselation has been a bust.
Click to expand...
It's still a relatively new feature. Crysis 2 could take significant advantage of D3D11's tesselation features for landscape and water displacement, and the performance speedups there could be incredibly significant. Of course it's hard to take advantage of those features when you don't actually bother implementing a D3D11 path.
 
sd11 said:
I hate to break it to you, but a lot of "dumbing down" is not because of consoles, it's generational.

I've gamed on consoles since the NES, arcades since the golden capcom and neo-geo era, and PC's since Wolf3D.

The truth, all platforms are getting dumbed the fuck down at the same rate. This is not caused by any particular platform. It's a universal trend wherever you look and "old school' or "hardcore" gamers, regardless of platform are universally pissed.
Click to expand...


I am biased...I am big a fan of the game...but Sins of a Solar Empire cost less than a million to make...it's a pure PC game with a learning curve and it was Game of the Year. Just thought i'd float that out there. It's nice to know some companies can still innovate.

"... Sins of a Solar Empire is a game for a thinking person, it's like a really satisfying game of chess and it is not for the impatient..."
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Uw1h-00lRE

Just a quick 5 min video I recorded which quickly demonstrates what's wrong with Crysis 2. If you still can't see how it's a devolution, be glad you enjoy the game. But the game has been consolized.

Yes, I'm at the beginning of the game. I won't deny that. But the point is that you should be showing off the game's cool features within the first 10 minutes to get people immersed. After all, it doesn't matter if the second half of the game is the greatest thing in history, if no one is willing to play through until that point in time.
 
It's funny to me that so many people are complaining about Crysis 2 being shit when the first game was actually... shit. Sure it was a nice PC stress test, but the gameplay was boring as hell.

I'm waiting for this to bargain bin before ever even considering it. And, I'll probably just go the 360 route for some achievements and sofa time since the awesome novelty factor from the first game is clearly not around this time.
 
So how is it different from Crysis 1? Is it even fun? Looks heavily scripted to me like an arcade shooter.
 
dioxholster said:
So how is it different from Crysis 1? Is it even fun? Looks heavily scripted to me like an arcade shooter.
Click to expand...

It's definitely different. The game package (event scripting, plot explanation, intro, etc.) looks very professionally done, but as a game it's a pretty straightforward shooter.
It's not a good or bad one necessarily, just a pretty typical one. There aren't too many things that separate the game from the others.
Gameplay is similar with suit functions, although I honestly do think streamlining the functions to work without having to use a suit menu was for the best. Now you can swap things with the press of a button, maximum speed kicks in whenever you run, and you can hold jump/melee to automatically use maximum strength.

There's a fair amount of distant shootouts and aiming, so it isn't quite as "run up and open fire" as something like CoD, although MP tends to lean in that direction.
 
So its decent but not revolutionary? I would like to see if it sells well for consoles, will it ever reach killzone/gears of war kinda numbers?
 
Bgrngod said:
It's funny to me that so many people are complaining about Crysis 2 being shit when the first game was actually... shit. Sure it was a nice PC stress test, but the gameplay was boring as hell.
Click to expand...

I thought the original Crysis was quite excellent in terms of gameplay. I probably played the demo level alone 10 times doing it very differently each time. It wasn't a linear corridor shooter and that's a good thing in this day and age.
 
Yeah, I'd say it's decent. As an actual game I think it might be better than the first Crysis...or at least the last 1/2 of it. I enjoyed the first 2-3 really open levels but once the aliens showed up it struggled to keep my attention. Those levels were pretty much a rail shooter, and they were literally 1/2 of the game.
I still think Crysis ended up being an elaborate benchmark for most people. As a game it was shaky at best.
Far Cry on the other hand was an excellent benchmark and game. I still think it was Crytek's only 5-star project.
 
I'll admit, I didn't play a whole lot of the original crysis (up to the part with the hovercraft on ice), but from what I did, it was pretty much a straightforward rails shooter.
 
I thought the original crysis was pretty good although lacking in story. I thought crysis warhead actually did a pretty good job with characterization of Psycho and was on one of the better FPSs I've played in a while.
 
obs said:
I'll admit, I didn't play a whole lot of the original crysis (up to the part with the hovercraft on ice), but from what I did, it was pretty much a straightforward rails shooter.
Click to expand...

It was, there was nothing all the revolutionary about Crysis 1 game, the nanosuit was a great idea though that did make the game neat. But it was a blast, just like Crysis 2. Having a great time with the game. Is it consolized? Obviously. Would it have been nice to have more PC centric feaures? Absolutely. But the bottom line is that PC gamers just don't buy enough games to get a lot exclusive content and features these days. That's just the economics of it unfortunately but I can still do a ton of things on my PC that would nuke a console, like 3D Surround at 5760x1080 on Extreme and still get a fluid over 50 FPS.

If PC gamers want more content they simply have to buy more, plain and simple really. All this belly aching ain't going to get you much. Maybe the PC community should get together and try to start a PC exclusive company or something, I don't know. But bitching about lack of PC features and then not buying anything is a failed strategy.
 
TheGreySpectre said:
I thought the original crysis was pretty good although lacking in story. I thought crysis warhead actually did a pretty good job with characterization of Psycho and was on one of the better FPSs I've played in a while.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

I loved Crysis until the aliens showed up. Then that game design went to pot pretty quick for the most part and it just feels like to me that this game so far continues on THAT front: More on rails, a lot less freedom, and so forth.

I'm a bit past the area in that 5 minute video that other forumer put up, which I think really does tell the tale, and what I'm playing is a very polished and nice "typical console FPS" with graphics better than what the consoles can do. No more. No less.


I know better than to fall for any hype machine, but I seem to recall one of the many things hyped was that the battle was going to go "more vertical" (direct quote) as well. Anyone else remember that?


This implied to me at least that I should have had the freedom to not only do all the things on the ground and get lost in that city but I should also be able to scale buildings to a point and see what trouble I could get into there. Think of basically a first person Just Cause 2 and I guess that's sort of what I expected to see here.

This thing's way more on rails than part 1 was before the aliens showed up. No question about it.

I always know to have hopes conditioned downwards a bit with a lot of these games when they're developed for the consoles in mind first but let's take a recent example of a game that was on the PC and the consoles that kicked ass on the PC: Just Cause 2. Gorgeous, fun, tons of freedom.

However that game development was handled: That's the way a multiplatform title should be. The PC version of that game maxed out kicks the holy hell out of its console bretheren by leagues although it's a hell of great game no matter which platform you get it on.

That's the way it should have been for this. Just Cause 2 shows you how it can be and should be done.

Crytek really doesn't have any excuses here for the shortcuts they took considering their own pedigree coming off that first game.

I like Crysis 2 on its own merits. It's a good game. It should have been a great game and more than what it is.

My two cents.
 
Q-BZ said:
Agreed.

I loved Crysis until the aliens showed up. Then that game design went to pot pretty quick for the most part and it just feels like to me that this game so far continues on THAT front: More on rails, a lot less freedom, and so forth.

I'm a bit past the area in that 5 minute video that other forumer put up, which I think really does tell the tale, and what I'm playing is a very polished and nice "typical console FPS" with graphics better than what the consoles can do. No more. No less.


I know better than to fall for any hype machine, but I seem to recall one of the many things hyped was that the battle was going to go "more vertical" (direct quote) as well. Anyone else remember that?


This implied to me at least that I should have had the freedom to not only do all the things on the ground and get lost in that city but I should also be able to scale buildings to a point and see what trouble I could get into there. Think of basically a first person Just Cause 2 and I guess that's sort of what I expected to see here.

This thing's way more on rails than part 1 was before the aliens showed up. No question about it.

I always know to have hopes conditioned downwards a bit with a lot of these games when they're developed for the consoles in mind first but let's take a recent example of a game that was on the PC and the consoles that kicked ass on the PC: Just Cause 2. Gorgeous, fun, tons of freedom.

However that game development was handled: That's the way a multiplatform title should be. The PC version of that game maxed out kicks the holy hell out of its console bretheren by leagues although it's a hell of great game no matter which platform you get it on.

That's the way it should have been for this. Just Cause 2 shows you how it can be and should be done.

Crytek really doesn't have any excuses here for the shortcuts they took considering their own pedigree coming off that first game.

I like Crysis 2 on its own merits. It's a good game. It should have been a great game and more than what it is.

My two cents.
Click to expand...

After the aliens showed up, the game just felt rushed and far too linear.
 
I finally got to try this game on my rig. LEt me tell you that in eyefnity the game looks pretty damn impressive. My single 6950 can't get above 30fps on extreme settings @ 5760X1080.

I switched it to a single 1080p monitor and it looks pretty bad. What is the default FOV set to in this game? On a single monitor it felt like you couldn't see anything. Either way I played about 30min, got bored and switched back over to Rift.
 
guitarguy6 said:
I finally got to try this game on my rig. LEt me tell you that in eyefnity the game looks pretty damn impressive. My single 6950 can't get above 30fps on extreme settings @ 5760X1080.

I switched it to a single 1080p monitor and it looks pretty bad. What is the default FOV set to in this game? On a single monitor it felt like you couldn't see anything. Either way I played about 30min, got bored and switched back over to Rift.
Click to expand...

I'm playing on a 24" monitor and the default FOV is 55 (vertical). I tried 75 and 90 (I liked 90 the most), but like I said in an earlier post, there's camera clipping issues with high FOV. Do you have that problem with your FOV in Eyefinity?
 
GriMReapeRAK said:
I'm playing on a 24" monitor and the default FOV is 55 (vertical). I tried 75 and 90 (I liked 90 the most), but like I said in an earlier post, there's camera clipping issues with high FOV. Do you have that problem with your FOV in Eyefinity?
Click to expand...

I see clipping when I am in cover next to a long object like a wall, I can see through the object sometimes on the peripheral monitors. This is 3D Surround at 5760x1080 on the sig rig.
 
~70fov is comparable to the original Crysis. 90 fov is just fisheye mode. Keep in mind Crysis 2 uses vertical fov, and not the usual horizontal fov.
 
Dan_D said:
After the aliens showed up, the game just felt rushed and far too linear.
Click to expand...

Yup. And so far, for me, it feels like Crysis 2 is a direct sequel to just that part of the first Crysis.
 
shansoft said:
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..
Click to expand...

Everything is made with low resolution textures? What? Besides that being not true, there were low res textures all over the place in Crysis. Show me some screens pointing out how the trees are "horrible" in comparison to the first.

Particles, shadows, water etc still looks great. The motion blur is a little better in Crysis but the lighting in C2 is much better. It's a good trade.
 
Nytegard said:
After all, it doesn't matter if the second half of the game is the greatest thing in history, if no one is willing to play through until that point in time.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I'm halfway through and I can no longer stomach it.
It's get very bland in the middle of the game when the sun goes down and the aliens come out.

I think it's better to play this game with a PS3 on your couch.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top