Crysis 2 DirectX 11 Patch Debunked

[NKDietrich]

I have a powerful DX11 system and I don't give a shit. All it'll add is some crappy minor tessellation I'll never notice except when carefully analysing screenshots. Game still looks better than 90% of the shit that gets released.

That said I'll be waiting for a Steam sale.

 

[shawnoen]

The game sucks anyways, DX11 or not.

 

[sd11]

Even World of Warcraft has a DX11 optimization...

DX11 isn't everything at this point in time, but coming from the makers of two previous graphically groundbreaking games for their generation (Far Cry, and Crysis obviously); one would think it would be a Crytek requirement.

And WoW still looks like ass, a DX spec is a means to an end, not the end in and of itself.

As "ground breaking" as they were on the GFX front, they were also horrible games that most people couldn't enjoy, creating a game that an overwhelming majority of your customers won't be able to run is not a wise business strategy and it looks like Crytek learned their lesson.

Not to be a jerk, but this is why piracy is rampant...nobody want's to pay $60 for a game built on 3 year old tech unless it's awesome.

Nobody wants to pay for a game they can't run well either. The system crushing of the first one contributed to it's piracy as well. They've even admitted they screwed up by making it too advance and that it hurt their sales.

Go place 3dmark.

 

[just1tree]

The most sane comment I read in this thread. I did the same thing but more so cause my rig wasnt up to snuff then. I enjoyed it an excellent game that looked nice and could alllmost maxx out at a res one step lower than my current res. This game looks arguably better and runs beautiful on my upgraded system at native res. I'm happy as a pig in mud.


It's also funny that its still one the best looking games out there regardless of how you compare its tech.


I feel bad for all the people with this intense need to voice their hatred for this game and make sweeping assumptions of their future business goals and internal protocol within the company.

I am glad that Crytek, an up and coming company, got a chance to pull in some console money. I have faith that this game will sell well and empower them to spend the resources to also come out with an awesome new PC game that most of you will love and give you the same feeling you got when you saw the first video demo of Crysis in that jungle scene.

I've yet to see the game first hand, although I went back and replayed Crysis and Crysis Warhead this past weekend at max settings with 4x anti aliasing and I haven't played a game since that was as immersive due to the environment.

If you feel that the game is one of the best looking games out there, that's your opinion. The problem is when a company like Crytek pushes the envelope like they did with Far Cry and Crysis there is an expectation of evolution to the products they produced. They set their own bar pretty high, and if it were as ground breaking as their past works there wouldn't be this type of community reaction.

Go look at the preview videos for Battlefield 3, and compare that to Crysis 2 and tell me which game is pushing those boundaries of the technology.

 

[ol1bit]

I didn't think the pictures I saw to start with of it looked very good, and I pulled the plug on my pre-order, just to see how is went, Glad I did! They always pushed the limits of the PC video tech in the past. Now the new stuff is worse than Crysis warhead!

 

[SirKronan]

I didn't think the pictures I saw to start with of it looked very good, and I pulled the plug on my pre-order, just to see how is went, Glad I did! They always pushed the limits of the PC video tech in the past. Now the new stuff is worse than Crysis warhead!

Jeez, with all the complaints now I'm going to have to take a closer look ... I thought Crytek's goal was to somehow make the same kind of eye-popping graphics more scalable so it could reach a wider audience - both midrange PC owners AND consoles, where the money train is. They'd be a stoooopid business if they didn't go after money. I'm not saying I like PC versions of games to be the most neglected, but it's unfair for me to judge Crytek for doing it when I can't say that I wouldn't do the same thing if I was in their position. This is because, quite simply, I am not in their position.

That said, I return to the point at hand. I really hope they do release DX11 features at some point, because DX11 does bring some nice potential realism to the table. But for Crysis 2 to run on a wider variety of rigs will only help the PC industry, as more will get into gaming if they get hooked on the looks and realism of games like Crysis. They'll want better systems and video cards so they can turn on more eye candy in their games. I've seen this effect happen to people, even those who play WoW are not immune.

Do I agree with Crytek's decision? Personally, no. They set the bar for pushing the tech envelope. The cutting edge tech envelope is in DX11's court right now, despite what developers might say or want to believe. Despite my disappointment, they are still accomplishing at least somewhat what they set out to do, and what any developer REALLY wants to do: SELL MORE GAMES and MAKE MORE $$$.

Is that what the cutting edge [H] system builder wants? No. Is it reality? Yes.

 

[ChronoDetector]

I just want a menu option with more advanced graphics options, why the fuck did Crytek leave this one out? I've seen many console ports that at least includes an advanced menu option, WTF seriously...

And I'm still waiting for Crytek to fix the multiplayer, I can't even sign in most of the time, paid for this piece of shit and I can't play.

 

[DarkStar_WNY]

I've yet to see the game first hand, although I went back and replayed Crysis and Crysis Warhead this past weekend at max settings with 4x anti aliasing and I haven't played a game since that was as immersive due to the environment.

If you feel that the game is one of the best looking games out there, that's your opinion. The problem is when a company like Crytek pushes the envelope like they did with Far Cry and Crysis there is an expectation of evolution to the products they produced. They set their own bar pretty high, and if it were as ground breaking as their past works there wouldn't be this type of community reaction.

Go look at the preview videos for Battlefield 3, and compare that to Crysis 2 and tell me which game is pushing those boundaries of the technology.

Best looking or not the graphics are worthless without an enjoyable game and if a game is well done and enjoyable graphics can become almost secondary.

Look how many people still play Counter Strike, sure the graphics are dated but the game itself has outlasted multiple versions of MOH, BF, and COD although each of them had better graphics. Why? The answer is simple, because of the gameplay.

To date I've only played single player but so far I've enjoyed it considerably and while some textures could use improvement overall the game looks great and is fun to play. Remember you don't play screenshots, you play in full motion which makes a big difference.

Crysis 2's PC released was pathetic, between the strobelight effect on multi-gpu rigs to the "serial number in use" issue to the server bugs so there is plenty to complain about without whining that the graphics could have been better. Sure they could, but if your only complaint about a game is that the graphics are groundbreaking and you spend time ranting about it online you really need to get a hobby.

 

[FranklyShankly]

Sure they could, but if your only complaint about a game is that the graphics are groundbreaking and you spend time ranting about it online you really need to get a hobby.

What if my hobby is playing games with groundbreaking graphics?

 

[DarkStar_WNY]

One more thing about graphics and such, which groundbreaking games are nice I don't think every release from any company needs to constantly needs to break new ground in graphics or even gameplay.

A perfect example of this would be Half Life 2, when it was done I would have been thrilled had Valve simply used everything from HL2 to release new games more frequently instead of having to wait for years and years for the company to release a new groundbreaking game. As I recall the three episodes of HL2 (not sure why they weren't called HL3 episode 1,2 & 3 but maybe that's just me) were supposed to be released over a 4 year period after HL2''s initial release, but here we are 6.5 years later and we are still waiting for the last part of the story because developers tend to get stuck into the mindset that they have to "breaking new ground."

 

[SXO]

Graphics aside, Crysis 2 also features very on-rails style gameplay. I know some people prefer this more structured style of action, but I'm of the opinion that Crysis 1 managed to feel very cinematic without having to hold your hand through the game. Oh sure, Crysis 2 has "sandbox" sections, but the game tells you exactly what all your options are, leaving nothing for the player to figure out on their own. The game even goes so far as to tell you where all the weapon caches are, whereas things of that nature were left to be discovered by the inquisitive player in traditional PC games.

Moving beyond graphics, Crysis 2's environments are also less dynamic than that of Crysis due to the toned down physics. Considering the urban environment, I was seriously expecting CryTek to take advantage of the setting to really showcase the physics capability of the engine, instead we're treated to scripted building collapses while something as simple as a tree being shot at has no effect at all.

One more thing about graphics and such, which groundbreaking games are nice I don't think every release from any company needs to constantly needs to break new ground in graphics or even gameplay.

A perfect example of this would be Half Life 2, when it was done I would have been thrilled had Valve simply used everything from HL2 to release new games more frequently instead of having to wait for years and years for the company to release a new groundbreaking game. As I recall the three episodes of HL2 (not sure why they weren't called HL3 episode 1,2 & 3 but maybe that's just me) were supposed to be released over a 4 year period after HL2''s initial release, but here we are 6.5 years later and we are still waiting for the last part of the story because developers tend to get stuck into the mindset that they have to "breaking new ground."

I'm in agreement as far as gameplay being the primary concern regarding a game's appeal, but I have to argue against using HL2's episodic content being a good example of this. Speculation about why/what has caused the delay of any further HL games is just that, speculation. If I were a betting man I'd say that the devs simply had no new ideas regarding HL gameplay innovations so they took a break to work on their other projects. According to Gabe Newell, the devs themselves get to vote on what they'd like to work on, and I wouldn't be surprised if they decided to step away from the HL series until they could come up with the next big thing that would make the gameplay for the next installment of the series really stand-out.

 

[SirKronan]

http://www.bit-tech.net/gaming/2011/03/30/crysis-2-pc-review/1

Bit-Tech said that the game still felt like it was primarily designed for the PC, with accommodations made so it would work well on consoles, too, and they gave the PC version of the game an 8/10. That's pretty good, and I look forward to buying it eventually. I've still got too many games on my backlog right now. If it had groundbreaking graphics that rivaled the first Crysis and a story that this time would match it, then maybe I would run out and buy it like I did Starcraft II or the first two Mass Effect games. But as it sits, I'm still playing the games I have, and waiting will not only give me time to finish some of them, but also time for prices to fall.

This is a result of the choices they made when developing this game. They made a good game, but not a great game, so I can afford to wait.

 

[just1tree]

Thing about this discussion though isn't about the gameplay as the original topic had to do with Crytek stating they haven't committed to a directx 11 patch so lets stay on point =).

I'm not saying that graphics are all that's important, but this is an enthusiasts hardware site where people come to talk about the latest and greatest hardware and how to push their systems. Far Cry was a beautiful benchmark when it came out who's gameplay was very good an unexpected. Crysis was unbelievable and truly was ahead of it's time, and still is one of the more amazing looking games on the pc.

PC gamers feel slighted and it's not just because of Crytek. The PC while a great open platform is no longer where the money is, and I can understand that. Consoles have a higher install base, prices are controlled for a longer time and there is less pirating (in theory). But the PC has always been the place where developers innovate and push the latest technologies which keep the industry advancing, and that innovation is not really there at the moment (graphics wise... minecraft is a great example of the other side of the coin).

I loved times like 2004, and 2007 when the system you had got smacked around because the software pushed the hardware and we got faster rigs as a result. That's all I really want to see =)

 

[XamediX]

You know I noticed that maybe the culture has changed since I started in the PC Hardware community. It amazes me the amount of people that desire a game that won't run as well on their PC.

I am playing more of this and I now don't think this game looks any better than the first Crysis, it just runs a fuckton better. People whine about menu options but there is a community released version out there that works just fine. I like the fact Crytek made those options harder to get to. It's a better business decision. You wanna control the game for the masses. For the minority that want to change around individual settings(and know what they're doing) they can do so by editing ini files or what-have you. Or use something made by the community. If you can't edit INI files then maybe you shouldnt be messing around with individual settings.

Yes I do understand that about 80% of the readers on this site are in that minority, but how much do you think we represent in a potential 2 million sales target? I'm betting its a small number.

 

[SirKronan]

You know I noticed that maybe the culture has changed since I started in the PC Hardware community. It amazes me the amount of people that desire a game that won't run as well on their PC.

I am playing more of this and I now don't think this game looks any better than the first Crysis, it just runs a fuckton better. People whine about menu options but there is a community released version out there that works just fine. I like the fact Crytek made those options harder to get to. It's a better business decision. You wanna control the game for the masses. For the minority that want to change around individual settings(and know what they're doing) they can do so by editing ini files or what-have you. Or use something made by the community. If you can't edit INI files then maybe you shouldnt be messing around with individual settings.

Yes I do understand that about 80% of the readers on this site are in that minority, but how much do you think we represent in a potential 2 million sales target? I'm betting its a small number.

I think you're making some good points there. But I also sympathize with the view that Crytek could've at least just put an option in there (maybe with a warning for advanced users only) for those who DO want the extra tweaks and settings so they wouldn't have to rely on the community to do so, or editing INI files. At least Crytek hasn't blocked the efforts of the community's desire to tweak and modify advanced settings.

In addition, as much as we, the minority, are disgruntled, they still had to make the right business decision to make the most profit. Sadlly, that's what businesses exist for - to make money. And the few members of [H] here that vote with their wallet and don't buy, will not even come close to offsetting the vast amount of non-[H] users that now CAN buy and enjoy this game more fully and simply on their lesser PC's and pansy consoles.

Like I said before. Sad, but true.