Crysis 2 leaked for PC

lollerwaffle said:
The source code wasn't leaked. Binaries and assets were. You don't even know how it was leaked. All you need is one USB port on one machine that has access to the files, it's not difficult. Unless they leaked it with a purpose, it isn't the company's fault, rather it's an individual's fault.. whatever their personal motivation.
Click to expand...

As a systems administrator I have to admit this is actually a very hard thing to secure, I mean if you have a determined employee inside the company to leak out some information they're basically going to do it, you can disable USB ports, admin protect computers, install monitoring software, restrict web access, separate out code and assets but ultimately a clever employee can still leak out information.

The only real protection is keeping your employees happy to the point where they don't want to leak the code, having to force your hand with IT rules should always be a last resort, trust and appropriate business rules/guidelines should always come first.

jwalk6 said:
Crysis 1 was a great benchmark because of how badly coded it was. There was never any reason that a game of that generation should still be bringing current enthusiast hardware to it's knees. As such it's a great benchmark since it wastes resources to such a degree as to overload the hardware. Kind of like an overpriced Furmark...

How do you code a game that can't run at max settings on even the best hardware platform? You can't!
It doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...

This is nonsense.

It's trivial to crank graphics requirements up so high as to bring any game to its knees, in fact game developers are in a constant battle of having to remove features from games because they do not have the resources to run them.

There has been a lot of claims over the years about Crysis being "poorly optimised" or "badly coded", the simple truth is that no one has EVER produced any kind of evidence to backup this claim.

Either offer up proof or just shut the hell up about this topic, please...and simply saying that it doesn't run well is NOT proof of unoptimised code, all it is proof of is that the game is demanding.

Any game is demanding if you crank the settings enough...I can load up oblivion and tweak the ini files to set the draw distance to draw the entire world and it will make all hardware in the entire world come to a crawling halt, it doesn't mean the engine is unoptimised it means that you're simply demanding too much of your hardware. There is actually a difference there!
 
I beat both Crysis games on my GTX 260 with everything on enthusiast / very high and I thought performance was pretty alright for how it looked (fucking amazing)

Crytek seriously doesn't fake effects, everything is done in real time just like they flaunt. The newest Unreal Engine still has to compile maps. CryEngine doesn't. Everything just works, real time. That flexibility came at a price which was more than reasonable to be honest. Dalaran in World of Warcarft fucking chugged harder than Crysis on highest settings for me.
 
EA announced a PC demo of Crysis 2 today. Guess they realized they better get a "good" build out there for people to test legally before the PR from the leak goes too far.
 
demingo said:
EA announced a PC demo of Crysis 2 today. Guess they realized they better get a "good" build out there for people to test legally before the PR from the leak goes too far.
Click to expand...

The leak has already gone to far its on the internet & as we speak is being ripped apart by modders. I cant tell you how many Config are floating around right now for Crysis 2. People have even found a way on the 360 to Mod the Config file to make the graphics better on Consoles. It was proven that the 360 & PS3 are running Medium setting Config files.

Honestly I wont say I tried the game or I did try it but it will still be a day 1 purchase for me. Think about the modding capabilities on crysis 2. Being able to mod alien ships & a destroyed NYC n such. Going to be awesome
 
demingo said:
EA announced a PC demo of Crysis 2 today. Guess they realized they better get a "good" build out there for people to test legally before the PR from the leak goes too far.
Click to expand...

Well the first game had a demo which was very popular. I'd have been disappointed with less. Though I suspect EA opted for a demo in light of the fact that many people look at a lack of a demo as a sign of a bad game. They are just doing it to save face at this point.
 
Dan_D said:
Well the first game had a demo which was very popular. I'd have been disappointed with less. Though I suspect EA opted for a demo in light of the fact that many people look at a lack of a demo as a sign of a bad game. They are just doing it to save face at this point.
Click to expand...

I remember running that demo on my Athlon X2 4400 with a single 8800gtx and being blown away by how amazing it looked. That part of the game actually ran pretty well maxed out on that old rig. It ran well until we aall know where lol. The dreaded second part of the game and I had to lower settings like most everyone else.

As far as C2 goes...I've watched a ton of videos and it looks pretty dam good, graphically speaking, and seems smooth as hell. If you look at comments section on my videos on yourtube you will see people list their specs and still the fps is good. I expect it to kick ass on my rig. ;)
 
The first Crysis demo was one of the best demos ever released because the first mission in that game was simply perfect. It was incredibly long and had incredible scope and variety. It had sandbox elements too because you could attack on the road or swim across the entire ocean, etc. drive all the vehicles, blow up all the buildings, etc.

You could play the first level of Crysis hundreds of times over and still enjoy exploring.

I can't think of a single level in Crysis 2 that can do that as it seems to be mostly Half-Life 2 like scripted sequences in tightly packed urban streets.
 
PrincessFrosty said:
As a systems administrator I have to admit this is actually a very hard thing to secure, I mean if you have a determined employee inside the company to leak out some information they're basically going to do it, you can disable USB ports, admin protect computers, install monitoring software, restrict web access, separate out code and assets but ultimately a clever employee can still leak out information.

The only real protection is keeping your employees happy to the point where they don't want to leak the code, having to force your hand with IT rules should always be a last resort, trust and appropriate business rules/guidelines should always come first.



This is nonsense.

It's trivial to crank graphics requirements up so high as to bring any game to its knees, in fact game developers are in a constant battle of having to remove features from games because they do not have the resources to run them.

There has been a lot of claims over the years about Crysis being "poorly optimised" or "badly coded", the simple truth is that no one has EVER produced any kind of evidence to backup this claim.

Either offer up proof or just shut the hell up about this topic, please...and simply saying that it doesn't run well is NOT proof of unoptimised code, all it is proof of is that the game is demanding.

Any game is demanding if you crank the settings enough...I can load up oblivion and tweak the ini files to set the draw distance to draw the entire world and it will make all hardware in the entire world come to a crawling halt, it doesn't mean the engine is unoptimised it means that you're simply demanding too much of your hardware. There is actually a difference there!
Click to expand...

I love this demand of "proof" It's not possible to code a game (or anything else for that matter ) to be optimized for hardware that doesn't exist! So the excuse falls flat.

The only "nonesense" here is the baseless incessant hype, that's it.

It's a game and it's NOT revolutionary so just stop the "nonsense" hype.

Leave the shallow marketing to EA.

:cool:
 
Just because nothing at the time of Crysis' launch could run it at maximum settings, doesn't mean it was unoptimised. Turn down a few settings even a bit and any PC with a fairly recent videocard could run the game and have it look great. My PC was able to run it, for christ's sake.

Don't forget how far Crysis was ahead of every other game out there in terms of visuals - it smashed everything else. COD4, Gears of War on PC, and Oblivion (without texture mods) were the other "good-looking" games at the time, and Crysis left them for dead.

It didn't punish anybody for having a reasonably recent computer by being unplayable or looking horrible - it instead rewarded upgrades. People just got their noses out of joint because they couldn't run the thing at maximum settings with a 7800GT or a 6800GT, and now every developer is scared shitless of pushing graphics to new levels.
 
Plague_Injected said:
Just because nothing at the time of Crysis' launch could run it at maximum settings, doesn't mean it was unoptimised. Turn down a few settings even a bit and any PC with a fairly recent videocard could run the game and have it look great. My PC was able to run it, for christ's sake.

Don't forget how far Crysis was ahead of every other game out there in terms of visuals - it smashed everything else. COD4, Gears of War on PC, and Oblivion (without texture mods) were the other "good-looking" games at the time, and Crysis left them for dead.

It didn't punish anybody for having a reasonably recent computer by being unplayable or looking horrible - it instead rewarded upgrades. People just got their noses out of joint because they couldn't run the thing at maximum settings with a 7800GT or a 6800GT, and now every developer is scared shitless of pushing graphics to new levels.
Click to expand...

This argument just keeps going... "Crysis ran like shit, its unoptimised!" "Crysis looks awesome! Its optimised!". I dont think any new points to this argument have come up in the past 3 years.
 
I'm actually glad I downloaded the leak and have gotten to play it a bit. Already, I can tell its suffered from the dreaded "consolitis" disease and is definitely dumbed down from the first two games. :(

Before I played the leak, I would have probably bought the game at launch for $59.99. But now, I'm most likely going to wait for it to drop in price. Its already ruined by being on consoles, not only in story, but also in gameplay. I wanted to see what happens right after the events of the 1st game for one thing. :(

At the very least, I hope for some nice levels to be made with the SandBox level editor, as were with the original games. Heck, maybe even make some levels not confined to the low draw-distance of a city so the consoles can handle them. : /
 
Last edited:
Tudz said:
This argument just keeps going... "Crysis ran like shit, its unoptimised!" "Crysis looks awesome! Its optimised!". I dont think any new points to this argument have come up in the past 3 years.
Click to expand...

They keep coming up because a lot of gamers got their egos dented because they thought their 6800GT-powered machine was untouchable, and Crysis came along and broken their little hearts, and they're still crying about it.

A game that was unoptimised was Halo for the PC - the graphics quality did not come close to matching the abnormally-high system requirements to get the game to run at a consistent framerate.
 
Plague_Injected said:
They keep coming up because a lot of gamers got their egos dented because they thought their 6800GT-powered machine was untouchable, and Crysis came along and broken their little hearts, and they're still crying about it.
Click to expand...

Or alternatively they didn't think it looked all that good for how much it stressed their systems. ;) I actually felt Crysis looked and ran pretty well at Very High, I just felt it didn't scale down very well. But yeah, I still remember having this argument 3 years ago on Crysis Online :p
 
Tudz said:
This argument just keeps going... "Crysis ran like shit, its unoptimised!" "Crysis looks awesome! Its optimised!". I dont think any new points to this argument have come up in the past 3 years.
Click to expand...

In the past 3 years among other new games came out that:
- run worse that Crysis and had inferior graphics or
- had better graphics and run far worse than Crysis

I am not aware of any game that has better or equal graphics complexity as Crysis and runs better.
 
zz2 said:
I am not aware of any game that has better or equal graphics complexity as Crysis and runs better.
Click to expand...

Because there aren't any. Plenty of games out there run worse, but none that look as good and run as well as it does. Metro 2033 is the only game remotely in the same league as Crysis in terms of visuals. The maps are smaller, have none of the vegetation and the environment isn't quite as interactive. Much of the game is shrouded in darkness the way Doom 3 was, and although the light sourcing is complex, I don't think Metro 2033 runs as good as it should for the visuals we get. (Using Crysis as a benchmark for that.) Out door scenes are nice in terms of visual quality, but the maps are still smaller than they were in Crysis. There is none of the complex vegetation which I'm going to bet is harder to render than an urban landscape.
 
Based on further observation, the beta doesn't really seem capable of loading a system fully. My CPU and GPU stay relatively cool throughout gameplay even after tweaking settings to very high and cranking up the resolution. With very high settings I get the same kind of performance at 720p as I do at 1080p res, also AA isn't present but will be a must. Gun battles are fun and graphics look great even in this release. Will be a day one purchase for me.
 
jwalk6 said:
I love this demand of "proof" It's not possible to code a game (or anything else for that matter ) to be optimized for hardware that doesn't exist! So the excuse falls flat.

The only "nonesense" here is the baseless incessant hype, that's it.

It's a game and it's NOT revolutionary so just stop the "nonsense" hype.
Click to expand...

I think this is down to a general lack of understand of what optimization is.

In development of things like game engines which are really just the application of math, the context of optimization is taking some function y = f(x) and reducing the effort to run the function (time taken) while keeping the results the same for all values of x.

That is to say, improving the performance of some function while making sure all of the results it gives are accurate. If you're claiming a particular function is unoptimized then you must be able to provide proof of the same function running faster while producing the same results.

No one has ever done that with Crysis, at least none of the many claims I've seen of it being poorly optimized. They've never presented a snippet of shader code that is used in game and then presented a faster equivalent, the only evidence is anecdotal that the engine runs slowly.

But this is not a reliable measure of optimization.

Performance != Optimization

I wrote a blog post about this in the end, called The Fabled Max Settings, mainly with respect to Crysis and what I thought was going on with gamers and this constant optimization rubbish, I came to the conclusion that it was just gamers with bruised egos, much the same way Plauge_Injected mentioned a few posts back.
 
looks like the fucking pc pirates now leaked the xbox and ps3 versions of bulletstorm....
 
PrincessFrosty said:
I wrote a blog post about this in the end, called The Fabled Max Settings, mainly with respect to Crysis and what I thought was going on with gamers and this constant optimization rubbish, I came to the conclusion that it was just gamers with bruised egos, much the same way Plauge_Injected mentioned a few posts back.
Click to expand...

You're right. People were comparing the graphics to Far Cry as an example of how 'bad' the game looked. Or the Deer Hunter looks like Crysis thread, ffs. :rolleyes:

Crysis FUD is nearly as bad as Vista FUD.
 
PrincessFrosty said:
I think this is down to a general lack of understand of what optimization is.

In development of things like game engines which are really just the application of math, the context of optimization is taking some function y = f(x) and reducing the effort to run the function (time taken) while keeping the results the same for all values of x.

That is to say, improving the performance of some function while making sure all of the results it gives are accurate. If you're claiming a particular function is unoptimized then you must be able to provide proof of the same function running faster while producing the same results.

No one has ever done that with Crysis, at least none of the many claims I've seen of it being poorly optimized. They've never presented a snippet of shader code that is used in game and then presented a faster equivalent, the only evidence is anecdotal that the engine runs slowly.
Click to expand...

You can't do that with a game, get it in terms of some function, because the fact is that its subjective how good a games graphics are. To me, optimisation is not how much an engine is trying to do (x) vs how fast it does it (y), as a game might be trying to do a whole heap of shit that I dont care about or is only a small visual upgrade in my eyes. Rather its "how good does this game look" (x) vs how fast it does it (y). Problem is x has no value and will vary from person to person.

This is where it becomes a subjective argument, hence why it keeps going. You can't just present a fact and end the discussion. You state no one has produced data showing Crysis is poorly optimised, neither has someone produced data saying it is well optimised. All you can do is look at it with your own eyes, see the performance and compare to other games to decide if its optimised.

Taking something from your blog post...

Instead why can't we simply judge how visually appealing the game is compared to how well in runs without it being effect by what options we're presented with, lets face it Crysis still looks really nice in "medium settings".
Click to expand...

Well thats how you felt. Personally I didn't think Crysis looked really nice in medium settings. I think it looked like a blurry, fuzzy, strange glowing, low res texture, unbalanced lighting and overall average looking experience given how much system resources it took. That's where my opinion comes from, playing Crysis in medium/high settings and not feeling it looked as good as other games of the time that were running smoother. And yes, I tried custom config files and I dont think they improved the experience. Mostly the game just looked blurry and fuzzy.

Now on "very high" I think Crysis is well optimised, based on how good it looks on my current PC and how well it runs compared to current gen games. Hence why I think Crysis never scaled all that well ;)

You may call it people whinging just because they couldn't run Very High settings, but PERHAPS, just PERHAPS, they didn't think the game looked all that good at medium settings like you did.
 
Plague_Injected said:
A game that was unoptimised was Halo for the PC - the graphics quality did not come close to matching the abnormally-high system requirements to get the game to run at a consistent framerate.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Thats the only real good example of poor optimization thats clear cut enough to have a decent argument about and reach an actual point about it in the end.

Spare-Flair said:
I can't think of a single level in Crysis 2 that can do that as it seems to be mostly Half-Life 2 like scripted sequences in tightly packed urban streets.
Click to expand...
Wow, you played the whole game already? Can you pm me details of how to do so also?

PrincessFrosty said:
I think this is down to a general lack of understand of what optimization is...
Click to expand...
/end argument(thread?) But I agree with you wholeheartedly.
 
Well I download the leaked beta and played it for a bit.

Guess what.

I bought it on Steam (Preordered)

betweek two accounts I have close to 210 games.

I think the beta is a blessing in disguise. The game is GOOD for a Beta. I can't wait until march 22nd. At least CAD and USD are almost on par :D
 
I'm really not terribly impressed by the leaked game. I just don't get the satisfaction I get with other shooters. Hopefully the final version is more polished.
 
Tudz said:
You can't do that with a game, get it in terms of some function, because the fact is that its subjective how good a games graphics are.
Click to expand...

People subjective opinion about how good something looks has nothing what so ever with optimization.

Optimization can be measured and demonstrated, with ease.

To me, optimisation is not how much an engine is trying to do (x) vs how fast it does it (y)
Click to expand...

Yeah, this has nothing to do with optimization.

The problem is that people say crap like the game looks bad and it's unoptimized and they have no idea what they are talking about and most of the time have no good reason to think that, other than it runs slowly.
 
Last edited:
$60 for this game? Good one
Activision ruined the $60 PC game thing right off the bat, for me at least

I'll skip it because really, pretty much sick of New York themed games at this point lets be honest
 
BladeVenom said:
Techspot pirated themselves a copy. http://www.techspot.com/news/42457-crysis-2-performance-preview.html
Click to expand...

I remember when Crysis came out and people were happy to get 30 FPS at medium settings and lower resolutions. C2 appears to be running much better.

vasta said:
$60 for this game? Good one
Activision ruined the $60 PC game thing right off the bat, for me at least

I'll skip it because really, pretty much sick of New York themed games at this point lets be honest
Click to expand...

To me, it looks like a combination of Prototype and Call of Duty.
 
PrincessFrosty said:
I think this is down to a general lack of understand of what optimization is.

In development of things like game engines which are really just the application of math, the context of optimization is taking some function y = f(x) and reducing the effort to run the function (time taken) while keeping the results the same for all values of x.

That is to say, improving the performance of some function while making sure all of the results it gives are accurate. If you're claiming a particular function is unoptimized then you must be able to provide proof of the same function running faster while producing the same results.

No one has ever done that with Crysis, at least none of the many claims I've seen of it being poorly optimized. They've never presented a snippet of shader code that is used in game and then presented a faster equivalent, the only evidence is anecdotal that the engine runs slowly.

But this is not a reliable measure of optimization.

Performance != Optimization

I wrote a blog post about this in the end, called The Fabled Max Settings, mainly with respect to Crysis and what I thought was going on with gamers and this constant optimization rubbish, I came to the conclusion that it was just gamers with bruised egos, much the same way Plauge_Injected mentioned a few posts back.
Click to expand...

Blah, Blah, Blah "reliable" Blah, Blah, Blah, "shader code"

fanboy hype and fuzzy logic

out..


:cool:
 
PrincessFrosty said:
People subjective opinion about how good something looks has nothing what so ever with optimization.

Optimization can be measured and demonstrated, with ease.



Yeah, this has nothing to do with optimization.

The problem is that people say crap like the game looks bad and it's unoptimized and they have no idea what they are talking about and most of the time have no good reason to think that, other than it runs slowly.
Click to expand...

Well then it just appears we define "optimisation" differently when applied int he context of a game. Optimisation of a GAME, to me, is about how good a game looks compared to how well it runs (while taking into consideration things like draw distance require more resources).

Optimisation of a code to run a simulation of some description, yeah, sure, you can measure that. You know what the correct solution is to a simulation, you have various codes that simulate that case, you run them, time the difference and measure how closely they achieve the correct solution in that time.

Games aren't the same, at least in my view. I couldn't give two shits if a game solves the Navier-Stokes equations to model water physics, if it doesn't actually look any better or perhaps even worse than another game that uses its resources more intelligently then its not as well optimised in my view. It might be solving the Navier Stokes equations as fast as is physically possible with your hardware (in other words, its perfectly optimised code as far as a simulation is concerned), but if it runs at 0.001 FPS on the world's fastest computer while doing it, its sure as hell not an optimised game.

That's my view at least.
 
Are people actually excited for this game? The first one was one of the most overrated pieces of shit I've ever played. Good graphics doesn't mean good game.

Not even worth stealing.
 
DirtyB said:
Are people actually excited for this game? The first one was one of the most overrated pieces of shit I've ever played. Good graphics doesn't mean good game.

Not even worth stealing.
Click to expand...

Then crysis is not for you, go look into another game.

Crysis = graphics, story was decent but wasn't the main point for most people.
 
The Cryosuit and how it changed the way you played the game was more important to me than the graphics.

Hrmmm, Might be time for another playthrough....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top