![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Crysis 2 multiplayer demo headed to pc!
- Thread starter addictedto60fps
- Start date
+1 to this
Outamyhead
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2008
- Messages
- 4,263
But you have to remember the game engine was designed to run on the consoles, so don't expect a massive enhancement graphically, or how the game works (wouldn't be surprised if it has a preset config for 360 controllers), and I can only hope it's not as bad as the recent MoH titles.
The new version of cryengine wasn't necessarily designed to run on consoles. I would say it was optimized and "fixed" to run on consoles as well as PC's. I wouldn't however take the stance that it was made for consoles per say.
Plague_Injected
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2008
- Messages
- 6,621
Dedicated servers for Crysis 2 are confirmed.
I believe all that has been said right now is that it will be sometime before the actual game release.
That's good news.
LOL, well isn't that obvious
I was really after something more precise. The full game is due out in just a bit over a month...
Plague_Injected
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2008
- Messages
- 6,621
New multiplayer preview video here.
"Super sniping? Points. Frontal assault? Points. Camping like a baby? No points."
"Super sniping? Points. Frontal assault? Points. Camping like a baby? No points."
Last edited:
Because it's easier to just give out 1 map and package it up and allow it for download vs taking a part of a level in a sp campaign. Not to mention giving away a part of the story.
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2005
- Messages
- 4,658
to be honest i think it's a smart move. They seem to be really pushing the multiplayer component. The first game's multiplayer was an afterthought but with Free Radical now at the helm of this one, they have reason to want to give it some lime light.
Most fans of the original SP will buy the game for SP regardless of a demo or not. If they release a kickass MP demo they will turn on new people and potentially hit a larger user base with the folks that primiarily play MP games.
6v6? Bah. Stupid. Most FPS games I dont even bother joining the server unless its at least 10v10.
Mulitplayer games are crap benchmarks though, maybe that's why they aren't releasing a single player demo, they want you to have to pay for a proper benchmark
Plague_Injected
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2008
- Messages
- 6,621
Multiplayer seems to be what sells FPS games - look at Halo and COD now, and UT and Quake 3 eleven years ago. That's why there's probably the multiplayer demo and not one for singleplayer.
I just cant believe this honestly Crytek going from amazing graphics from Crysis 1 to Crap on Crysis 2. They have one of the best engines out to this day so honestly I think we are going to be blown away. Just my opinion. If not then I will wait for the Insane mods that get released
Plague_Injected
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2008
- Messages
- 6,621
The problem is that Crytek has said that anything that can't be scaled down or made to work on consoles will not be in the PC version. Then you have 3A Games who developed Metro 2033 primarily for PC and then worked out what they had to cut out for the 360 version.
We might get better textures but I'm suspecting that will be it - for better or worse, consoles are clearly Crytek's priority now.
I haven't tried the leaked game or 360 demo, but I think there's a lot of room for interpretation on the statement that things that dont work on consoles wont be in the PC version. There might a lot of things that they can implement on consoles in a very diminished form that would work great on PC.
Personally I think the PC screenshots from the leaked game looked pretty good, assuming they aren't the highest setting available.
The leaked version was running DX9 & the graphics were absolute crap. It looked like it belonged on console. If Crytek fails to deliver the expected Graphics i want to push my PC then im not buying it one thing i didnt build my rig for was shit graphics
Not quite sure what you mean by good, the screen shot looks really crappy.
Aside from lame low resolution texture, the POM effect is completely gone and it looks just like any other console game out there, not even close to what Crysis 1 on same level.
They look better than the original Crysis to me. There's less happening on screen (less foilage and stuff), but overall the textures are better and everything looks sharper. Personally I wasn't expecting anything much better than the original Crysis given that it still stresses modern systems.
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2003
- Messages
- 7,540
Anyone know when this is coming? No doubt it's just a cut of the leaked copy, because they want to keep people from downloading the leaked copu.
Crysis 1 is old and It barely runs in 5760x1080 on my 5870. So long as I can even run Crysis 2 I'll be happy. It doesn't HAVE to blow me out of the water like the first one, I want to actually be able to play it and I'm not ready to upgrade yet.
Now crysis 3....that shit better knock my socks off.
Plague_Injected
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2008
- Messages
- 6,621
Multiplayer demo is March 1st. Will have two maps and two games modes - TDM and a variant of CTF.
In both cases, it's squad-based teamplay (closer to Rainbow Six or the GRAW series), not individual deathmatch (at least in the demo).
And has *anyone* looked at the XB360 MP demo videos (or the teaser video for the PC demo)? Do you see anything *remotely* crap there? If the PC version merely looks as good as the XB360 videos (certainly achievable), than Crysis 2 will still arguably be the best shooter (and certainly the best-looking squad-based MP shooter) in far too long.
Yes; the XB360 is limited to 1920x1080 interlaced (the PS3 to the same non-interlaced). However, how many PCs *ever* really stretch their graphical capabilities and play at the tallest resolution and LOD they are capable of during a game's lifetime? Fifty percent? Forty percent? Thirty percent or less? I seriously suspect thirty percent or less (and that doesn't include laptops). Worse, there are a lot of GPU capabilities that are more easily usable further down the resolution/LOD scale, as opposed to scaling things up into the nosebleed-section. Consoles use them because they simply are physically incapable of scaling to the resolution that a PC can. However, that does not mean that PCs don't have those same capabilities - they certainly do. However, a PC-focussed developer trades feature use (such as AA or Tesselation) for resolution; a console developer does the reverse. Heck; how many of you *gladly* trade tall resolution for AA? Anisotropic filtering? Insert-feature-here?
I'm not saying that it wouldn't be nice to have it all - it certainly would! However, the sheer *cost* of doing it all is darn-near prohibitive for both PC gamers and PC-game developers as well. Hence CryEngine3 takes a different tack and instead loads up on those available (but seldom-used, in the case of PCs) features. Tessellation is, in fact, a case in point - it's a feature that, while present in both PC GPUs and consoles, is almost unused on the PC - why?
A different tack was taken with CryEngine3 than with the original CE or CE2 - instead of maximizing resolution (not a console strength), they loaded up on features (such as AA and Tessellation) that are much more easily used further down the resolution scale (features that are, in point of fact, common to all platforms - in PCs for example, Tessellation support can be found in GPUs in laptops and notebooks, which certainly wasn't the case when the original Crysis shipped). While it does enable console porting, it also enables play on PCs that are otherwise-resolution-limited (such as laptops and notebooks - after all, what's the typical screen size of a gaming laptop today?).
PC purists/elitists likely won't be happy because of that tradeoff; however, if you are a gamer looking for a good-looking (and good-playing) shooter that can be played just as well on your laptop as on your desktop (limited only by screen-size) then Crysis 2 can't arrive fast enough.
Well said and I agree with what your saying here. I never quite thought of it that way but it makes sense to me.
Listening to all the ranting going on over Crysis 2 brought to mind what I heard about Starcraft 2 (I was actually *in* that beta toward the tailchase). Just before the beta got into overdrive, Blizzard released a podcast showing gameplay on a *gaming laptop* and folks were boggled, to put it politely. The PC purists were going "Wut? What had to be sacrificed to play the game on laptops?"
And as it turned out, other than resolution, very little to nothing is lost by lowering the resolution. There is, in fact, no real *gain* in gameplay by cranking the resolution as tall as you can go with SC2. In fact, in most games (and especially shooters) there's no gameplay advantage by cranking up the resolution, either. How often have one or more of us griped that cranking up the resolution in Game X forced a loss of AA or other feature? (I'm not referring to Crysis, either - I'm referring to the comparisons of two UE3 games; Gears of War PC and UT 3. GoW did not require as burly a PC as UT 3, and actually used engine features that UT 3 didn't.)
Until (and unless) there is a *gameplay-related* reason for having the resolution dialed up (if there is, than sacrificing detail to get there makes sense - otherwise, from a gameplay standpoint, the gripe is pointless), I'll gladly stick to playing at whatever resolution the game looks best in on my hardware, and leave the e-peen arguments elsewhere.
The reason why they should if stuck with PC only.
That choice is up to the individual user, and that's where it should remain.
By the original Crysis (and Warhead) taking the usual trend often taken by PC-driven/exclusive developers (yank up the resolution as far as it can go), it created a game that was limited to only the burliest of PC hardware. Games that are limited that way simply don't sell well in the short term, and have trouble selling in the medium to long term. Such a game only appeals to a niche audience - do that often enough as a developer and you die.
What sets Crysis 2 apart from the original (and since this is the PC Gaming subforum, I'm leaving consoles completely out) is that it is friendlier, especially in terms of resolution and control capability, to midrange hardware, including laptops and notebooks. The difference is that CryEngine 3 takes advantage of features such as Tessellation and even DirectCompute that are present in hardware *other* than the high-end (in fact, both are found in midrange, and even budget GPUs, for desktops and portables alike). I've had stuttering issues with the leak - however, there's a valid reason for that; I'm limited in graphics RAM. 512 MB is simply not enough for a large number of AAA titles today to play with all the graphics details turned up, even at plebian resolutions such as 1680x1050 and lower. It's not a GPU feature issue, but a straight-out graphics memory issue. (There are PCs out there with CPUs that are either as capable, or less so, but with graphics cards with higher memory loadouts that have little trouble - one earlier poster referred to the 1 GB 9500GT.) Graphics-memory loadouts, in all PCs, have increased since the launch of Crysis - 1 GB GDDR5 is now commonplace for midrange GPUs ($100USD or thereabouts), and such loadouts are even appearing in notebooks and laptops. Despite the increase in graphical horsepower in portable PCs, notebooks and laptops differ in two other significant ways from desktops - screen real-estate (absent external displays or docking stations) is limited (fifteen or seventeen-inch displays are still the top end for laptops and notebooks, with fifteen inches remaining the most commonplace); also, few portables have full-sized keyboards, and even fewer offer a plethora of USB ports. That means keyboard control is a must, and, because of portable PCs, the control layout for keyboards requires greater simplicity. Crysis 2 is, arguably, one of thew few shooters that can look good on a gaming portable, which certainly couldn't be said of the original Crysis.
Why is that a bad thing?
I dont think its such a bad thing I just personally expect games these day to push my hardware to the point where my PC is crying like a baby but your right in many ways. I cant disagree with you nor agree because its all user preference. I personally think that Devs should have 2 teams one team that focuses on PCs only & one team for Consoles but that takes resources & times which in turn could boost game prices. Sucks
I guess I expect way to much from the gaming industry at this point. Its just sad that Crysis 1 is still the sexiest game around for its age. I just figured by now we would of had better Graphical games & there really is only 1 which is Metro 2033.
I guess I expect way to much from the gaming industry at this point. Its just sad that Crysis 1 is still the sexiest game around for its age. I just figured by now we would of had better Graphical games & there really is only 1 which is Metro 2033.
Ya we all say we want games that make our hardware cry like a baby till it happens and your playing a game that looks good but the performance sucks and you just built a new rig for 3k. Ya alot of people love that feeling. They love it so much they will blame the coders for having unoptimized code in their engine/game. In all honesty what i want is a game that pushed hardware yes and looks amazing but also runs well. In other words I appreciate someone like a John Carmack who will code something like an animal and make sure it looks good and runs good as well and feels fuckin smooth and polished. No his games aren't crysis 1 look alikes and I doubt Rage will look as good as crysis 1 either but thats cool cause I know it will run light years better and feel smoother. Yet I'm pretty sure Rage will look good, real good.
caddys83
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2009
- Messages
- 3,576
A friend show me this and looks nice to me
http://img838.imageshack.us/img838/9497/crysis22011021311120122.jpg
http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/4300/crysis22011021310225567.jpg
If I'm not mistaken, even Metro 2033 took the same tack that Crysis 2 did (which is different from that of earlier shooters, including Crysis): they went for additional features (such as anti-aliasing, anisotropic filtering, etc.) and at the *expense* of really high resolutions - a lot of the criticism of Metro 2033 is that it took that move.
Here's the reality - high-resolution gaming with a lot of (let alone all) features possible is a real PITA to code, even for a casual game. It chews up time (development person-hours), disk space, and (naturally) money. How has that tack impacted sales of Metro 2033?