It's trendy for some reason to shit on Crytek in this forum; has been since Crysis 1. Clearly, DX11 is the most important feature in a game.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Cysis 2 DX11 and Sandbox Update
- Thread starter WorldExclusive
- Start date
It's trendy for some reason to shit on Crytek in this forum; has been since Crysis 1. Clearly, DX11 is the most important feature in a game.
Yoshiyuki Blade
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2005
- Messages
- 2,881
There's an alarmingly high amount of whiners related to Crytek. Whether they're trolls, posers, or genuinely like that... I don't know. But I do know that there have been whiners that said Crysis 1 didn't look much different than CoD:MW and one even went as far as comparing it to Far Cry. Lots of bizarre ways to demonstrate disgust and offense; its no different today.
Zepher
[H]ipster Replacement
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2001
- Messages
- 21,048
I am downloading from the links on the first page, are they supposed to be 549.90MB and 1.66GB?
ChronoDetector
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2008
- Messages
- 2,784
I just wish Crytek would release the 1.9 patch, really no point since they released the DX11 patch but you need the 1.9 as a prerequisite first, though the links have been temporarily removed.
But I still look forward to this patch, hopefully it lives up to the hype everybody has been speculating, including myself.
But I still look forward to this patch, hopefully it lives up to the hype everybody has been speculating, including myself.
SicKlown42012
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2008
- Messages
- 3,319
That sounds right. I've heard that the two together is about 2GB.
Zepher
[H]ipster Replacement
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2001
- Messages
- 21,048
I was just wondering since the Techpowerup links show 4.5GB and 5.7GB on the page and I didn't know if that was the actual size or what. It looked like the patch was larger than the game.
LAiN_OfTheWired
Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2008
- Messages
- 825
So... reviewers can shrug off the linear gameplay of a game like F3AR but demand sandbox gameplay in Crysis 2. They bash the lack of DX11 in Crysis 2, but don't mind DX9 for F3AR. They ignore the cold hard facts that EA is a money-hungry corporate hound that doesn't care about gamers when it comes to polishing a game over the course of a few patches, but shrug it off when its a COD title. This hypocrisy is acceptable?
ITT: people that don't understand development cycles in the corporate world, and people with double standards.
I'm not a huge fan of this game myself, but its way better than COD Black Ops and Bad Company 2 is starting to get really old. This update makes this the game I'll be playing until Gears of War 3 comes out.
ITT: people that don't understand development cycles in the corporate world, and people with double standards.
I'm not a huge fan of this game myself, but its way better than COD Black Ops and Bad Company 2 is starting to get really old. This update makes this the game I'll be playing until Gears of War 3 comes out.
LstBrunnenG
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2003
- Messages
- 6,676
Let's not even go into how Crysis was criticized for being too unoptimized, while Crysis 2 is criticized for being too optimized.
krameriffic
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2006
- Messages
- 3,214
You seem to be implying that anybody hear thinks Fear 3 is a good game.
WorldExclusive
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2009
- Messages
- 11,548
I'm with Kyle when he expressed anger that the game was consolized at launch. We had to wait for features that should been there from the start.
But, I've ran through the game twice and it was more a entertaining SP than BLops, BulletStorm, DNF and BC2 SP.
A lot of the FPS SPs have been forgettable lately and Crysis 2 is the best of a weak group of games.
Still, it fell short because it didn't do what Crysis is known for. Pushing the boundaries of PC gaming visually.
If you already spent the money on the game, get your money's worth and play through it again with DX11.
If you haven't bought it yet, get it cheaper if you choose to. Then come back and give a "hands on review" of the game with DX11, instead of rehashed point of views from others.
Yeah, you can't win as a PC developer these days when it comes to public relations. Offer something new and different and people bitch and moan that it wasn't as good as the original because they changed XYZ, release a sequel which is the same and people bitch that its too much like the original.
Crysis 2, IMO, was a good game. People bitch about it way too fucking much because it didn't copy/paste the design style of the first. So it wasn't what you were expecting, get over it. "ZOMG#~@^~!!! IT SAYS PRESS START IN THE INTRO!!111 THIS GAME IS SHITTT". Get over it, the game was fine.
DeathPrincess
Fully [H]
- Joined
- May 15, 2010
- Messages
- 18,205
Thats why crysis 2 was so awful.
The first game had boring repetitive gameplay, and no plot. But decent graphics.
Later they decided that theyll release a game with similar gameplay and no plot, but theyll tone down the saving grace of the first game and give it mediocre/poor textured graphics.
Which kind of means no reason at all to play/buy it. Also as to why to people the DX11, high resolution was important. As without that, it's just a boring FPS with nothing to look at.
To be honest, the game was not fine at all.
Aside from shitty graphic and controls. They simplify the Nanosuit way too much and makes it feel worst than the first.
The open wide sandbox world is not there anymore. The tactical options is complete utter shit and pointless. There aren't many destructible object in game too. The story is crap and did not mention almost anything from first game. The weapon options are pointless. MP is boring as fuck compare to first one, trying to make a CoD clone.
If you like Arcade type of shooting game, then I guess its fine. But if you were someone who looks forward to have the same experience as Crysis 1, it's a crap game to begin with.
defiant007
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2006
- Messages
- 3,497
I am no programmer, but I would hazard a guess that making a game render faster by vastly reducing level sizes, texture quality, real time physics, etc is not really considered optimization.
And the only people who criticized Crysis for not being optimised were those users who didn't know any better and who now think that Crysis 2 is optimised.
Its all just opinion though. Like...
Shitty graphics, meh, they weren't impressive graphics, but you have to admit the game ran fucking well for how good it looked. There aren't too many games out at the moment that look better than Crysis 2, and even less that look as good as Crysis 2 and perform nearly as well.
Controls wise, you could change whatever you want via the console or config files. I dont get how people can bitch about it being consolised when it gives you a large number of options via config files and the console. What are we, retard console gamers who need all their options in the main menu? I thought we were the glorious PC gaming master race who can adjust a FOV through a config file if the need arises, at least the option is there which you can't say about a LOT of "PC games" these days. If the "consolisation" extends to the point of a message that says press start to begin, a bit of mouse acceleration that can be turned off and a low FOV that can be adjusted through a config file, I really dont care.
As far as level design being consolised... personally I think it was a design choice rather than a console choice, as Crysis 2 does have some very open sections such that I think they could have implemented more open areas if they'd desired, they just didn't desire.
I agree.
Its not wide open, but I never really saw the big deal in being open. You still have linear objectives.
Meh, I thought they were good. Didn't really think about it that much. It was nice to be given a bit of a heads up on your possible options.
Didn't really care. Didn't affect my gameplay at all. Its New York, its not gonna be as destructible as a forest anyway.
Yeah I agree, though the story of the first was pretty shit too.
I suppose, I dont really have an opinion on it, lol.
The first game had a shit multiplayer, it wasn't popular and it wasn't well implemented. Wars was slightly better, but still poorly implemented and IMO really not that fun either. I dont blame them for trying something else, previous Crysis games never had popular MP portions.
See, its all just opinion, if you didn't like the direction they took with it doesn't make the game automatically bad. I never loved Crysis 1, there's a lot of people who thought it was only a mediocre game with good graphics. Crytek were clearly trying to increase their exposure with Crysis 2, and if all they did was upset some moaning old "enthusiasts" that doesn't bother me in the slightest.
Meh, Crysis 1 was hardly a simulation shooter and I dont think I'd call Crysis 2 arcade by comparison. But you basically hit on the point I was talking about, if you were going into the game with expectations of system crippling graphics and wide open spaces you'll end up writing moaning bitching shit like this for what is actually a reasonably good game...
http://www.hardocp.com/news/2011/03/23/crysis_2_pretty_much_sucks_sloppy
I dont think Crysis 2 is awesome by any means, but I'm struggling to think of any FPS single player games that were better in the past few years and/or had a better graphics to performance ratio.
EDIT: Just clarified and expanded some things.
Last edited:
Crytek more or less said somewhere that they figured they had so much horsepower at their disposal that they just threw caution to the wind and went berserk. An almost direct quote is "eh we figured another full screen render target wouldn't matter" or something along those lines. I think it might have been in a slide but I can't remember.
But seriously the first game pushed like 5000 draw calls at times, millions of triangles, lots of unnecessary shit behind the scenes, etc. These are things that could have been handled better at no visual difference at all... so they did it. They're lucky it ran as well as it did for how good it looked. Pushing hardware to the limit is one thing but pretending that you're doing that when in actuality you're limiting it is another.
Now the engine is threaded better and the lighting in the first game that wasn't scalable in the slightest was fixed. Now it's deferred and like magic, lighting isn't so much performance suicide anymore and it works out nicely for post processing as well. Batching probably works out better and among other improvements like clever mapping, engine tweaks, etc, they vastly drop the number of draw calls and things start looking up. Is this not optimization? FYI artists are responsible for optimization as well. Do you think they don't budget their maps at all and just pray the programmers can do magic? There's probably tons of tricks that go on like using the same model but rotating it to make it look different but doesn't break instancing and batching blah blah technobabble. Either way, whatever they did works, you can open the console yourself and look at the numbers. Crysis 2 is more or less unparalleled in performance / looks ratio. Is it worlds ahead and completely shit on everything else visual wise? No, but it looks fucking good and the performance is tbh, ridiculously good for the quality.
Do you honestly think a bunch of professionals who plan on getting into the middleware market would actually try and make their engine LESS flexible / preform worse? Oh man better make all these drastic changes to the engine for no reason since it'll preform the exact same anyway leaving us with no other choice than cutting down level sizes and weeping as our art team uses several low resolution textures that serve no purpose other than to overshadow everything else that looks good and that the first game did the same shit.
Last edited:
defiant007
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2006
- Messages
- 3,497
Quote For Fucking Truth
crysis 2 MP is just fine imo, the nanosuit is really a game changer. l2p or qq
Yoshiyuki Blade
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2005
- Messages
- 2,881
Idk, I think it's all just a matter of relative perspective. Had the game been delayed up to this point, would it have made us PC gamers feel any better? All that would have accomplished in reality was to delay the game for consoles. Reading this thread makes me wish Crytek shouldn't have wasted their time with post-launch PC exclusive features, with all this "too little too late" nonsense going on. The hate is persistent or even trendy now.
(I'm not saying that Crysis 2 will suddenly become a better game overnight when the patch hits, people will still dislike the game itself. But the graphics were the major source of massive whining, so my focus is on that.)
But anyway, yeah I got the game at launch (my brother did to be precise) and I've thoroughly enjoyed it for what it was. Beat it on the hardest a couple times, most recently using only armor mode. My thoughts on the patch: Expected to come eventually, but not as important as I originally thought. A nice update for the few who still care. Probably doesn't make-or-break the game, people care about graphics more than the game so it's a shallow perspective to bear anyway.
I'd say there's 2 types of optimization... Lossless optimization won't look different to the viewer, such as clipping off geometry that is permanently out of view in the game world or using effects that are visually identical but faster. Then there's lossy optimization, compromising quality in some way to increase performance. It can be subtle, like using a more efficient algorithm to generate motion blur, but looks slightly worse. Or it can be dramatic, like the things Crysis 2 did across the board to make the game playable on relatively low end hardware. I'm no programmer or designer either so it's pure speculation on my part.
Last edited:
Plenty of games released on PC's which are also on consoles are released later. So, it's not like we as PC gamers are not use to it.
But I believe you're right in a way. No matter what Crytek did, they would take grief from us. But it's really not what they did, but how they did it. Empty promises, pricing the game the same as the console version, "streamlining" the game, etc.
I'm just saying that while they would have taken grief, there were ways of lessening it.
SilverSliver
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2004
- Messages
- 12,574
This. Also, one of the primary marketing points for Crysis was the graphics and commitment to PC gamers. They failed on both accounts in Crysis 2. If Crysis 2 had just been an "okay" game, ala Crysis 1, but had terrific graphics and pushed hardware -- I think people would have a lot less issues with it.
Except for the FOV, I do.
Ur_Mom
Fully [H]
- Joined
- May 15, 2006
- Messages
- 20,711
I'm waiting for the game to hit the bargain bins (not too long, now!). By then, I'll have a GPU capable of running it at its full potential with DX11.
By releasing a game that ran well on *more* PCs, they failed PC gamers?
If Crysis 2 pushed hardware like Crysis 1, we'd be hearing the same "buggy, unoptimized POS" comments that plagued the first.
The comments here about Crysis 2 gameplay (IMO the most important thing about a game) were generally positive, up until the giant threadcrap that derailed the original discussion. Anyone expecting a game developed simultaneously for PC and console to be a graphically advanced powerhouse is in the minority of thinkers, and bordering on delusional.
Blackstone
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2007
- Messages
- 3,632
If it wasn't for consoles no developer would be able to afford to even make a game like Crysis 2, which was not at all bad on PC in my opinion. Now we're getting some additional features and another reason to play through the game now, a year from now, two years from now, who knows.
The one who gets screwed here is Nvidia and AMD because all the people who would have run out to buy new cards to play the game at launch now are probably just waiting to find out more about BF3's requirements. I won't be upgrading for this patch.
The one who gets screwed here is Nvidia and AMD because all the people who would have run out to buy new cards to play the game at launch now are probably just waiting to find out more about BF3's requirements. I won't be upgrading for this patch.
SilverSliver
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2004
- Messages
- 12,574
Yes, they did. Crysis 1 was only popular because it pushed hardware to the absolute limit, buggy or not. The graphics were cutting edge, and it was marketed and successful solely because of that.
Crytek then tries to sell Crysis 2 to that same group under the premise it is a cutting edge game. It was not, so people got angry. Pretty simple.
Yoshiyuki Blade
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2005
- Messages
- 2,881
Not exactly, the shift to multiplatform was a major indicator that they're not selling just to us anymore. But Crytek didn't totally abandon PCs, else there'd be no DX11+Textures exclusive to us. Yeah, not the treatment we got last time. Can we really blame them...
heatlesssun
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2005
- Messages
- 44,154
This is the second time that Crytek got screwed over by the PC gaming community, first rampant piracy with the first Crysis and now this ridiculously obscene bashing of Crysis 2.
chinesepiratefood
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2005
- Messages
- 2,629
To me, them admitting that they did not include high-resolution textures in the shipped version is the worst part of all this.
SilverSliver
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2004
- Messages
- 12,574
Sorry what? Crytek was nobody until PC gamers made them.
KashunatoR
Weaksauce
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2011
- Messages
- 127
yeah, it's not like crytek are the victim here LOL. it would have been better if they had delayed the PC version and deliver on their promises from the day 1
TwistedAegis
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2009
- Messages
- 8,958
QFT. If they had just said the game was DX11, everyone would be creaming themselves about how good the graphics are. Instead, it's DX9 and "OMG ITS SO AWFUL RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE."
Metro2033 looks drab as shit, is on rails (LITERALLY!), has monotonous gameplay and runs like crap - "OMG great PC game!", everyone gives this game kudos.
Crysis 2 has more innovative gameplay (nano suit, multiple approaches for major attack areas), looks a hell of a lot better, and has a story that isn't that much worse for all intents and purposes yet it's made out to be Satan incarnate. It's ridiculous.
LeninGHOLA
Vladimir Hayt
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2009
- Messages
- 18,416
We screwed them over by buying 4million + copies of a PC exclusive game? Poor fuckers.
I'm not buying the rampant piracy talking point because as anti-piracy as I am the research yields that as a fairly lame excuse.
I'm not on the Crysis 2 hate bandwagon, either, but someone made the right point: 4 million+ sales and I'm supposed to cry about it?
It's real simple: You're a smart guy so I'm amazed you're seemingly having a hard time with this: Crytek made promises on Crysis 2 and didn't keep them. It's that simple.
The stuff they're putting out now is nice but it's way after the fact.
All of this stuff should have been in the game, ready to go, at launch and there's no excuses for it.
Past this we can get into people's varying opinions about how good they thought the game was or not which is aside from the main thrust of most of the anger out there. I do think some of the anger has been way overblown even at that.
I thought Crysis 2, as a whole on its own merits, was "pretty good." Probably an 8/10 at most. And for "DX9 only" I thought it looked pretty damned impressive maxed out on my machine and it ran smooth as could be.
But if you make promises you have to keep them.
Andrew_Carr
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2005
- Messages
- 2,788
I don't get this line of thinking. Carmack said something similar in his recent interview(making PC only games is financial suicide). I admit that it's possible that game development is simply so costly that it needs a larger market, but the evidence shows otherwise. And when you consider that marketing is the majority of a game's budget I just don't buy this argument.
Crytek released Far Cry & Crysis 1 as PC exclusives and somehow they survived long enough to produce several sequels.
CD Projekt released the witcher (a buggy, incomplete PC exclusive mess with stronger storyline/rpg elements) and they were able to profit enough to release a PC exclusive sequel (that also seems to be doing well).
Men of War is PC exclusive and is on its 3rd expansion (4th upcoming) and seems to be doing well.
THQ somehow managed to release Metro cross platform & still include features like this on release.
I don't want to sound hateful about Crysis 2. To me it looks fine (except for small levels/lack of physics) and by all accounts the storyline is improved. I haven't even played it. I'm just hating on this line of reasoning.
As for the dx11 stuff. Better late than never, but by now it's too late for most to care. Good news for people that waited on it to hit bargain bin prices though.
[Edit:] Caveating off Q-BZ's post: I think a lot of people are fed up with dishonesty in general (marketing, politics, etc.). Crytek could've said something like this: "PC revenues aren't bringing in enough for us to be as sucessful as we would like. That has forced us to make our upcoming game crossplatform. In turn, console hardware is a limitation and because of that Crysis 2 will have a more optimized engine, less physics effects, and smaller levels. Because of this, we will be focusing on improving other gameplay aspects such as the nanosuit, weapons, level-design, and storyline." I, as a reasonable person, would have been disappointed but I can understand that stuff and I could live with it. If some things were a deal breaker for me (sand box vs linear levels) then yeah, I wouldn't buy it. But if I just wanted a decent shooter then I wouldn't really have a problem with a company taking a different approach and I'd probably pay for it.
Unfortunately, honesty like this will lose to blatant marketing lies from their competitors like: "Well our game's gonna have twice the pixels per second frame blah blah blah bullshit as OTHER games [Crysis 2] and run twice as fast and in 3D with ZERO compromises" until people wake up and stop buying that shit.
[Edit:] grammar
Last edited:
Nor do I, especially if we talk global.
All games get developed on computers initially anyways, yes?
I simply can't understand why we can't have the games ported OUT from the PC instead of TO the PC. If they did that, wouldn't "everyone win" basically?
I'm sure I'm oversimplifying some things there but I think people get where I'm coming from. I hope.
Agreed with all of that.
What's stupid is that gamers bitched about the second half of Far Cry sucking. So what did they do? They created an updated game engine which was basically the same thing only this time they exchanged the Hawaiian shirt for a nanosuit and exchanged the mutants for aliens who have been sleeping in rocks for millions of years. Then they expected the same community to embrace a game with the same flaws as their earlier game. WTF was that definition of insanity again?
Then Crytek makes a game that is basically Call of Duty with a nanosuit and screws the PC community by giving us a shit tastic linear console port of a game and we are supposed to embrace that too? Fuck Crytek.If you distill that down to "Cevat Yeril has a big mouth", I agree. But as was said, they built this for multiplatform use and regardless of what anyone says, there will be compromises made to allow the game to run on consoles that will transition to the PC.