The firefights play out largely the same as Crysis 1. You go point to point and have to deal with these "enocounters" in the way you see fit. It isn't as open as Crysis 1, but even the first lost most of that open feel in the 2nd half of the game.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Official Crysis 2 Thread
- Thread starter Drawmonster
- Start date
there are also different paths and routes you can take to these 'firefights' but it doesn't have the same open world feel as the jungles of the first game...things seem much more linear even though there is a fair amount of choice in how you get from point A to point B (sneak on the rooftops, in the sewers, stealth vs kamikaze style etc)
Chris_B
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 29, 2001
- Messages
- 5,365
I don't get why everyone think a dx11 patch for this game will be some massive saviour, most games with dx11 support have near fuck all difference from dx10 for the most part (to put it bluntly). Its mainly tacked on shit just so they can blab about "supporting" dx11.
I did read a few months back that nvidia supposodly tossed a few bags of cash cryteks way for dx11 support, so who knows =/
I did read a few months back that nvidia supposodly tossed a few bags of cash cryteks way for dx11 support, so who knows =/
Last edited:
This is true. Honestly though, the long walks between the action weren't really doing the game any favors. I love Crysis and wouldn't change anything about it, but I am enjoying Crytek's take on the destroyed city just as much. I can still stealth, I can still go guns blazing, I can still try to make a highlight reel in just about every fight.
Kwisatz Haderach
Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2010
- Messages
- 641
What about the fact it does not appear to crash, delete save points, and stutter when you play it. Look how many patches it took for BLOPS to play well even on SP for so many people. There was a lot of polish that went into this game, even though its not the game people were expecting. Other than waiting for a crossfire profile to be released, it does play flawlessly for me so far, like it or not. The only other game that has played this well has been DS2. Everything else has been pretty bumpy for the first month or two, until several major patches were released.
OK I'll give you that the game does not crash or delete save points but there are definitely some bugs that need to be fixed...the game constantly breaks my 'Melee' key button after I die and the last checkpoint restarts...I have to shut down the game completely and restart to get the 'Melee' key to work again...so no, the game is not 100% polished and definitely needs a patch or 2 or 3
anonmoniker
Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2010
- Messages
- 718
Flickers like crazy in some levels. You might assume it works fine if you have only played the first few levels because the only flicker was in a parking garage, but a later level borders on unplayable.
Kwisatz Haderach
Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2010
- Messages
- 641
100% polished, no, nothing is perfect. I had trouble with button mapping on the first two, C1 and WH. For me, it was grenades lol. But it did go smoother than many new games by far.
I get a flickering rolling line with CF. I think a video card update or two should fix that.
FranklyShankly
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2009
- Messages
- 1,024
This game doesn't have DX10 support either.
- Joined
- May 18, 1997
- Messages
- 55,719
I did not know that was a rumor, I thought it was a fact. Neither AMD, nor Intel / NVIDIA have packages and designs anywhere near ready to go at the current time.
The best Crysis 1 mod is the back to the future mod obviously.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZAaKH0FYO8
It's the only mod you ever need.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZAaKH0FYO8
It's the only mod you ever need.
WabeWalker
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2007
- Messages
- 4,508
About Cevat Yerli, I thought Bill Roeper made an astute observation while his company was fading away into insolvency - namely, that at times he was frustrated that he alone became associated with Hellgate London, when in reality a program with a budget of that size is the result of dozens of people throwing in ideas and trying their best to get the thing to work. He said that when a game succeeds, the lead designer gets way, way, way too much credit - a game is never the creation of just one person.
For those looking down the track and listing Dues Ex as something to look forwards to as hardware pushing, forget it. Everything I've seen for it so far says console more than crysis. Gameplay will be the only uptick of that.
The GotY IMO will come down to BF3 and TES:V Skyrim. Batman gets an honourable mention of course, but it will likely be more of the same from Asylum. Not a b ad thing, just no longer the revolutionary bit of game it was to start with.
The GotY IMO will come down to BF3 and TES:V Skyrim. Batman gets an honourable mention of course, but it will likely be more of the same from Asylum. Not a b ad thing, just no longer the revolutionary bit of game it was to start with.
QFT, have you watched that gameplay video they released? the game only has 3 colors!
Godmachine
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2003
- Messages
- 10,472
And thats a good point. But Cevat Yerli has collectively said so many incredibly dumb things Like "for every 1 sale of Crysis there is 15 to 20 pirates that downloaded it" and other completely asinine comments that hes famous for blaming PC piracy for just about every thing (3 million in sales for Crysis 1 btw).
When Crysis 2 got leaked the very last sentence of Crytek's response (Penned by Cevat) "Piracy continues to damage the PC packaged goods market and the PC development community" says it all. Even though the leak had nothing to do with piracy and was an internal matter , the old dead horse came out to play..
Reality
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2003
- Messages
- 1,937
I'm running a 5870 2GB (Sys in Sig), and the game runs like shit at 3518x1920 + Extreme
what is the 'New York Vehicles' thing on every level?...I've collected all the 'Souvenirs' and the 'Dog Tags' but have no idea what the vehicles bonus is?...do you have to drive a vehicle?...I've driven enemy vehicles and havn't gotten credit for that bonus...most other vehicles can't be driven, so what exactly is that achievement?
WabeWalker
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2007
- Messages
- 4,508
Okay, I just spent another hour and a half on this - and I'm totally blown away by it... I mean, every second of it.
I just don't see what you guys are seeing. Graphically, this is the most impressive game I've ever seen. I can hardly believe that it's running as smoothly as it is.
The last time I was this blown away by a game, that didn't blow other people away, was when Delphine Software released a game called Fade To Black. This was in the pre-internet days, and I spent seven days just mesmerized by Delphine's game. I thought it was one of the best titles I had played to date, and was shocked when I later read the print reviews, which were less than favorable.
I guess every now and then you get games like this - games that you're just blown away by, which other people actually hate. I can see myself playing this thing three or four times, easily.
I'm going back to it now.
I just don't see what you guys are seeing. Graphically, this is the most impressive game I've ever seen. I can hardly believe that it's running as smoothly as it is.
The last time I was this blown away by a game, that didn't blow other people away, was when Delphine Software released a game called Fade To Black. This was in the pre-internet days, and I spent seven days just mesmerized by Delphine's game. I thought it was one of the best titles I had played to date, and was shocked when I later read the print reviews, which were less than favorable.
I guess every now and then you get games like this - games that you're just blown away by, which other people actually hate. I can see myself playing this thing three or four times, easily.
I'm going back to it now.
Reality
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2003
- Messages
- 1,937
The game looks alright, but I think Crysis & Crysis Warhead maxed out looks noticably better. Namely the textures, there's no comparison. Also the interactivity in Crysis 1 compared to 2 is laughable. Also 1 was very non-linear (as much as an FPS could be), whereas 2 is very linear. Crysis 1 > 2.
Shadowspawn
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2002
- Messages
- 1,870
ROFL at Kyles review.
[H] needs a game review section. I would trust those reviews over all others.
[H] needs a game review section. I would trust those reviews over all others.
heatlesssun
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2005
- Messages
- 44,154
Looking around the web I'm happy to see that the reception of this game overall doesn't appear NEARLY as negative as it is here. And this game just works better with 3D Surround than any other I've tried. There are some clipping issues I've seen when taking cover close to an object on the periphery but other than that not much else. Very little ghosting and crosstalk thus far and great performance, over 50 FPS.
WabeWalker
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2007
- Messages
- 4,508
One thing I think that's extremely important is to turn down the gamma setting. The colors on the default setting aren't deep enough. I set mine at 20.
WorldExclusive
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2009
- Messages
- 11,548
I'm done with Crysis 2. I bought the retail version purposely just in case I had to.....resell it to a friend.
I can't take it anymore. Some levels look great and others look like I'm playing the 360 version. The rain level and the tunnels was a letdown from how the beginning of the game looked.
There's nothing that can be said that already has been said about this game not living up to the hype.
Crytek is off my list of developers I buy from. That list is getting smaller and smaller with each game release unfortunately.
MyCrysis.com is the worst forum for Crysis 2 now. It's really really nasty in there. Swamp Land.
I can't take it anymore. Some levels look great and others look like I'm playing the 360 version. The rain level and the tunnels was a letdown from how the beginning of the game looked.
There's nothing that can be said that already has been said about this game not living up to the hype.
Crytek is off my list of developers I buy from. That list is getting smaller and smaller with each game release unfortunately.
MyCrysis.com is the worst forum for Crysis 2 now. It's really really nasty in there. Swamp Land.
Last edited:
xenon expert
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2004
- Messages
- 167
Couldn't agree more. Sorry for all the people that need a system of a few thousands of dollars pushed to the max to say a PC game is great. As much as I was upgrading like a maniac back in the days, I have to say that I don't miss having to get the latest and fastest out there to play a decent game. Hell, I still don't own a console but I can't blame the ones that do. They are getting a lot more for their money.
Acoustique
Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2007
- Messages
- 941
and it all comes down to
1. dx11/dx10 support
2. proper menus, mainly gfx, NOT having aim assit
3. fix the mouse
4. make armor default power again, having this sluggish super jump as your main jump is annoying.
4 simple things and their sales would be so much bigger
1. dx11/dx10 support
2. proper menus, mainly gfx, NOT having aim assit
3. fix the mouse
4. make armor default power again, having this sluggish super jump as your main jump is annoying.
4 simple things and their sales would be so much bigger
a few levels in and I gotta admit the game is actually not that bad...it's biggest issue is the comparisons to the first game...if there never was a Crysis 1 then this game would be getting a lot more love...this is not the greatest game by any means but it's definitely fun and not as bad as you might have heard...the graphics do not match the first game but in certain parts the detail is stunning...the early level where you first encounter the aliens in this tunnel filled with water looks great...the water looks absolutely breathtaking
but then other parts look less detailed...the textures of the buildings look like crap...but if you can get past the graphics comparison to Crysis 1 then you can find a lot to like
this a screenie I took of the water...doesn't look as good as in-game but I was impressed
but then other parts look less detailed...the textures of the buildings look like crap...but if you can get past the graphics comparison to Crysis 1 then you can find a lot to like
this a screenie I took of the water...doesn't look as good as in-game but I was impressed
michael.pa2
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2006
- Messages
- 2,998
The worst part of all this is what might have been. Imagine a game with graphics that blow you away the way Crysis did when it was released.Then imagine those graphics used to bring to life a true open world with non -linear gameplay with dozens of options and vast areas to freely explore.A game that could keep you entertained not just for 10 hours but a hundred or more. That's what Crysis 2 could have been,and isn't.
kumquatsrus
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2007
- Messages
- 1,326
I'm running a 5870 2GB (Sys in Sig), and the game runs like shit at 3518x1920 + Extreme
no offense dude, but you're pushing 3x as many pixels as dextar on a card that is only about 30% faster on avg than his. try lowering the settings to very high (or high?) to get better frames. otherwise, you may have to consider upgrading your video card if you want a lot better fps.
WabeWalker
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2007
- Messages
- 4,508
a few levels in and I gotta admit the game is actually not that bad...it's biggest issue is the comparisons to the first game...if there never was a Crysis 1 then this game would be getting a lot more love...this is not the greatest game by any means but it's definitely fun and not as bad as you might have heard...the graphics do not match the first game but in certain parts the detail is stunning...the early level where you first encounter the aliens in this tunnel filled with water looks great...the water looks absolutely breathtaking
but then other parts look less detailed...the textures of the buildings look like crap...but if you can get past the graphics comparison to Crysis 1 then you can find a lot to like
this a screenie I took of the water...doesn't look as good as in-game but I was impressed
That starting area... I mean right away... take a jog into that little forested area... look at the shadows being cast on the ground from all the trees. There's some amazing stuff happening there. And it's super smooth too!
Also, now that I've actually played some, I'd have to say that the game is progressively getting better. That first hour now seems a little slow... although maybe they were pacing the game?
heatlesssun
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2005
- Messages
- 44,154
Thing is Crysis 2 DOES push high-end systems to their limits but still looks great and stays very fast while doing it. 3D Surround at 5760×1080 on Extreme at over 50 FPS. THIS is why I got this system, not to crank up settings to benchmark how crappily something could run. It won't work like this on an XBox, PS3 or $50 video card which BTW I tested. On a QX9650 with 4 GB of RAM and a GT 430 at 1920×1200 on High a whopping 14 FPS through the fist two checkpoints.
You still need some decent hardware to play this game well and if you play with all of it's capabilities you still need an uberrig to do it but you can get a great looking and playing experience without needing one.
And hrere's the thing - nobody seems to remember that, as long as some folks chiming in have been around just [H] alone (most a LOT longer than me).
It's been "how DARE Crytek lower the hardware requirements" and they blame consoles.
The FPS has been the one market (until recently) that pretty much catered *exclusively* to high-end PC hardware from the beginning to today.
However, since then, we've seen multiplatform (and even console-exclusive) FPS titles (Gears of War 2 and the last two Halo titles, to be specific among the console-onlies). And we *still* hadn't seen a FPS that looked good, on average settings, that was graspable controlwise by the average PC gamer (not the high-end gamer, but the average Joe/Jane with midrange hardware that is within reach of the average budget).
Enter Crysis 2.
It's that unique PC FPS that looks decent on average (and affordable) hardware that average folks can buy.
It's a game-changer, alright - even one that is overdue (as the FPS is literally the last gaming genre where install-and-play has consistently remained a dirty word).
With all those tweaker-mod screenies, all you are doing is proving my point - you're hardware enthusiasts wanting to justify why you bought multi-GPU high-end CPU rigs, and are used to FPS titles providing plenty of that, as they looked like crap (and a lot of times RAN like crap) on anything less. Even most previous multiplatform FPS titles (the exception being the original Gears of War) fell into the same trap - tune for the high-end enthusiast, and leave crap for the average PC gamer.
The only other PC developer that produces FPS titles for average hardware has been Valve. And even Valve hasn't exactly been praised for doing so; in fact didn't Valve get whacked for not supporting high-end DX10/DX11 features in the Source engine in TF2?
Yet TF2 (and even TF Classic) thrives.
However, Valve has been the only developer to dare the arrows and brickbats of PC hardware enthusiasts disguised as PC gamers (until now).
WorldExclusive
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2009
- Messages
- 11,548
^^^Doesn't advanced settings allow people with average hardware tweak the game to increase performance?
I wasn't gaming on PC that far back so I can't relate, but in the case of Crysis where options were present for people to tweak the game to make it playable, people still cranked up the settings and complained it run poorly. Those people with average hardware were not satisfied with gamer settings at 30fps, they wanted to run Crysis on Very High with the big shots. Crysis 2 takes away the ability of tweaking settings and satisfying the owners of average hardware. But, they sacrificed the high end users in the process. It's possible to have both mid-range and high-end performance but it probably wasn't profitable for Crytek. Advanced settings allow people to freely tweak their own experience, if average hardware owners complain about their hardware choking on all settings set to Extreme, tone it down, no one is forcing them to choke their PC. It's easier to put to rest "Can it run Crysis" by offering three graphic settings, from the guy gaming on his laptop to the person with SLI/CF configs, everyones feels equal now, meh.
I wasn't gaming on PC that far back so I can't relate, but in the case of Crysis where options were present for people to tweak the game to make it playable, people still cranked up the settings and complained it run poorly. Those people with average hardware were not satisfied with gamer settings at 30fps, they wanted to run Crysis on Very High with the big shots. Crysis 2 takes away the ability of tweaking settings and satisfying the owners of average hardware. But, they sacrificed the high end users in the process. It's possible to have both mid-range and high-end performance but it probably wasn't profitable for Crytek. Advanced settings allow people to freely tweak their own experience, if average hardware owners complain about their hardware choking on all settings set to Extreme, tone it down, no one is forcing them to choke their PC. It's easier to put to rest "Can it run Crysis" by offering three graphic settings, from the guy gaming on his laptop to the person with SLI/CF configs, everyones feels equal now, meh.
However, despite HL2 scaling higher than C2 (it's one of only two FPS titles that I've actually managed to max out on my hardware, as budget as it is), HL2 has gotten less respect for that hardware-friendliness than Half-Life did. Oh, no. If you are hardware-friendly, you're largely going to get hammered. (That was certainly largely the case with Half-Life - which, despite that, *still* was FPS of the Year; if anything, all the Source titles, including HL2, have been getting beat up even worse, largely due to not supporting those high-end-concentrated, if not high-end-exclusive, DX11 features.) Have you noticed that TF2 (in fact, *all* the Source-based titles, even those *not* developed by Valve) is thriving? In fact, TF Classic (and the original Half-Life) are still thriving. Think about *why* they are thriving.
Starcraft 2 got whacked for being hardware-friendly (and it's a frackin RTS, which has never been a genre for the hardware-busting crowd, Supreme Commander notwithstanding). Yet SC2 still sells (despite the price setting a new high-water mark for AAA RTS titles). Civilization V got *praised* for actually pushing hardware more than SC2 did (which I really don't get, as all that hardware-pushing does exactly nit for the game's storyline or even plot, and I *like* the game). Are we hardware-enthusiasts first, or gamers first?
yimingwuzere
Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2009
- Messages
- 618
They could have put in a Low/Medium/High/Max preset with a custom option that allows tweaking individual graphics effects like in Crysis 1 / Crysis Warhead. They didn't.
PGHammer: True about Valve. I beg to differ on you lumping Crytek inside that same group.
Crytek promised DX11 effects, graphics tweaking similar to Crysis 1, next-gen visuals on PC. We got none of that. Valve and broken promises? Announcing release dates for anything with Gordon Freeman in it. Crytek's crime is worse.
Valve offers awesome gameplay. HL2 introduced the power of Havok physics with the Gravity Gun. The only game before that with amazing physics was Painkiller, and that was all limited to pinning enemies on walls with stakes and other ragdoll effects. TeamFortress 2 and L4D had good multiplayer gameplay. Crysis 2 FWIH is another case of 'pay more for lesser sequel' in that department, similar to how MW2's multiplayer is utter 0/10 trash compared to its predecessor and yet costs more.
PGHammer: True about Valve. I beg to differ on you lumping Crytek inside that same group.
Crytek promised DX11 effects, graphics tweaking similar to Crysis 1, next-gen visuals on PC. We got none of that. Valve and broken promises? Announcing release dates for anything with Gordon Freeman in it. Crytek's crime is worse.
Valve offers awesome gameplay. HL2 introduced the power of Havok physics with the Gravity Gun. The only game before that with amazing physics was Painkiller, and that was all limited to pinning enemies on walls with stakes and other ragdoll effects. TeamFortress 2 and L4D had good multiplayer gameplay. Crysis 2 FWIH is another case of 'pay more for lesser sequel' in that department, similar to how MW2's multiplayer is utter 0/10 trash compared to its predecessor and yet costs more.
Absolutely untrue.
If you spend time (as a developer) tweaking the game for the high end (and that's PC-exclusive game development), that takes away from the middle, let alone the budget range. (Valve went for the midrange with Half-Life, the original Team Fortress, and has remained there pretty much since. How much respect have they gotten *from the PC gaming sites* for that deliberate move?) In fact, other than Valve, I don't know of even *one* developer that has done an FPS that actually looks decent at the midrange (until Crysis 2).
The last developer that even got close (the original Gears of War) got whacked so badly that they haven't done a PC game since.
It's been *high-end this/that* in the PC gaming space - if you don't cater to less than ten percent of the PC gaming market (and a smaller percentage of the entire PC hardware market), you will get nearly eaten alive. (Even Valve hasn't escaped unscathed.)
Most games look like crap (and worse, run like crap) on even midrange hardware with midrange settings - and the FPS (even the multiplatform FPS) is the largest example. Now we even have RTS titles (thanks for nothing, Civilization V!) trying to push the graphical envelope. Crysis 2 (like Valve's titles) is an exception. However, the fact that it actually looks decent (not spectacular, but actually decent) at midrange settings gets it attacked. (In point of fact, CE3 takes advantage of more DX9c features than the Source Engine.) Why is looking decent at midrange considerd a sin?
Crysis 2 is not an open world game like its predecessor, but still a brillant FPS.
I can't stand all these scripted C(orridor)OD-like games anymore.
IMO this game combines the best of both worlds by creating a chain of sandbox elements, which allows for a great variety in gameplay, almost every scene can be played differently,sneaky or brutal whatever you like.
To fully appreciate the visuals I would recommend anyone to play this game in 3D.
The built in 3D engine of this game works great and allows enoying 3D without cutting your framerate in half.
I can't stand all these scripted C(orridor)OD-like games anymore.
IMO this game combines the best of both worlds by creating a chain of sandbox elements, which allows for a great variety in gameplay, almost every scene can be played differently,sneaky or brutal whatever you like.
To fully appreciate the visuals I would recommend anyone to play this game in 3D.
The built in 3D engine of this game works great and allows enoying 3D without cutting your framerate in half.
Crytek also got whacked (in the case of the original Crysis, and Warhead as well) for the game pretty much requiring you to tweak to look decent at the midrange, and largely failing. However, to get the game looking visually decent on midrange hardware, you wound up with a slideshow (and that's still the case today).
Again, Crysis (and Warhead) were aimed pretty much at high-end hardware.
MW2? Yet another FPS title aimed at the high-end hardware market and (as you just pointed out) failing miserably at looking decent on midrange hardware.
Yes - Crysis 2 doesn't scale as well on high-end hardware as the original Crysis. However, that may actually have been done deliberately (and while console development may have been part of it, the scathing criticism they got for how poorly Crysis/WH looked on midrange PC hardware may have played a bigger part). Even most previous multiplatform FPS titles looked like crap on midrange PC hardware - why is that?
The reason I put Crytek (specifically with Crysis 2) and Valve in the same group is that both companies have FPS titles that look visually decent on midrange PC hardware, and with minimal, or no, tweaking required. (Decidedly alien territory for Crytek, I'll admit - in fact, I even said as much.) However, given Crytek's *other* projects (those outside of Crysis 2), I have every reason to believe they are chasing the same market Valve has been all alone in - the midrange-PC-hardware market.
No - it's not what Crytek (as a company) has been known for.
Still, what's wrong with Valve having some genuine competition in that midrange space?
WorldExclusive
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2009
- Messages
- 11,548
I don't have any issues with the mid-range crowd, but the answers I'm getting for you and others around the web is the "either or" effect, one or the other, both can't exist(mid-range and high end performance). I remember a business diagram that had segments of Cheap, Quality, Time or something like that. Companies can only get two of the three to overlap i.e. Cheap and fast, quality but longer production time etc.
I can understand the choices companies have to make, but the game went in a totally different direction from the first, that doesn't happen often. Once they said the next game was going to take place in New York, I immediately knew it was because of it becoming multiplatform. Think about the effect this would have on other games if they left their current environment for another, how well it would be accepted? There will be more than a few moans and groans.