Official Crysis 2 Thread

[p3sty]

So basically not worth 60$

 

[cesarioarce]

Not sure if you guys have this helpful tool?

http://www.fileserve.com/file/zu5zctY


http://www.sendspace.com/file/arihzn

Guy named wasdie made this and deserves the credit.

 

[Yoshiyuki Blade]

I'm thoroughly enjoying this game at the hardest difficulty. They only major graphical thing that's noticeably lower compared to the original is lower texture resolution. There are also a couple instances where the lighting is a little bit sloppy, such as when you look at distant buildings in dusty or low-visibility areas. It doesn't mesh too well. But the texture resolution is mostly consistent. I remember some parts of Crysis looking incredibly detailed while other parts look like complete ass. Motion blur is less "artifacty" and more seamless. Animations and fluidity is a quantum leap over the original/warhead. It's nice to see enemies turning their heads, looking around while running. Overall, there's less "stuff" going on at once but its compensated by higher frame rates. Not really the showcase game for state-of-the-art graphics technology anymore, but a pretty good single player FPS experience. We'll have to see if DirectX 11 will do anything different. I wouldn't mind a second playthrough.

 

[Silus]

lol@ Half-Life 2 looking better.

I didn't read the whole thing, but did anyone really claim that ?

If so, some people are really...welll...let's say "hilarious" (although there's a much better word)...

 

[nakedhand]

Now obviously crysis 2 will look better visually over all,

You said it best.

Some of the texture work in Crysis 2 is outright bad (like the gray square metal crate asset), the overall level of artistry is very good and many are sufficiently sharp. Make sure you turn off glow and motion blur before you do your pixel peeping.

Apart from that we are talking two different styles and it just happens that you prefer the their art direction and the source engine. To me shaders in HL2 are very flat, more cartoony you could say (lambert) and lacks very much in the department of conveying specularity, such as metals, wet surfaces and certain plastics, coatings and ceramics. And that´s just shaders alone. Lighting is superior as well.

I think beyond all the compromise Cry Engine 3 turned out to be, they struck a good balance over all in this decapitated DX9 version and is way more capable than the source engine. Certainly the best DX9 I have seen despite the consolitis.

 

[Yoshiyuki Blade]

I didn't read the whole thing, but did anyone really claim that ?

If so, some people are really...welll...let's say "hilarious" (although there's a much better word)...

Well back then, some people (meaning more than 1 person) thought that Crysis looked like Far Cry but ran slower. So yes, these people exist.

 

[Silus]

Like I said, Play the damn game and tell me if there is a difference between it rather than some random pictures that shows nothing and prove nothing.

Actually the burden of proof is on your side now, not his. You're the one claiming that there is a difference, when there isn't. Crysis DX9 and Crysis DX10 had practically no difference at all.

Actually this is hilarious (and ridiculous), because I remember some of the same people in other threads, criticizing Crysis for not having what Crysis 2 has now...yet Crysis 2 gets the criticism in reverse

Here's a relatively recent one: http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1400413

But there are a lot more...This is where that great South Park theme song for Mormons really applies and the lyrics go something like this: "dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb"

 

[Silus]

Well back then, some people (meaning more than 1 person) thought that Crysis looked like Far Cry but ran slower. So yes, these people exist.

Yeah, it's pretty obvious that they exist...but it's always a "facepalm" moment when someone continues to regurgitate that nonsense...

 

[-Tetsuo-]

I booted up Crysis earlier to play a bit, compare the two. I have it modded (texture packs,natural mod and physics mod) and it still doesn't look as good as Crysis 2. I skipped around the levels a bit and nothing looks as good as the scene I posted that screenshot from, lower resolution textures and all . This might have something to do wit hte drastically different settings, though. I love the destroyed urban environment. Crytek did a fantastic job taking New York apart.

This is in DX10, of course. Not only that, but the game constantly drops to 30~ frames, sometimes even into the teens, and never really approaches 60( I would assume this is the physics mod, I haven't tried vanilla). Crysis 2 has not dropped below 45fps for me once, and usually hovers in the high 50's.

 

[TheGamerZ]

At least one excerpt in that review screams consolization.
"So, where does Crysis 2 stumble? It has a checkpoint system that ranges from passable to unforgiving, as if it was designed to supplement the habitual PC quick-saving of the first game."
You'd think they would have learned from Farcry 2.

Crytek didn't make FarCry 2, Ubisoft did.

 

[Buxaroo]

Agreed with all points. This really DOES show that all these review sites are probably paid off with the 9/10 crap!

You would have to have at least an IQ of 80 or below to actually read any reviews from any "professional" game sites and believe anything that they write in their reviews. And I am talking about "game" sites like Gamespy, etc. Why people after all these years still visit that site and use that shitty excuse for a game browser in this day and age is beyond me.

Gamespy and their ilk is to game journalism what Enquirer is to in-depth journalism. They are a joke and generally the people who take them seriously should have their right to vote taken away.

 

[SoFGR]

I booted up Crysis earlier to play a bit, compare the two. I have it modded (texture packs,natural mod and physics mod) and it still doesn't look as good as Crysis 2. I skipped around the levels a bit and nothing looks as good as the scene I posted that screenshot from, lower resolution textures and all . This might have something to do wit hte drastically different settings, though. I love the destroyed urban environment. Crytek did a fantastic job taking New York apart.

This is in DX10, of course. Not only that, but the game constantly drops to 30~ frames, sometimes even into the teens, and never really approaches 60( I would assume this is the physics mod, I haven't tried vanilla). Crysis 2 has not dropped below 45fps for me once, and usually hovers in the high 50's.

Wait a minute, no fps dips ? no hitching ? no tri-sli required to play ? FAIIIIIIIIL ! i'm canceling my preorder right now !




















( )

Btw can I have wasdie's babies ?

 

[Silus]

Wait a minute, no fps dips ? no hitching ? no tri-sli required to play ? FAIIIIIIIIL ! i'm canceling my preorder right now !

You forgot the "OMFGGGG!1!!11! It's DX9 only!1!!111!!!! Crytek FAIL LOL Crysis 2 suX0rz!!111!!1!11!11"

 

[ChronoDetector]

I feel sorry for anybody who bought this game for full price, I didn't.

 

[almalino]

I feel sorry for anybody who bought this game for full price, I didn't.

I feel sorry for myself. I had an idea to wait till price goes down but could't resist. Now I think I should have waited.

 

[ex0du5]

Unfortunately I was serious, the textures in hl2 are actually comparable to crysis 2. Now obviously crysis 2 will look better visually over all, but the textures are blurry and not very sharp, thus comparable to hl2's. IMHO hl2's aesthetics do look more crisp and clean, valve just did an amazing job, which was 7 years ago. It seems like you tried to post a pic but nothing is showing up...and it has crysis1.jpg at the end of it.

I'm a huge Half-Life fan, but come on.

The texture's aren't great, but they're nothing like HL2. The textures also never get as bad as Crysis 1's rock textures.

Don't be dumb

Crysis 1 basically had no DX10 specific effects at all, everything worked in DX9 with just a couple settings changes and it literally looked exactly the same. If Crysis 2 is dumbed down for DX9 then the first game must have looked shitty too.

Could they have pushed it? Yeah, and it's disappointing. But I'm half way through the game and the textures are not as big a problem as people like to think. There were iffy spots in the first game and there's iffy spots here. Here's a nice high res trash bin to help you feel better: [

I believe the only DX10 exclusive feature in the first game was object based motion blur. There were other features like sun shafts which were only available on DX10 Very High, but they were available on DX9 with a custom config.

 

[Silus]

I feel sorry for anybody who bought this game for full price, I didn't.

And while you feel sorry, we'll be playing the game. As for full price, I was actually surprised to see it debut @ 50 euros. I was expecting the usual 60, but it's actually 50. So I was pleased. The last game at launch I bought for less than 60 euros, was Street Fighter IV (for 40).

 

[ChronoDetector]

Is anybody experiencing that stupid network error message that the game "can't find a network connection" when you try to play multiplayer? This error existed in the demo and they still haven't fixed it in the full retail version. This sucks, I bought this game so I could play online and I can't.

 

[quadnad]

I've only played for about an hour or so, but personally I think it looks pretty damn great. It certainly doesn't push the limits of PC graphics like the first one did, but I think the overall visual presentation is better than the first. The demolished NY setting is pretty awesome too.

I am getting a good laugh though at this weird double-standard -- I remember how many people were pissing and moaning when Crysis launched at what an "unoptimized POS" it was, how you needed some uber-rig to run at even medium settings, and now they're complaining that Crysis 2 *doesn't* do the same thing to their rigs. Perhaps it's because I'm getting older, but I'm happy that I don't have to worry about the memory usage of certain settings causing stutters, tweaking cfg files, waiting a year or two for new hardware to arrive, etc for the game to run reasonably well.

To everyone complaining about the graphics: I'm sure the assets (models, textures) were designed with the consoles in mind. Having said that, I think a texture pack could resolve a lot of that. I don't think what we see here shows the full capabilities of the engine, and hopefully those that choose to license it try to push it further. Regardless, I'm enjoying what I've played so far.

 

[FranklyShankly]

And while you feel sorry, we'll be playing the game. As for full price, I was actually surprised to see it debut @ 50 euros. I was expecting the usual 60, but it's actually 50. So I was pleased. The last game at launch I bought for less than 60 euros, was Street Fighter IV (for 40).

Well it's 60 dollars in the US, when the first one and standard PC game price is 50 (although ever since MW2 60 dollar titles are popping up more and more).
Clearly a better deal for you than for us.

To everyone complaining about the graphics: I'm sure the assets (models, textures) were designed with the consoles in mind. Having said that, I think a texture pack could resolve a lot of that. I don't think what we see here shows the full capabilities of the engine, and hopefully those that choose to license it try to push it further. Regardless, I'm enjoying what I've played so far.

Crytek should have pushed their engine to the limit. It is what they are known for. A powerful engine doesn't give them a pass for not using all that power.

 

[Silus]

Well it's 60 dollars in the US, when the first one and standard PC game price is 50 (although ever since MW2 60 dollar titles are popping up more and more).
Clearly a better deal for you than for us.

What ?! Clearly a better deal ?! It's not, because 50 euros equals 70 USD.

It's only a better deal than most of the other PC Games that cost 60 euros. 60 euros = ~85 USD.

Crytek should have pushed their engine to the limit. It is what they are known for. A powerful engine doesn't give them a pass for not using all that power.

They did use it in Crysis 1 and were criticized for it. Double standards at their finest. But whatever. This thread is a clear indication that some will continue to practice those double standards to justify some sort of "elitism" towards PC Gaming. Well, I'm a PC Gamer too and agree with some of those complaints, like "the press start button" thingy, or lack of configurable graphical settings and a less sandbox type experience, when compared to the original Crysis. But to complain about a graphically stunning game, because "it's DX9 only" or "because it doesn't push my PC" is really, really dumb...

 

[ex0du5]

One thing to remember about [H] is that it's filled with hardware enthusiasts that care little about actual gaming.

 

[FranklyShankly]

What ?! Clearly a better deal ?! It's not, because 50 euros equals 70 USD.

It's only a better deal than most of the other PC Games that cost 60 euros. 60 euros = ~85 USD.

That's what I meant. It's a better comparative deal in that market than it is in ours. Not a dollar for dollar comparison.

They did use it in Crysis 1 and were criticized for it. Double standards at their finest. But whatever. This thread is a clear indication that some will continue to practice those double standards to justify some sort of "elitism" towards PC Gaming. Well, I'm a PC Gamer too and agree with some of those complaints, like "the press start button" thingy, or lack of configurable graphical settings and a less sandbox type experience, when compared to the original Crysis. But to complain about a graphically stunning game, because "it's DX9 only" or "because it doesn't push my PC" is really, really dumb...

I never said anything of the sort about the first game, and I have always been in the habit of refuting people who did. The fact is the game had an enormous amount of graphical features, high res textures, physics and the like. All that good stuff takes GPU power. People who called it "unoptimized" simply because it didn't run on very high on a toaster are idiots. You can only optimize so far, eventually you need a certain amount of power to render a certain scene. I loved that the game looked great on medium/high on release, and would continue to look great over the years as people were able to attain hardware capable of those settings.

 

[Alia Nexis]

One thing to remember about [H] is that it's filled with hardware enthusiasts that care little about actual gaming.

I keep forgetting that. I think I'll go back to enjoying Crysis 2 at 640x480 on a laptop.

 

[Dan_D]

One thing to remember about [H] is that it's filled with hardware enthusiasts that care little about actual gaming.

And how is Crysis 2 even rate a decent game? The bitching here isn't just about the fact that the graphics are below expectations but rather the fact that it was clearly a crappy linear console port of a game which puts it a huge step behind the original.

 

[_randies_]

Really liking this game so far, haven't tried MP only SP. Well worth the 50 bucks; BB had 10 gift card back with purchase

I am noticing ~ 90 fps minimum, 120 avg, as high as 170 fps.

1080p extreme settings.

980x stock, 480gtx OC SLi, 6GB xms3, running on one of two connected AW2310 24" @ 120Hz.

GPU usage around 95% @85C with fans running 95%.

Running full-screen versus windowed mode results in much higher frame rates and smoother play.

Will have to restart the game on occasion to reset melee bind.

 

[firas]

whats melee bind?

 

[FranklyShankly]

I keep forgetting that. I think I'll go back to enjoying Crysis 2 at 640x480 on a laptop.

According to some people that's what we should all want to do:

I'm actually playing on lower (not higher) settings than I played the MP demo on (I played the MP demo at 1280x720 and first Gamer, then Advanced; now I'm playing the SP campaign on the defaults - 1024x768/Gamer/V-Sync on). Am I in a hurry to move the settings any? Surprisingly (despite owning a FP display) no.

Install. Activate. Play. (And on a PC.) Does anyone have ANY FRACKIN IDEA how long we've been promised exactly that, even for the FPS category on a PC?

 

[Alia Nexis]

And how is Crysis 2 even rate a decent game? The bitching here isn't just about the fact that the graphics are below expectations but rather the fact that it was clearly a crappy linear console port of a game which puts it a huge step behind the original.

Ok, let's go with that. Is Crysis 2 a GOOD console game? I think it's better than COD at least; those are plenty linear.

 

[defiant007]

They did use it in Crysis 1 and were criticized for it. Double standards at their finest. But whatever. This thread is a clear indication that some will continue to practice those double standards to justify some sort of "elitism" towards PC Gaming. Well, I'm a PC Gamer too and agree with some of those complaints, like "the press start button" thingy, or lack of configurable graphical settings and a less sandbox type experience, when compared to the original Crysis. But to complain about a graphically stunning game, because "it's DX9 only" or "because it doesn't push my PC" is really, really dumb...

So just because you dismiss one of the arguments that somehow makes up for all the other more significant issues people are complaining about?

Personally I don't care so much that the graphics do not surpass Crysis but what really pisses me off are the compromises in gameplay, level design and complexity which are clearly the result of needing to accommodate the hardware limitations of consoles.

There are a million other fucking generic FPS games on the market which offer the same shitty linear SP and limited MP experience carbon copied from CoD without Crytek having had to go down the same path.

 

[Silus]

One thing to remember about [H] is that it's filled with hardware enthusiasts that care little about actual gaming.

Everyone knows that and that's fine. Although I don't have disposable income for uber rigs very quarter of the year, I'm an enthusiast myself and love the technological advancements that brings us closer to true realism in games. But I know that not all games can push the graphical boundaries.
The worst part is that there are many people here that just go with the flow or read "it's DX9 only" and go nuts, without even actually looking at the game, in videos, screenshots or whatever. They already determined that they need to hate the game and so they'll hate it, regardless of it being fun, enjoyable and/or good-looking, because others are saying it too and they need to follow the crowd...it's mob mentality.

 

[Crash250f]

Everyone keeps talking about double standards, and I guess it's true if you take the PC gaming community as a whole without taking into account that it's made of many people with many different opinions.

There are really 2 main groups in this argument. There's the people who want graphics to push boundaries and fully utilize their hardware, and then there's the people who want a good smooth gameplay experience with good, but not amazing graphics.

Personally, I'm okay with the opinions of both groups in theory. I do have a very big problem with many people who belong to the second, gameplay focused group though, because I can guarantee that if Crysis 2 launched with the current max settings found under the label Gamer, but also had a graphics setting labeled Enthusiast which pushed boundaries and required high-end current hardware, they would have a problem with "the hardware requirements being too high" and "it being unoptimized." It's those people that screw us out of having the best of both worlds. Fuck those people.

 

[SoFGR]

And how is Crysis 2 even rate a decent game? The bitching here isn't just about the fact that the graphics are below expectations but rather the fact that it was clearly a crappy linear console port of a game which puts it a huge step behind the original.

crysis 1 was 80% linear before the aliens and 95% linear after the aliens, want dynamic immersive and realistic gameplay ? go play SoC with lurk 1.1 and enjoy, crysis 2 is a multiplatform game, what did you expect in the first place ?

From what i've seen so far ( my copy will probably get delivered to me on monday ) Gameplay is much better than the original, AI doesn't spray fire on purpose when you go low health ( yes that happens even in delta ) , the new nanosuit system is much more intuitive to control instead of holding mouse 3 all the time, you can slide by pressing sprint and crouch simuletaneously, what else could you want ?

The whining about graphics is getting rediculous, crysis 2 objectively looks better AND runs better than the first one, and it will look even better with the incoming dx11 patch. I just finished blue shift yesterday in one sitting, that's how much i care about graphics in general.

 

[phide]

Ok, let's go with that. Is Crysis 2 a GOOD console game? I think it's better than COD at least; those are plenty linear.

It's probably an above-average console shooter, sure. That doesn't impact how well it fares against other PC shooters, though.

...crysis 2 objectively looks better AND runs better than the first one

What objective metrics are you using to define "looks better"?

 

[Haiku214]

I've been playing through the SP campaign for about 4 hours now and here is what I can say.

Pros:
Graphics are quite nice as a whole
It is just plain FUN

Cons:
Nano Catalyst bug
Save checkpoint mechanism
Graphics are not as good when looking at more specific objects

 

[Silus]

So just because you dismiss one of the arguments that somehow makes up for all the other more significant issues people are complaining about?

Personally I don't care so much that the graphics do not surpass Crysis but what really pisses me off are the compromises in gameplay, level design and complexity which are clearly the result of needing to accommodate the hardware limitations of consoles.

There are a million other fucking generic FPS games on the market which offer the same shitty linear SP and limited MP experience carbon copied from CoD without Crytek having had to go down the same path.

What did I dismiss again ?

As for you not caring about graphics, maybe you should read the rest of the thread ? You're in the minority that DOESN'T care so much about graphics, as the reason to hate this game.

I can hardly call Crysis 2 SP a generic FPS game. Yes, it's less sandbox than the first, as I pointed out, that's one of the things I don't like either, but the setting is just amazing and no other game has ever done it better or at all. And what about MP being like CoD ? Did you ever look at the attendance of CoD MP maps ? There are thousands playing those. Did you see thousands playing Crysis 1 MP ? No, you didn't and I didn't either, since I was one of the few playing it, until I gave up. So Crytek had to change something and they changed it to something known to have been a success. Don't like it, go back to Crysis 1, that was quite different, yet almost no one played it. I'm sure you'll have fun playing with yourself (no pun intended, but it suits the context )
You seem to think that you're entitled to something in this regard, but you're not. Crysis 2 wasn't made for you. It was made to please more than just one person and the facts stand that what you don't like, seems to please many (I'm specifically talking about the MP portion).
Again, I too don't like some of the things that they did with Crysis 2, when comparing it to Crysis 1, but graphics is definitely not one of them. They are absolutely stunning in maximum settings (would love to see it in 3d, since many people are raving it to be even better). Although not being as "sandboxy", which is my favorite type of gameplay, the game is fun and can be challenging. I haven't finished it yet, but I'm enjoying it. And again, It's quite fun to be playing in the middle of New York and the weapons are awesome!

 

[TheOneKnownAsMe]

I'm more inclined to praise developers for pushing the limits of their aging engines, but Crytek should be ashamed for not taking advantage of CryEngine 3.

Graphics can always be scaled down to console appropriate levels.

 

[ex0du5]

And how is Crysis 2 even rate a decent game? The bitching here isn't just about the fact that the graphics are below expectations but rather the fact that it was clearly a crappy linear console port of a game which puts it a huge step behind the original.

It's disappointing coming off the original, but it is by no means a bad game.

Linearity does not equal a bad game. Otherwise, you might as well only play Crysis, STALKER, and Arma.

 

[Dan_D]

crysis 1 was 80% linear before the aliens and 95% linear after the aliens, want dynamic immersive and realistic gameplay ? go play SoC with lurk 1.1 and enjoy, crysis 2 is a multiplatform game, what did you expect in the first place ?

From what i've seen so far ( my copy will probably get delivered to me on monday ) Gameplay is much better than the original, AI doesn't spray fire on purpose when you go low health ( yes that happens even in delta ) , the new nanosuit system is much more intuitive to control instead of holding mouse 3 all the time, you can slide by pressing sprint and crouch simuletaneously, what else could you want ?

The whining about graphics is getting rediculous, crysis 2 objectively looks better AND runs better than the first one, and it will look even better with the incoming dx11 patch. I just finished blue shift yesterday in one sitting, that's how much i care about graphics in general.

Although you had a clear sense of direction in the first one but anytime you approached an enemy encampment you had many ways to deal with the situation. Stealth, guns blazing, or whatever you could really come up with. Set up a distraction / diversion by blowing up a vehicle or whatever. The AI wasn't perfect, but it's not the worst I've seen by a long shot.

 

[socK]

I'm a huge Half-Life fan, but come on.

The texture's aren't great, but they're nothing like HL2. The textures also never get as bad as Crysis 1's rock textures.



I believe the only DX10 exclusive feature in the first game was object based motion blur. There were other features like sun shafts which were only available on DX10 Very High, but they were available on DX9 with a custom config.

Object motion blur works in dx9 too with minor visual artifacts due to the technique literally brushing against dx9 hardware limits. The shader ran out of hardware registers or something for character bones and it looked strange on arms, but was otherwise 100 percent functional.