• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Official Crysis 2 Thread

Johnked6 said:
I'm guessing its 16 miliseconds. Probably something to do with their range of acceptable performance for new features.
Click to expand...
Right. He meant that, given their performance target, they have room for additional features not to exceed an additional 16 ms in frame time.
 
Johnked6 said:
http://twitter.com/CRYTEK_TIAGO

Cryptic tweet from a Crytek developer. 16ms?
Click to expand...

Wow, that's actually pretty good news. I read an article talking about the various graphics technology used in this game (it's no longer online, otherwise I would post it), and with a lot of the effects they were talking about how it would take an extra 1-2ms to process them. Pretty much what this quote means is that they're targeting an extra 16ms or so of render time for DX11 features.
 
To me it seems like Crytek mostly focused on getting Cryengine to work well on the Xbox 360 and PS3, to that front it seems like they did a good enough job however it doesn't seem like they took the extra time to create sharper textures or Direct X 11 features. Overall I wouldn't say Crysis 2 is a bad game but it definitely wasn't developed with PC focus like the first one or Warhead.
 
It takes 16 ms to render one frame at 60 FPS IIRC. If they want the game to be fluid at 60 FPS all the rendering for one frame has to be done in under 16 ms.

That is their target I guess
 
if someone had told me in 2007 that crysis 2 would be behind in graphics I wouldve laughed hysterically then punched him in the face for BSing me.
 
Good. Release the damned DX11 patch already.

I personally don't care, but I'm getting tired of seeing people bitching about Crysis 2 not having DX11 support - it will be refreshing seeing those same people bitching instead about how Crysis 2 in DX11 mode is a total system hog, and is not working well on their present hardware, which I suspect is what they wanted to do all along.

I love the present state we're in. Gamers scream for change, but when they get it they just complain. They want super optimized game engines but when they get one, which also happens to be pretty damned good looking, all they can do is get out their magnifying glasses and start to analyze the textures.

Would it be fair to say that gamers, right now, cannot be pleased?
 
dx11 wont change anything, the basic game mechanic will stay the same, console and simple to the bone


but to all of you buying and enjoying this game its a good thing maybe crysis 3 would again bring something new
 
Last edited:
abeztoz said:
dx11 wont change anything, the basic game mechanic will stay the same, console and simple to the bone
Click to expand...

Yeah, the game mechanics of Crysis 1 were just so advanced. Not. Crysis 1 was nothing but a basic linear progression shooter with alternative approaches to the objectives. Nothing but simple which is why I liked it.
 
heatlesssun said:
Yeah, the game mechanics of Crysis 1 were just so advanced. Not. Crysis 1 was nothing but a basic linear progression shooter with alternative approaches to the objectives. Nothing but simple which is why I liked it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I like to keep things simple and engaging. Blizzard kind of had that problem in SC2, where they made every single mission unique and "gimmicky" in some way to keep things mixed up. But a lot of people, myself included, would have like to see at least *some* generic missions where you just build up an army and kill the enemy. It's a ridiculous state of expectations people are having these days.

As for the DX11 tweet, I'd like to see them pack in features targeted for 33 ms, so it would last into the next gen or two of hardware. :D
 
Last edited:
dioxholster said:
Crysis 1 vs. Crysis 2? whats the consensus?
Click to expand...

Crysis 1 is basically the same as 2 except two is Direct X 9 with lower resolution textures and more basic shaders.

Modded Crysis 1 is definitely a much better looking game then Crysis 2 though. As for gameplay not sure as I haven't really played either game and am only judging by gameplay videos and screenshots.
 
KashunatoR said:
i simply don't understand "the 16 ms" thing :D
Click to expand...

Pretty straightforward, the idea is to keep the time to render 1 frame to 16 milliseconds. At that speed the it's possible to deliver 60 frames per second which is the ideal on a PC as most monitors can't refresh any higher than that. However I've not seen any indication on what kind of hardware or settings we're talking about to achieve this.
 
heatlesssun said:
Yeah, the game mechanics of Crysis 1 were just so advanced. Not. Crysis 1 was nothing but a basic linear progression shooter with alternative approaches to the objectives. Nothing but simple which is why I liked it.
Click to expand...
Which is why Crysis wasn't as good as Far Cry. Far Cry truly had no walls. I could do things however I wanted wherever I wanted. Of course, the storytelling was still linear, but that's fine. Non-linear storytelling tends to suck IMO.
 
drako said:
Which is why Crysis wasn't as good as Far Cry. Far Cry truly had no walls. I could do things however I wanted wherever I wanted. Of course, the storytelling was still linear, but that's fine. Non-linear storytelling tends to suck IMO.
Click to expand...

Pity Far Cry fell apart towards the end of the game. It was a good game for its time though. I loved running around the jungle mostly aimlessly.
 
KashunatoR said:
i simply don't understand "the 16 ms" thing :D
Click to expand...

An ideal framerate for gaming is 60 FPS. That's 1 frame every 1/60th of a second. Do that math and you'll end up with 1 frame every 0.01666666.... seconds aka 16.666666.... miliseconds. So the way devs approach this is that they want to render everything they want in 1 frame under 16 ms to keep the framerate a smooth 60.
 
One thing that the game lacks for me, compared to the first Crysis isn't graphics like everybody is saying but the sandbox element.

The first game was like putting your nanosuited superman into a sandbox in many levels where you could spend lots of time just playing with blowing up buildings, vehicles, throwing flaming barrels into the forest, cutting down trees, jumping from cliffs into the water, wandering around an island etc. and generally having a lot of fun outside of actually playing the game.

The solidness of everything in the New York setting takes this away. The guy is so strong that he can kick a 4000 pound (2 ton) Taxi 15 feet and yet he can't punch his way through a wall or even the flimsy trailers CELL has setup everywhere? With the nanosuit, this guy should basically be spider-man, capable of jumping up and scaling all the buildings in New York.

If this game was truly made with the ambition of being something that challenged PC hardware, I don't see why it wouldn't be impossible to have destructible environments and a much more populated city and the ability to have a bigger open GTA/Just Cause like city with Frostbite Engine type destruction for him to explore instead of narrow corridors with fake indestructible walls and props to keep you from leaving that particular city block.
 
ive been seeing gameplay looks addictive but id feel guilty if i bought the game which was made for consoles.
 
He's referring to the budget they have to draw a frame - I'm assuming 30fps is the target since they apparently have 16ms left to play with. On what hardware/settings though? That is the question.

http://crytek.com/news/achieved-with-cryengine-3

This is a nice article, should hopefully put to bed the stupid "dumbed down" claims. Cryengine 3 is an incredible accomplishment.
 
Spare-Flair said:
One thing that the game lacks for me, compared to the first Crysis isn't graphics like everybody is saying but the sandbox element.

The first game was like putting your nanosuited superman into a sandbox in many levels where you could spend lots of time just playing with blowing up buildings, vehicles, throwing flaming barrels into the forest, cutting down trees, jumping from cliffs into the water, wandering around an island etc. and generally having a lot of fun outside of actually playing the game.

The solidness of everything in the New York setting takes this away. The guy is so strong that he can kick a 4000 pound (2 ton) Taxi 15 feet and yet he can't punch his way through a wall or even the flimsy trailers CELL has setup everywhere? With the nanosuit, this guy should basically be spider-man, capable of jumping up and scaling all the buildings in New York.

If this game was truly made with the ambition of being something that challenged PC hardware, I don't see why it wouldn't be impossible to have destructible environments and a much more populated city and the ability to have a bigger open GTA/Just Cause like city with Frostbite Engine type destruction for him to explore instead of narrow corridors with fake indestructible walls and props to keep you from leaving that particular city block.
Click to expand...

This is how I feel as well. Replayability and experimentation in Crysis 2 is no where near as deep as can be found within the original. The story, set pieces, and hollywood big budget movie factor are all there for part 2 in a big way though -- but it's unfortunate the environment feels so static and constrained.

Maybe if the game hadn't been called Crysis the majority of complaints would either cease or have never happened.
 
I've heard Cevat Yerli talk in terms of milliseconds before. Must be a developer thing. Not sure why they don't communicate in terms of FPS like the rest of the world.

It will be a big bonus in my opinion if they can really put some vast improvement into the game via DX11 effects.
 
Johnked6 said:
http://twitter.com/CRYTEK_TIAGO

Cryptic tweet from a Crytek developer. 16ms?
Click to expand...

1000 / 16 milliseconds = 62.5 fps


jebo_4jc said:
I've heard Cevat Yerli talk in terms of milliseconds before. Must be a developer thing. Not sure why they don't communicate in terms of FPS like the rest of the world.

It will be a big bonus in my opinion if they can really put some vast improvement into the game via DX11 effects.
Click to expand...

no, they don't because frame time is not linear and it doesn't make much sense to measure performance in fps if you want a really meaningful reading.

20 fps = 50 ms
1000 fps = 1 ms
500 fps = 2 ms

so yes, the difference between 1000 and 500 fps is the same cost as 67 to 63 fps. this is why they use milliseconds.
 
venm11 said:
That is incredible.... really, really nice. The problem is that all of these mods come out so much later than the game, so ... do you wait??
Click to expand...

gives you a reason to replay the game, and thus a higher ROR on your investment :)
 
venm11 said:
That is incredible.... really, really nice. The problem is that all of these mods come out so much later than the game, so ... do you wait??
Click to expand...

Why not? I can load up Morrowind or Oblivion and find new awesome mods that radically change my experience with the game. That is what is so great about modding.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top