Official Crysis 2 Thread

DASHlT said:
DA2 was Great. Crysis 2 was not.

Crysis was consilized.....and it sucks total ass.

He is right, its a 2.99 purchase on steam later on.
Click to expand...

DA2 was not great and was consolised. That's just my opinion.

Dead Space 2 can be added to my list of 2011 disappointments too. So that's 3 games that I was pumped for that have disappointed.
 
meatfestival said:
Crytek can't win. People bitched at them for making a game they couldn't run, implying that it was badly optimised and "just a tech demo" etc etc. Crytek gave them what they wanted and now they're still not happy.

Wait for the DX11 update before throwing all your toys out the pram.
Click to expand...

Are you fucking kidding me? A DirectX 11 patch for this steaming pile of dog shit? All it will do is add some tessellation and call it "DirectX 11"....You can put flowers on a pile of dog shit to make it look good, but at the end of the day, it is still a pile of dog shit...

They completely fucked over the PC crowd who made them. Selling 1 million units for the PC version back in 2006 was amazing!!! They will be lucky to sell 250K version of the PC game.

Add Crytek to the list of developers who shoved the big dildo up our collective asses, Epic, and other EA Studios come to mind...Epic games especially!!!! What they did to the UT Franchise is a shame....

I am holding out hope for EA/DICE with Battlefield 3. Since it is being built from the ground up on the PC then ported to the consoles, give me hope....
 
Q-BZ said:
I don't know how motivated Kyle will be but at some point if he feels like it I'd like to actually see him follow up that...come on it's more of a heartfelt rant than a "review"....with more of a real review with screenshots, Crysis 1 vs. 2, and the rest of it...if he felt like it of course. :)
Click to expand...

He dont need to review it, If you played the first and 2nd crysis, You will know what he is talking about.

I honestly think Crysis 1 graphics are far superior then Crysis 2 graphics.

Crytek dropped the ball on this Crysis 2, But when you sell out, you sell out [H]ard
 
Q-BZ said:
Except I've seen it enough times from enough people that seem to have some kind of techincal background considerably superior to mine that...hey, I can't know for sure. Maybe there's SOME grain of truth to it?
Click to expand...

Doubt it, unless they proved to have that "superior technical background", besides just telling you they do. There's absolutely nothing that proves it's badly coded, except the continuous efforts by some to say it is, which isn't proof at all. CryEngine 2 scales well across multiple hardware configurations and the performance, considering its graphics fidelity is very good. The only engine I think is better than CryEngine 2 (before CryEngine 3 was out) is the engine used in Metro 2033, simply because it scales even better, without compromising graphics fidelity so much (as it happens with CryEingine 2 once shaders are below high quality). But performance in Metro 2033 is a killer too, even on the highest-end system, plus Metro 2033 engine renders corridors and tunnels, while CryEngine 2 renders huge scenarios, with lots of trees that flow in the wind and break once shoot at. It's a highly physicalized environment that no other game did thus far, which is precisely why performance suffers.
 
spicey said:
DA2 was not great and was consolised. That's just my opinion.

Dead Space 2 can be added to my list of 2011 disappointments too. So that's 3 games that I was pumped for that have disappointed.
Click to expand...

I disagree Dead space 2 on the PC was very badass and fixed alot of issues of Dead Space 1 on the PC.
 
I'll probably get this game once (if?) the DX11 options get patched in and it is $25 or less on steam. Not until then.
 
Silus said:
Doubt it, unless they proved to have that "superior technical background", besides just telling you they do. There's absolutely nothing that proves it's badly coded, except the continuous efforts by some to say it is, which isn't proof at all. CryEngine 2 scales well across multiple hardware configurations and the performance, considering its graphics fidelity is very good. The only engine I think is better than CryEngine 2 (before CryEngine 3 was out) is the engine used in Metro 2033, simply because it scales even better, without compromising graphics fidelity so much (as it happens with CryEingine 2 once shaders are below high quality). But performance in Metro 2033 is a killer too, even on the highest-end system, plus Metro 2033 engine renders corridors and tunnels, while CryEngine 2 renders huge scenarios, with lots of trees that flow in the wind and break once shoot at. It's a highly physicalized environment that no other game did thus far, which is precisely why performance suffers.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.


DASHlT said:
He dont need to review it, If you played the first and 2nd crysis, You will know what he is talking about.

I honestly think Crysis 1 graphics are far superior then Crysis 2 graphics.

Crytek dropped the ball on this Crysis 2, But when you sell out, you sell out [H]ard
Click to expand...

But it'd be fun to see him do it. If he felt like it. :)
 
Crysis 2 is made for console noobs and punk teenage kids who only have played console noob shooters.and it looks like ass even on pc.

the xbox 360 looks worse than that and contols worse.

I should have known it was partmade by the crap timesplitters and golden eye console noobs shooter makers wasnt it?

they should never be allowed with in 12 feet of making a realshooter for the pc they don't know crap about making one.

You know how they improved the engineto run better don't you? ya they made it look like ass and took out everything that pushed game graphics into a new age and sent it back 5 years.
 
Cube said:
Crysis 2 is made for console noobs and punk teenage kids who only have played console noob shooters.

and it looks like ass even on pc the xbox 360 looks worse than that and contols worse.

I should have known it was partmade by the crap timesplitters and golden eye console noobs shooter makers wasnt it.

they should never be allowed with in 12 feet of making a realshooter for the pc they don't know crap about making one.
Click to expand...

I should of known when i downloaded the demo, and it deteced my 360 controller right off the bat.

Usually that is not a good sign
 
_PixelNinja said:
You know... What bothers me here is all poring insults on people who play consoles. I play on console as much as I play on PC - I have a gaming capable PC at my place but only consoles at my parents place. I've always been playing on both as far as I can remember. These days it's between a 360 and a PC (although I do bring out the old Game Cube or PS1 for the kicks from time to time). Does this make me a douche who doesn't know better, retard, or any other name that has been said over and over again here too?

People are saying here that people who play on consoles are a bunch of 12 year olds who don't know better. But does insulting them make you any more mature?

I don't know really... I just feel uncomfortable with all this hatred, the way some are raging on, insulting people who haven't really done anything. At worst, the developers are the ones to blame... At moments I have the impression that this isn't entertainment any more; I feel like I'm reading about politics.
Click to expand...

I rage on consoles all the time (including in this thread) and yet I own all of the consoles and extensive libraries for each. However, you're not going to find me spending real money for fake clothes, buying $60 games with 4 hour campaigns, or generally functioning as an enabler for all the bullshit that has infected this generation of gaming. If you rush off to drop $15 on the latest Black Ops map pack, you just might be a consoletard. If you own consoles mainly for the unique and eccentric games that don't typically make it to the PC, there is no negative connotation.

The insults directed at console gamers are well placed in my opinion because by their actions they make gaming worse for all of us. If they didn't buy DLC that costs 1/4 the price of a game and has 1/20 the content, companies would go back to earning their money by making expansions. If they weren't dumb enough to pay real money for clothes for their Xbox live avatars, we'd probably be able to dress up our avatars for free. If they stopped buying FPS games with 5 hour campaigns, the industry standard would shift back towards the traditional 12-15 hour campaign. I could go on and on with pages of examples like this, but the summary is that console gamers deserve every bit of criticism they get for creating collective action problems for more discerning purchasers.

A lot of it comes down to poor parenting and failing to teach children the value of a dollar. I was 12 once, I gamed mostly on consoles with the occasional PC game like Commander Keen or Doom, yet I would have laughed at the prospect of paying real money for the virtual items today's console gamers eat up like candy. You know, I preordered Dragon Age Origins for something like $40 on Amazon. It came with a code for some stupid Lion's Paw boots or something like that, and a console gamer bought the code from me for $31 on ebay. R.O.F.L.
 
Here's to praying that Battlefield 3 will be a solid smash on the PC. We need more developers realizing that consoles are just as easily exploited as PCs are.
 
Silus said:
First of all, taking someone else's opinion as fact is a very big mistake. As most things, you should try them yourself before you pass judgement. But suit yourself...

Second, NVIDIA and AMD are not going to have any problems in that regard. Crytek isn't the be-all-do-all in regards to graphics developments. Other companies push the boundaries too, like 4A Games and recently Epic, with its "new" UE3.
This isn't going to stop just because a "group" of people agrees with another group, that thinks a certain game sucks, without knowing that themselves.

And for those complaining about Crysis 2 because of the graphics...LOL
Click to expand...

Not taking anyone else's opinion as fact. I have Crysis 2 sitting on my desk, but it won't hit my hard drive until the DX11 patch is available. I was only commenting on the fact that Kyle has the balls to state it like it is.

I can wait, not a big deal as I am still working on Dead Space 2 - lol playing with a Microsoft XBOX controller because that game was consolized also) - great game, but only uses one core and doesn't push my system at all. I just really wanted to see what my system was truly capable of. (and I only have a single GTX 580, so not really talking too much here). And no, running 3D Mark is not a true measure of what the system can do from a game standpoint, so I don't just want to run benchmarks all day.

I have a 360, but I only use it for console exclusive titles because we are talking 5 year old hardware here that has no chance of being replaced for another 4 to 5 years. That is lame.
 
MrSloppy said:
Here's to praying that Battlefield 3 will be a solid smash on the PC. We need more developers realizing that consoles are just as easily exploited as PCs are.
Click to expand...

It will be, they have mentioned many times that BF3 is being developed for the PC first.

This is a great change
 
meatfestival said:
Crytek can't win. People bitched at them for making a game they couldn't run, implying that it was badly optimised etc etc. Crytek gave them what they wanted and now they're still not happy.

Wait for the DX11 update before throwing all your toys out the pram.
Click to expand...

+1. Really I don't get it. I guess there's just a lot of resentment that Crytek is targeting consoles. Well if more PC gamers had bought the game and fewer pirated it well then maybe that wouldn't have happened. PC gamers who want PC targeted games bitch a lot but as a group they don't seem to buy a lot.

Played this game in 3D Surround for an hour last night and it is just fucking beautiful. Eye candy is more important to me than most around here, as important as game play and this game just looks better than any FPS I've ever played overall, including Crysis 1 and it's running at 50 FPS in S3D on my sig rig, along with Batman AA the smoothest running S3D titles I've played to date.

I'm very happy with this game and it takes great advantage of my PC hardware even without DX11. Would I have liked Crytek to have kept it a PC exclusive or focused more PCs, absolutely. But the currently reality of PC gaming is that while it's far from dying just isn't producing the money that consoles are for games. But as it stands as smoothly as this game is playing for me I only DX11 as slowing it down in S3D a good bit. There would have to be some amazing DX11 affects added for it to be worth the perfomance hit unless it's very well optimized.

So overall Crytek great job on the SP. Not every PC gamer bitches, complains and pirates endlessly. But you do need to do the DX11 update and it you do I'll buy the game again as a gift.
 
anonmoniker said:
The insults directed at console gamers are well placed in my opinion because by their actions they make gaming worse for all of us. If they didn't buy DLC that costs 1/4 the price of a game and has 1/20 the content, companies would go back to earning their money by making expansions. If they weren't dumb enough to pay real money for clothes for their Xbox live avatars, we'd probably be able to dress up our avatars for free. If they stopped buying FPS games with 5 hour campaigns, the industry standard would shift back towards the traditional 12-15 hour campaign. I could go on and on with pages of examples like this, but the summary is that console gamers deserve every bit of criticism they get for creating collective action problems for more discerning purchasers.
Click to expand...
DUDE - well put! These are my thoughts exactly.
 
After playing the demo I was not even ABOUT to purchase the real game.

This is CRYSIS, not Call of Duty in Nano Suits
 
anonmoniker said:
I rage on consoles all the time (including in this thread) and yet I own all of the consoles and extensive libraries for each. However, you're not going to find me spending real money for fake clothes, buying $60 games with 4 hour campaigns, or generally functioning as an enabler for all the bullshit that has infected this generation of gaming. If you rush off to drop $15 on the latest Black Ops map pack, you just might be a consoletard. If you own consoles mainly for the unique and eccentric games that don't typically make it to the PC, there is no negative connotation.

The insults directed at console gamers are well placed in my opinion because by their actions they make gaming worse for all of us. If they didn't buy DLC that costs 1/4 the price of a game and has 1/20 the content, companies would go back to earning their money by making expansions. If they weren't dumb enough to pay real money for clothes for their Xbox live avatars, we'd probably be able to dress up our avatars for free. If they stopped buying FPS games with 5 hour campaigns, the industry standard would shift back towards the traditional 12-15 hour campaign. I could go on and on with pages of examples like this, but the summary is that console gamers deserve every bit of criticism they get for creating collective action problems for more discerning purchasers.

A lot of it comes down to poor parenting and failing to teach children the value of a dollar. I was 12 once, I gamed mostly on consoles with the occasional PC game like Commander Keen or Doom, yet I would have laughed at the prospect of paying real money for the virtual items today's console gamers eat up like candy. You know, I preordered Dragon Age Origins for something like $40 on Amazon. It came with a code for some stupid Lion's Paw boots or something like that, and a console gamer bought the code from me for $31 on ebay. R.O.F.L.
Click to expand...

+1 - Nicely said.
 
Rarely do game releases make me angry enough to regret my purchase. In fact, I would say that in the past 5 years, the only game I have truly regretted buying was the 2010 release of Medal of Honor. It was utter trash.

Well, you can add Crysis 2 to that, though for different reasons. Far Cry and Crysis were showcases of PC gaming technology. Crysis 2 could as easily have been named "Call of Duty: Future at War" and the name would have made sense.
 
Silus said:
. Other companies push the boundaries too, like 4A Games and recently Epic, with its "new" UE3.
This isn't going to stop just because a "group" of people agrees with another group, that thinks a certain game sucks, without knowing that themselves.

And for those complaining about Crysis 2 because of the graphics...LOL
Click to expand...

Oh for FFS! Please, sit down before your own head explodes from the amount of shit you are spewing. EPIC screwed the PC crowd [H]ard. Specially with their last known pc release, of which was UT3. WE FUCKING MADE THEM!!! I was there on the megaboards, infogrames, GT Interactive, and then when they were owned by ATARI. UE3 is nothing more than a freakin Tech Demo to be show cased for the next set of Consoles! Have you seen Gears of War 2 or 3 being released on PC????

And all you ding dongs saying the PC doesn't generate revenue, WOW ignorance is bliss!

16.2 Billion in 2010 on the PC!! http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/03/01/pc-is-strong-pc-games-revenue-up-20/ What??? thats not enough for game company's??? No its called the Bill Gates Syndrome. Everybody/Company wants to be the next Bill Gates instead of releasing quality products at great price, which leads to Good sales that makes everyone well paid. Its all about making it to the Million dollar point first, fuck the customer. I have nothing against companys that wanna make money on different avenues, but DON'T SCREW OR FORGET THE ONES THAT GOT YOU THERE! Thats the point, eat it. :mad:
 
Can anyone actually come up with a valid explanation for the Call of Duty comparisons?

CoD is the video game equivalent of a popcorn movie.

Crysis 2, despite its "streamlining", has much more depth and is far better looking.
 
Simple facts of life for Crytek, there aren't as many gaming capable PC's as there are consoles, and the majority of them couldn't actually run the original Crysis. So they had to make a game that people could run and also put it out to an install base that would let them make money, and people flame them for it?
 
sd11 said:
Simple facts of life for Crytek, there aren't as many gaming capable PC's as there are consoles, and the majority of them couldn't actually run the original Crysis. So they had to make a game that people could run and also put it out to an install base that would let them make money, and people flame them for it?
Click to expand...

Graphics are not the issue. its the watered down easy peasy corridor type shooter that is a let down for some i.e gameplay
 
jonneymendoza said:
Anyone want to bet that Battlefield 3 will suck just like this game. place your bets
Click to expand...

I'll be scared to come anywhere near this forum if this nightmare scenario comes to pass.

A little piece of me might even die a little bit inside. :(
 
ehh lost interest when it doesn't even have dx10, let alone dx11. Also even more annoying it has securom and it's $60. Why the hell did Crysis in 2007 have dx10?
 
jonneymendoza said:
Graphics are not the issue. its the watered down easy peasy corridor type shooter that is a let down for some i.e gameplay
Click to expand...

Eh...graphics are a big issue, but if the gameplay was good I could easily forgive the graphics. In truth, DX9 is not the biggest graphical problem here. The problem is that Crysis 2 pretty much needs a full texture overhaul, probably along the lines of a 2-3 GB download. No amount of tesselation and post-processing can make these terrible textures look any better.
 
jonneymendoza said:
Graphics are not the issue. its the watered down easy peasy corridor type shooter that is a let down for some i.e gameplay
Click to expand...

Well Kyle said the graphics sucked so it was an issue for him but I do agree with this criticism of Crysis 2. The graphics sucking, not so much.
 
anonmoniker said:
Eh...graphics are a big issue, but if the gameplay was good I could easily forgive the graphics. In truth, DX9 is not the biggest graphical problem here. The problem is that Crysis 2 pretty much needs a full texture overhaul, probably along the lines of a 2-3 GB download. No amount of tesselation and post-processing can make these terrible textures look any better.
Click to expand...

Is the game open to the mod community like part 1 was? Can they take a crack at it?
 
Have not read the entire thread, but I'm gonna guess I'm in a minority here.

IMHO, the graphics are stunning. I'm playing in 3D which is done to perfection with their new engine, and it is absolutely breathtaking. Sound in 7.1 with speakers all around me is equally impressive.

I have not played MP yet, but SP is quite fun. Granted, I'm early in, but I've been taking my time just gawking at the scenery and lighting in 3D.

I thought my triple-head gaming experiences were amazing.... then I recently decided to try the new gen of 3D... and... wow. Totally enjoying it.
 
jonneymendoza said:
Graphics are not the issue. its the watered down easy peasy corridor type shooter that is a let down for some i.e gameplay
Click to expand...
This is true for me. Though it seems like a lot of people here are raging about the graphics, I don't care too much. From what I've seen, they look nice (though not as good as the original's).

But, the gameplay evaluations I've seen describe it as much smaller in scope, linear, on-rails, CoD-like enemy spawning... there's plenty not to like here. I actually don't mind linear gameplay... HL2 is one of my favorite games. But it's not what I expect from a game with the Crysis name. If Crytek wanted to design a game like this, they should have went with a new IP. As for this one, I'll wait until its <=$20.
 
anonmoniker said:
I rage on consoles all the time (including in this thread) and yet I own all of the consoles and extensive libraries for each. However, you're not going to find me spending real money for fake clothes, buying $60 games with 4 hour campaigns, or generally functioning as an enabler for all the bullshit that has infected this generation of gaming. If you rush off to drop $15 on the latest Black Ops map pack, you just might be a consoletard. If you own consoles mainly for the unique and eccentric games that don't typically make it to the PC, there is no negative connotation.

The insults directed at console gamers are well placed in my opinion because by their actions they make gaming worse for all of us. If they didn't buy DLC that costs 1/4 the price of a game and has 1/20 the content, companies would go back to earning their money by making expansions. If they weren't dumb enough to pay real money for clothes for their Xbox live avatars, we'd probably be able to dress up our avatars for free. If they stopped buying FPS games with 5 hour campaigns, the industry standard would shift back towards the traditional 12-15 hour campaign. I could go on and on with pages of examples like this, but the summary is that console gamers deserve every bit of criticism they get for creating collective action problems for more discerning purchasers.

A lot of it comes down to poor parenting and failing to teach children the value of a dollar. I was 12 once, I gamed mostly on consoles with the occasional PC game like Commander Keen or Doom, yet I would have laughed at the prospect of paying real money for the virtual items today's console gamers eat up like candy. You know, I preordered Dragon Age Origins for something like $40 on Amazon. It came with a code for some stupid Lion's Paw boots or something like that, and a console gamer bought the code from me for $31 on ebay. R.O.F.L.
Click to expand...


+1

My consoles basicaly just act as media players with very occasional gaming on them now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top