Official Crysis 2 Thread

I just paid 50 Euros. Started the game. And it loloks lie a PC shooter from 2005 - something like DOOM 3. Dissapointed. I saw all the complains before buying the game but had a small hope still. I was SO wrong.

Do not buy this game if you expect Crisys Wars or Crysis 1 experience out of it. :(
 
And, I was thinking about getting the game. But, it sounds like it's on the same level as Battlefield Bad Company 2. In either case, neither are any where worth the $60 given the weak, lazy game coding. Can anyone confirm equal lameness?
 
Genghis Kahn said:
And, I was thinking about getting the game. But, it sounds like it's on the same level as Battlefield Bad Company 2. In either case, neither are any where worth the $60 given the weak, lazy game coding. Can anyone confirm equal lameness?
Click to expand...

Yes, the same feeling.

When I look around in this game it feels plastic , water is plastic, picture is a bit messy and not as sharp as in original crisys. Cannot explain. Itäs just feels like the game from 2005.
 
Last edited:
-Tetsuo- said:
Everything is made with low resolution textures? What? Besides that being not true, there were low res textures all over the place in Crysis. Show me some screens pointing out how the trees are "horrible" in comparison to the first.

Particles, shadows, water etc still looks great. The motion blur is a little better in Crysis but the lighting in C2 is much better. It's a good trade.
Click to expand...

Lighting is better? I didn't notice that. I play on extreme settings. There were lamp on the floor in a dark room. When I was moving lamp around I could not see any difference in room lighting.
 
Agreed with all points. This really DOES show that all these review sites are probably paid off with the 9/10 crap!
 
WabeWalker said:
Metro really only looks vastly different in DX11 mode because of the aggressive depth of field, which is just non existent in the DX9 mode - I'm not convinced, however, that it actually is a DX11 feature.

And the pictures you've provided above are obviously not from a game. That's from a tech demo. All that does is demonstrate what's capable in a tech demo. A game obviously needs to draw on multiple resources from a computer, and that demo is focusing on tesselation. In real world applications tesselation has been a bust. If Crysis 2 were tesselated that aggressively nobody would be able to run it.
Click to expand...

You are both Blind not to even notice the dx11 rocks have more polygons and are not flat lifeless textureish thingy on dx9.. and a bunch of other stuff..

agressive depth of field what the hell? that is the only thing you notice? If that is all then Crytek is right most people are too blind to notice dx11..
 
Genghis Kahn said:
And, I was thinking about getting the game. But, it sounds like it's on the same level as Battlefield Bad Company 2. In either case, neither are any where worth the $60 given the weak, lazy game coding. Can anyone confirm equal lameness?
Click to expand...

BC2 is such a great multiplayer game. If BC2 is not good enough for you, then I don't know what is.
 
relapse808 said:
Agreed with all points. This really DOES show that all these review sites are probably paid off with the 9/10 crap!
Click to expand...

I have Crysis 2. It is not bad. It is not great either. I am really not impressed with the graphics. However, rating a game is not just about graphics.
 
PrincessFrosty said:
+1

There is just an enormous amount of shit being released right now, I'll be upgrading for BF3 but other than that, there is literally nothing else that has me the slightest bit interested in upgrading.

My next electronic toys budget is being put towards a 1080p projector, slowly lost all interest in my PC over the last few years, the 5970 was the last treat and wont be replaced for a while at this rate.
Click to expand...

Do you have BC2? BF3 will have about the same performance as BC2. So if your PC still runs great on BC2, then I doubt it needs an upgrade for BF3.
 
people are basing their opinions on Crysis 2 in large part with how it compares graphically to Crysis 1...the game should be judged on its own merits and not againt people's expectations of what it should have been...so what if this is not a benchmark killer game...the game is actually pretty decent...the graphics are still better then all other FPS games that have come out in the past few years (Metro 2033 possibly being the lone exception)
 
polonyc2 said:
people are basing their opinions on Crysis 2 in large part with how it compares graphically to Crysis 1...the game should be judged on its own merits and not againt people's expectations of what it should have been...so what if this is not a benchmark killer game...the game is actually pretty decent...the graphics are still better then all other FPS games that have come out in the past few years (Metro 2033 possibly being the lone exception)
Click to expand...

No. No No NO. We base the sequel vs the original because the promises made regarding the sequel were based on references to the original.

Broken promises.

Just because the graphics are better than Xbox360 shit on a brick, does not make them GOOD by any measure.
 
almalino said:
Yes, the same feeling.

When I look around in this game it feels plastic , water is plastic, picture is a bit messy and not as sharp as in original crisys. Cannot explain. Itäs just feels like the game from 2005.
Click to expand...

I don't get the plastic vibe from this game's graphics, it's not Doom 3 or EQ2. I get the "way too much postprocessing" vibe from this game's graphics. Too much motion blur, too much depth of field, too much radial blur, too much antialiasing filtering. The AA filter is a nice substitute for ordinary antialiasing, but it makes things have this weird blurriness, especially in motion. It makes trees and such look especially good and it has almost no performance hit either.

It can be turned off with some advanced tweaking it the game does look much crisper without it, but jaggies become incredibly annoying, and running old-fashioned MSAA on my aging 4890 is murder in this game. It's one of those games where I don't notice a huge visual difference between maximum settings and minimum settings other than about 40 FPS performance difference. I tweaked everything around in an autoexec to get things just right though, and it's an excellent balance of performance and visuals with the blurring effects reduced to a minimum.
 
almalino said:
Lighting is better? I didn't notice that. I play on extreme settings. There were lamp on the floor in a dark room. When I was moving lamp around I could not see any difference in room lighting.
Click to expand...

Something is wrong with your game install, then.
 
I decided to do a little experiment. I thought perhaps it had been far to long since I had been outside (at least 3 hours) and maybe, just maybe things had changed while I was inside and the guys at Crytek were in fact being realistic.

I went outside and was astonished. Every flat surface, every object I looked at. The birds in the sky, the trees, my neighbors dog. None of it was glowing like it spent too much time at Chernobyl. I could actually look at things without being blinded by a bloom effect.

It was in this moment that I realized Crytek doesn't know what the fuck it's doing.

They also apparently had never read this...

070119.jpg
 
krameriffic said:
I I tweaked everything around in an autoexec to get things just right though, and it's an excellent balance of performance and visuals with the blurring effects reduced to a minimum.
Click to expand...

would you mind sharing the contents of that autoexec.cfg with us ? ;) thank you :D
 
Modred189 said:
No. No No NO. We base the sequel vs the original because the promises made regarding the sequel were based on references to the original.

Broken promises.

Just because the graphics are better than Xbox360 shit on a brick, does not make them GOOD by any measure.
Click to expand...

show me one article which said that the graphics in Crysis 2 would surpass the first game...Crytek never said this at all...people just had it in their heads that because the same studio that made the original Crysis was making a sequel that it would automatically seek to shatter hardware and graphics cards...Crytek stated from the beginning that C2 would be more hardware friendly and would be playable on lower end systems...only way this is possibe is by compromising on video quality

this is a multiplatform title...name me one multiplatform PC title that pushed graphics boundaries...it can't happen...only way it will ever happen is for a game to be a PC exclusive (like Metro 2033)
 
polonyc2 said:
this is a multiplatform title...name me one multiplatform PC title that pushed graphics boundaries...it can't happen...only way it will ever happen is for a game to be a PC exclusive (like Metro 2033)
Click to expand...

Since When did Metro 2033 become a PC exclusive title?


EDIT: This guy wrote up a program to help autogenerate the autoexc.cfg file

http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1807934

Next version he said would be up tonight.
 
Last edited:
Haiku214 said:
I have Crysis 2. It is not bad. It is not great either. I am really not impressed with the graphics. However, rating a game is not just about graphics.
Click to expand...

Yes, Crysis 2 feels like a good shooter. Like 300 other FPS out there. I just cannot feel the difference.
 
polonyc2 said:
show me one article which said that the graphics in Crysis 2 would surpass the first game...Crytek never said this at all...people just had it in their heads that because the same studio that made the original Crysis was making a sequel that it would automatically seek to shatter hardware and graphics cards...Crytek stated from the beginning that C2 would be more hardware friendly and would be playable on lower end systems...only way this is possibe is by compromising on video quality
Click to expand...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H19zPgnFaKk
 
Nytegard said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H19zPgnFaKk
Click to expand...

that video is talking about DX11 and how it will enhance Crysis 2...DX11 is apparently still going to be released for Crysis 2 so that will still apply...as far as an apples-to-apples comparison nobody stated that the DX9 version that shipped was going to be far superior to Crysis 1...it was all about multi-platform compatibility and being much less resource intensive
 
Some of you guys seem to be complaining about the gameplay, as well as being pissed off that DX11 isn't supported, which is a bit odd... the DX11 patch, if it arrives, won't change the gameplay any. :p
 
WabeWalker said:
Some of you guys seem to be complaining about the gameplay, as well as being pissed off that DX11 isn't supported, which is a bit odd... the DX11 patch, if it arrives, won't change the gameplay any. :p
Click to expand...

How is it odd to complain about two different things? I don't like celery and I also don't like console games. Is that odd?

If console games get better, it won't make celery taste different.

Both the gameplay and lack of DX11 are about one thing. Disappointment.
 
polonyc2 said:
show me one article which said that the graphics in Crysis 2 would surpass the first game...Crytek never said this at all...people just had it in their heads that because the same studio that made the original Crysis was making a sequel that it would automatically seek to shatter hardware and graphics cards...Crytek stated from the beginning that C2 would be more hardware friendly and would be playable on lower end systems...only way this is possibe is by compromising on video quality

this is a multiplatform title...name me one multiplatform PC title that pushed graphics boundaries...it can't happen...only way it will ever happen is for a game to be a PC exclusive (like Metro 2033)
Click to expand...
they said many times that the graphics would surpass the first one. I know because I kept up with it back then to try and defend the game when people were worried it would suffer because of consoles.


heck here is one instance right here: http://www.gamesthirst.com/2010/09/...ill-surpass-crysis-1-in-every-way-say-crytek/


“Crysis 2 PC version will be optimized for PC. We’re going to surpass Crysis 1 in every way possible, including graphics and gameplay,” Crytek said via its official twitter account."
 
WabeWalker said:
Some of you guys seem to be complaining about the gameplay, as well as being pissed off that DX11 isn't supported, which is a bit odd... the DX11 patch, if it arrives, won't change the gameplay any. :p
Click to expand...

There's complaints about EVERYTHING from some about this game. The graphics suck, the game play sucks, Crytek sucks, on and on and on. The one thing that is odd that you NEVER heard in reference to Crysis 1 is "It doesn't run well on my PC." That's been replaced by "It runs TOO well on my PC." It's fracking ridiculous, good grief it's just a game.
 
cannondale06 said:
“Crysis 2 PC version will be optimized for PC. We’re going to surpass Crysis 1 in every way possible, including graphics and gameplay,” Crytek said via its official twitter account."
Click to expand...

This a very subjective thing. Overall I think C2s graphics are a bit better, though I could agree that Cryteck may have overstated the case at least with the DX9 version. We REALLY need to know if there really is a DX11 version and see it before we can make the final assessment on this subject.
 
heatlesssun said:
This a very subjective thing. Overall I think C2s graphics are a bit better, though I could agree that Cryteck may have overstated the case at least with the DX9 version. We REALLY need to know if there really is a DX11 version and see it before we can make the final assessment on this subject.
Click to expand...
they are not better in most peoples opinions. the textures are pretty crappy in spots and foliage is horrible looking. for it being 3 years newer they sure as heck did not put a lot of effort into the graphics for the pc version.
 
Well I beat the game. All I can say is WHAT THE FUCK!?! That's pretty much how I summed it. Amazingly, the game didn't have any issues runnning everything at max. I was thinking my 5970 will scream in pain.
 
The ultimate compliment to any game is when the consumer has to play it through a second time or even a third and fourth time. Um, anyone?
 
Haiku214 said:
I bought Crysis 2 to test if my 2.5+ year old system can still handle it. To my amazement, it still can! I'm even playing at 1920x1200 extreme settings with 50 fps average. ATM with my current rig, I can still run my other games at max settings too. This is the reason why I'm still holding off upgrading.

I really thought that Crysis 2 will convince me to upgrade soon, but I guess not.
Click to expand...

That pretty much is why it's getting hammered.

Over half the complaints in this thread are about Crytek *not* pushing the hardware envelope.

Two words - thank goodness.

As PC FPS players, we've gotten so used to HAVING to push the hardware envelope (in terms of upgrades to our hardware, and settings for our games) that when a game comes along that pretty much doesn't require that (Sins of a Solar Empire trilogy, or anything from Valve), and especially if the company has a history of pushing that envelope (which Crytek admittedly does), anything that doesn't follow that trend is going to draw critics like flowers draw bees.

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.

Crytek has actually earned respect from me - first, by even attempting to break out of the *push high-end hardware until it throws up* mold (from Crysis and Warhead) and again for actually getting it right! (I can't even NAME a single PC FPS that nails the default settings dead-on prior to Crysis 2. None. And that includes Metro 2033.)

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?

It goes back to the beginning of DirectX.

Yet nobody had done so - largely because we wouldn't let them.

Even the one company that has NO history of following the high-end hype (Valve) has gotten their share of brickbats.

Finally, Valve has some competition in the midrange-hardware space.

Crytek pushes midrange hardware *differently* than Valve does (Crysis 2 uses more DX9c features than HL2, for example) but not in a way in which even fans of Valve's titles would complain about.

If you like Valve's work, then Crysis 2 may actually be something you'd enjoy.
 
PGHammer said:
That pretty much is why it's getting hammered.

(lots of stuff)

If you like Valve's work, then Crysis 2 may actually be something you'd enjoy.
Click to expand...
so, in summary, you think Crysis 2 is the ultimate PC game we've all been waiting for, and it deserves an 11/10?
 
PGHammer said:
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?
Click to expand...

I think you're in a very small minority if that's what you want out of PC games.
 
anonmoniker said:
Bullshit. The 5850 launched at $250 and was decidedly a mid-range card. The high end cards of that generation were the 5870, GTX 480, and 5970, launching at $380, $500, and $600 respectively and that does not even represent the true high end due to so many people running SLI/CF. What you are talking about with a 5750 is not a "mid-range" card. It is a budget card. Get your tiers straight.
Click to expand...

I don't see $250USD for a GPU as midrange. The fact that you DO tells me that your sense of price-range is decidedly skewed.

Anything above $200USD, to me, is high-end.

Midrange is $100-175USD. (And even the HD57550 launched at the high-end of that.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top