Rumor: Crysis 2 Will Be DX9 Out of the Box

On one hand, I think this is just speculation, but on the other I wouldn't doubt it. :(
 
phide said:
Probably not. SM3.0 is, for the most part, ample for most purposes. Like I said in another thread though, when you're using a g-buffer (for deferred shading), you lose the ability to do hardware RGMSAA in D3D9. Crysis 2 should use D3D10 or greater on the PC for precisely that reason.
Click to expand...

I agree. I imagine if they open up the D3D11 pathway in a later patch it will also function under D3D10.1, minus tessellation, for that reason.

However, Crytek has their own Edge AA used to barbara walters the rough edges off all the foliage from Crysis 1. I haven't heard if this remains the--ultimately--exclusive AA method in the game. In previous iterations of CryEngine it was not, to my knowledge, not possible to get MSAA working regardless of the renderpath; I didn't bother trying SSAA with a single GPU on that game.
 
Crysis, circa 2007: DirectX 10.

Crysis, circa 2011: DirectX 9.

This is actually kind of funny. I would have bought this game, but between the news that it's basically CoD: Crytek and the obvious consolization of the engine, this will be a bargain bin purchase for me. It's a shame, as I loved the original Crysis.
 
Also, does anyone remember the patch support Crysis 1 had? No? Exactly. I wouldn't hold my breath on anything they promise post-release.
 
WBurchnall said:
Have you seen the Battlefield 3's trailer using the new Frostbite engine? It looks amazing and is a huge step up from DX9. DX11 features turn on in other notable games like: Metro 2033 make a huge difference in image quality. Yes, there's a performance hit but it does look beautiful.

Battlefield 3 is amazing in its youtube video in that the lightning and atmosphere makes it seem almost like an interactive hollywood or independant documentary about war-in-____. but even one step further than CoD: BO in realism by losing the blockbuster cheesiness and notable step-up in graphical fidelity. Comparin CoD: BO based of DX9 versus Battlefiend 3 based of DX11, you can immediately notice a difference in quality. These are 'real-world' games.
Click to expand...

Will be interesting to see when you can't run Battlefield 3 @ max settings @ uber resolutions. If you complain as much as people did against Crysis 1, then you are at least consistent. If you don't, then hypocrisy is running wild!
 
LeninGHOLA said:
It allows for more sales because they are more easily accessible to the masses. More sales means more money. More money can lead to higher development costs.
Click to expand...

And that si accomplished with any digital distribution medium, not just Steam. Is Steam the preferred one ? Yes, it seems like it, but there are others and the the fact that games are more accessible through digital distribution systems, is not exclusive to Steam.

Plus, being digitally distributed, does not make a good game. Do you not grasp this fairly simple concept ? If it's not good, it won't sell, even if it is being digitally distributed...Fairly simple...Steam does NOT improve the quality of games.

LeninGHOLA said:
I'm sorry, but Crysis 2 is a step back from the game they released 4 years ago graphically. Your complaining about consumers negative reaction is inane. Crytek promised all sorts of shinies to the PC gamers who made them all their money, in the end, it seems like they aren't delivering.

Are you trying to convince people they should buy the game anyway?
Click to expand...

Have you tried the full game to even say all that BS ? And how is Crysis 2 a step back graphically ? How can you compare the graphics directly, with such different setting (Crysis 1, Island and Crysis 2 a city) ?

Care to show me another game where the action happens in a city, that looks as good as Crysis 2 ?

You buy what you want, but canceling orders because it's DX9 only is quite dumb.
 
LeninGHOLA said:
Everyone? This line of thinking, that all gamers and all consumers have the exact same mentality, is disturbing.

Crysis 2 looks graphically inferior to Crysis 1. Crysis 1 came out 4 years ago. People should expect more from AAA devs and AAA publishers. Judging by the reactions all over the internet right now, people DO expect more. I don't see why it would offend people like you that many of the potential customers are asking for MORE from a game. That is borderline crazy.
Click to expand...

With the exception of Valve, that can continue using DX9 and will actually be praised for using it!
 
YamahaAlex37 said:
To say Steam doesn't improve the quality of their games is insane... Source engine has received many improvements since being released, most notably the orange box. Now tell me this isn't using an even further modified version of the orange box (and tell me it doesn't look great). From a company that revolutionized the gaming and modding industry twice IMO, you guys have the gall to complain and say their games aren't coming out fast enough or aren't good enough? I guarantee their working on Episode 3 or HL3 which is going to look amazing. It takes years for a game to be produced and they can take their sweet time if they're going to continue to produce at the level they have in the past.
Click to expand...

Stem improves the quality of their games how then ? This keeps being mentioned and all I get as a reply is "because Steam digitally distributes games".
And the source engine did receive improvements, but compare it to Crysis 1 or Crysis 2 and tell me that the Source Engine looks better. Lighting, models and textures. Source Engine is inferior or simply in need to be updated. But they don't get such flak, even though they've been sticking with DX9 for 7 years ?

As for the time they take, fine, if that's what you think. If you think they are focused on PC Gaming and are in fact the ones saving the PC market, by releasing a game every 5 years or more or even promising to release more content, in less time, but not delivering...then by all means continue! That right there is being focused on the PC community! Especially when they are creating Steam's "big picture" mode:

http://techreport.com/discussions.x/20498

If this isn't a feature for future console support, I don't know what is! But they, that's being focused on the PC! :rolleyes:

We are in agreement in regards to Crysis 2 though. It's getting flak for being DX9 only at launch, but just as I asked you above, I would like to see another game where events happen in a city, with graphics better than Crysis 2 even in DX9.
 
I think people are so pissed is because at the end of the day...with all our expensive gaming computers... you knew Crytek would produce a game that would push our systems to the wall.... Crysis was our game... the hardcore PC gamer

now ...its just a console port... probally has pictures of the xbox controller in the control settings...

I will not be buying it based on that alone... Crytek sold out.

PC gamers who dont make noise about only having console ports to play... will never get what we want... DO NOT BUY CRYSIS 2....
 
michael.pa2 said:
Christ,when did this become oft Forum? All I see anymore are console users putting down PC gamers for expecting their money's worth out of the developers. Maybe it's just jealousy at having to play on antiquated hardware years behind in technology.This "settle for less and pay more for it" attitude is the major symptom of creeping consolitis. You'll gladly fork over $60 for games that aren't half as good as they could have been,then slam us for complaining.
Click to expand...


Amen
 
No need to slam console players over this.

PC players who put up with this kind of shit are the one who piss me off.
 
For what it is worth this is NVIDIA's statement when asked about this.


We don't want to comment on EA's release plans as that is a topic better addressed to EA.

Also, I am not aware of any public presentation by any employee of NVIDIA that would have discussed either Crysis 2 launch plans or GTX 590. There are some NDA sneak peak things happening at CEBIT...but no formal briefings that I am aware of.

I'll give you a heads up as soon as briefings start for any new high-end GPUs from NVIDIA.
Click to expand...
 
We'll see... after the demo and leak fiasco i deem it quite probable that this is true

Canceled C2 pre order and ordered The Witcher 2... gonna see how this plays out, but for now im paying 15 bucks less for what looks like a better game

Sucks, since i love Crysis 1 and WH... 2 of my favorite games
 
HohnyF said:
No need to slam console players over this.

PC players who put up with this kind of shit are the one who piss me off.
Click to expand...

Undiscerning consoletards are the reason gaming is going downhill so rapidly. If they'd stop eagerly lapping up DLC, motion controllers, and shitty $60 games, the industry would be forced to change directions.
 
HohnyF said:
No need to slam console players over this.

PC players who put up with this kind of shit are the one who piss me off.
Click to expand...

Console players are use to sub-par graphics...its all they know... i have no problem with them... babes in the woods...

but for crytek to go console port on a franchise known for its strong PC bleeding edge roots...

well ... its blasphemy.... rather play Rift
 
jwang26 said:
Honeslty it doesnt matter as long as the game looks good and kicks ass
Click to expand...

Sure it matters. Crytek built themselves up on the backs of PC enthusiasts. Now, they fuck us over with some consoled crapfest. Sorry, not spending 60 bucks on that. I will wait til if and when Living Legends comes out for Crysis 2 and the thing is in the bargain bin.
 
phide said:
I've never seen anyone praise Valve for using DX9.
Click to expand...

Valve also has a relatively low bar in terms of graphics expectations. Crytek has been known for medicore, at best, gameplay but terrific visuals. Now it's terrible, at best, gameplay and pathetic graphics.
 
phide said:
I've never seen anyone praise Valve for using DX9.
Click to expand...

You missed the threads where it was discussed how well new Source Engine based games were running on current machines...DX9 was mentioned. The discussion had captain obvious status, since why would such an old engine, with outdated graphics and outdated tech, not run well on newer machines and even older ones ?

And I'm still waiting for screenshots of a game set in a city with better looking graphics than Crysis 2.
 
Played the demo, pretty unremarkable. I didn't have a gaming rig when Crysis came out but having played it 2 weeks ago I can't say I'm that impressed with the graphics. I assume there's texture mods available by now? Metro 2033 and Mirrors Edge are what I'm using to show off my rig atm.
 
Silus said:
And I'm still waiting for screenshots of a game set in a city with better looking graphics than Crysis 2.
Click to expand...

simcity-14-1.png
 
If anyone has checked out IGN recently they have an article on the PS3 with Crysis 2 running on it.

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/115/1153266p1.html

It looks like not only the PC version is consolized now the PS3 version is going to have a horrible port. From the sounds of it there are going to be major framerate issues and graphically the game is going to look horrible. Crytek is now alienating the PC and console communities. Good work Crytek :D.
 
Here's a guick quote of what IGN says about the PS3 version.

"There are jagged lines everywhere, and shadows are especially messy. There's a muddiness to the graphics that's hard to stomach in the wake of the PS3's other flagship showpieces, and worse, the variable framerate really hurts controller response."
 
brucedeluxe169 said:
want to get back at crytek for shitting all over PC gamers, and giving us a lackluster crysis 2?

dont buy it, save that money for a few months, and lets make Battlefield 3 the biggest fucking game in *years*.

seriously.... I never buy games when they first come out, or at full price... ever.....

but as long as the reviews are good, BF3 is a day one buy for me (and I wasn't even a fan of BF2 or 1...)
Click to expand...

This is all good and all but then you will have the community complaining about bugs that have not been patched yet and they will vow to never buy a BF game again and whine whine whine and then EA will say, fuck this, we are going consoles only, at least console players actually play the games and do not complain about how the game has minor bugs.
 
Yesterday I played the game for a liitle while, the first time I saw the graphics I tought I was playing with the shitbox360, This is disrespectful to all of us PC gamers, no matter if someone that has a cheap rig comes and say otherwise.
People come and talk about piracy as if consoles were free of it, people fill their ps3 hdds with games and the 360 was pirated since its early years, but then again, PC GAMING isnt dying, But cutting edge, high end pc games are. When I spent $1500 In my sandy bridge and gtx580 rig I knew about this already, that is the reason I somewhat knew maybe this would be the las pc I build at that price point. Consolers can laugh very loudly now, their little toys can play crysis 2 at FULL, maybe with some effort the WII could actually play that crap too. But I wonder what will happen when pc gamers stop buying this very expensive video cards, will microsht. and sony still be able to buy gpus for the cheap? After all, this very expensive video cards we pay for are later improved and sold much cheaper for these companies to incorporate them in their little consoles, only time will tell. Well I guess I can play some pong in MAME and see how many FPS I can get with my 580.
 
I just want to see what happens when the DX11 patch comes out. It will be one or both of the following scenarios.

1) The game will run poorly and people will complain that they have to run it in DX9 because it runs too slow in DX11. Of course they will blame Crytek for poor coding (we have heard this one before).

2) There will be little visual improvements just as people in the know have been saying. Once again, tons of PC gamers will complain if this thread is any indication.

Probably both will come true.
 
Manaknight said:
to be fair there are ports done properly and thrown together ports. I don't particularly care if its a multiplatform game, or even if the pc version drops a bit later. but if its coming to pc make use of the hardware at hand.

i think the future of pc is actually in smaller studios and direct digital releases of smaller studios. as for big studios, of course they are going to follow console gamers...have you spent a significant amount of time with mainstream console gamers (i have consoles, but i really only play jrpgs, and rockband when people are over)? i think they pretty much are the living example of the phrase "a fool and his money are soon parted". The marketing machine can make them throw down 60 bucks for damn near anything.
Click to expand...

and then make them buy the map packs from the prequel :)
 
Yes, those maps should probably be included in the game at release but if BF3 turns out to be half as good as it looks I won't feel at all foolish paying for them.

Oh, and please note how I said "turns out to be" implying not based on marketing.
 
I am not sure what's more sad. The fact that Crysis 2 is DX9 only, or the fact that an iPad thread has more posts then this on a computer hardware enthusiast forum.
 
Silus said:
With the exception of Valve, that can continue using DX9 and will actually be praised for using it!
Click to expand...

I think Valve is praised for making FUN games. Crytek is praised for making games that look good.
 
heatlesssun said:
Why?
Click to expand...

Not everyone has access to rigs that will be able to support the game. I love the game for it being the game, not the benchmarking requirements and epeen stroking to see who can run it at a higher setting.

Once in a blue moon I'd see the way most people do on this forum, but most people on this forum do nothing but complain. I don't want to be one of those complainers. I'm not saying you're one of these people, I just like seeing the silver-lining.
 
Staples said:
This is all good and all but then you will have the community complaining about bugs that have not been patched yet and they will vow to never buy a BF game again and whine whine whine and then EA will say, fuck this, we are going consoles only, at least console players actually play the games and do not complain about how the game has minor bugs.
Click to expand...

They sound like pussies. If EA want's to treat their customers like that, then they can count on making less money.
 
phide said:
Show me the thread(s).
Click to expand...

Pretty old threads in the "General Gaming" or "PC Gaming & Hardware" sub-forums. Just use search with those search terms and you should eventually find them. They were related with TF2 and/or L4D.
 
anonmoniker said:
Undiscerning consoletards are the reason gaming is going downhill so rapidly. If they'd stop eagerly lapping up DLC, motion controllers, and shitty $60 games, the industry would be forced to change directions.
Click to expand...

I have some friends like this... I see him playing COD:BO, and playing on some new map... i ask if it's a new map--he says "no". I tell him i don't remember it and then he tells me that it's from a previous COD... and then that he paid 10 bucks for it and 2 other maps.

LOL

People who own consoles and keep pay 60 bucks for an incomplete game, then shoveling over another 40 in DLC... these idiots are what is fueling this decline in gaming quality.

Someone said it previously in this thread---but consoles are the start of what is foretold in the film Idiocracy...
 
Staples said:
I just want to see what happens when the DX11 patch comes out. It will be one or both of the following scenarios.

1) The game will run poorly and people will complain that they have to run it in DX9 because it runs too slow in DX11. Of course they will blame Crytek for poor coding (we have heard this one before).

2) There will be little visual improvements just as people in the know have been saying. Once again, tons of PC gamers will complain if this thread is any indication.

Probably both will come true.
Click to expand...

I bet on both. It happened with Crysis and then Crysis WARHEAD.

Crysis was poorly coded because it didn't run on 3 year old machines @ max settings and resolution @ 60 fps.
Crysis WARHEAD higher quality settings weren't as good as Crysis and Crytek wasn't pushing the hardware limits.
 
Silus said:
Pretty old threads in the "General Gaming" or "PC Gaming & Hardware" sub-forums. Just use search with those search terms and you should eventually find them. They were related with TF2 and/or L4D.
Click to expand...
You're unwilling to put forth the effort? I'm unsurprised.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top