|
On March 29 2011 23:09 Fruscainte wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2011 23:00 Enox wrote:On March 29 2011 22:49 Fruscainte wrote:On March 29 2011 22:45 Wesso wrote:lol, Crytek sure waited just long enough to debunk that rumour.... Not that it influences me because my graphics card doesn't support dx11 but my respect for Crytek has gone down. Apparently the game doesn't even have DX10, and it runs on DX9 and still it looks amazing. as far as im concerned, i can live without DX11 support  You're honestly justifying this?
i dont justify anything. i just dont care as long as the game looks good and that it does
|
On March 29 2011 23:09 Fruscainte wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2011 23:00 Enox wrote:On March 29 2011 22:49 Fruscainte wrote:On March 29 2011 22:45 Wesso wrote:lol, Crytek sure waited just long enough to debunk that rumour.... Not that it influences me because my graphics card doesn't support dx11 but my respect for Crytek has gone down. Apparently the game doesn't even have DX10, and it runs on DX9 and still it looks amazing. as far as im concerned, i can live without DX11 support You're honestly justifying this?
Starcraft 2 is also DX9, yet I don't hear people complaining about that, despite it being a 2010 game when dx11 cards were out for almost a year and dx10 cards are the norm.
|
On March 29 2011 22:49 Fruscainte wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2011 22:45 Wesso wrote:lol, Crytek sure waited just long enough to debunk that rumour.... Not that it influences me because my graphics card doesn't support dx11 but my respect for Crytek has gone down. Apparently the game doesn't even have DX10, and it runs on DX9
Can you post a source please?
The link you posted does not show that DX11 is not coming. All it did was dispel the rumor that the patch was today. DX11 will come. Stop trying to tear down a game that your computer can't run.
|
On March 30 2011 02:03 maartendq wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2011 23:09 Fruscainte wrote:On March 29 2011 23:00 Enox wrote:On March 29 2011 22:49 Fruscainte wrote:On March 29 2011 22:45 Wesso wrote:lol, Crytek sure waited just long enough to debunk that rumour.... Not that it influences me because my graphics card doesn't support dx11 but my respect for Crytek has gone down. Apparently the game doesn't even have DX10, and it runs on DX9 and still it looks amazing. as far as im concerned, i can live without DX11 support You're honestly justifying this? Starcraft 2 is also DX9, yet I don't hear people complaining about that, despite it being a 2010 game when dx11 cards were out for almost a year and dx10 cards are the norm.
Honestly Crysis 1 was really all eye candy. The game itself was pretty bland IMO but it generated so much hype because it was such a graphically intensive game. Now look at Cry2. Look okay but its obvious they cut some things down for consoles. So without the amazing graphics, whats left? Generic shooter 301231247583. SC2 was never about the graphics, sure it has kept pace with the average modern game but its reputation didn't rely on amazing eye candy. Different game so its judged on a different scale.
|
QQsis powered by QQengine 3.
This game makes me nerd rage so much because I can't get kills and I die from one hit a lot. It doesn't help my latency is terrible half the time. I was way better at the demo (also when I was at home with better internet).
Did anyone else notice the change to nanovision? its considerably less bright and not nearly as good for spotting enemies as it was in demo, or is that just me?
|
On March 30 2011 02:03 maartendq wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2011 23:09 Fruscainte wrote:On March 29 2011 23:00 Enox wrote:On March 29 2011 22:49 Fruscainte wrote:On March 29 2011 22:45 Wesso wrote:lol, Crytek sure waited just long enough to debunk that rumour.... Not that it influences me because my graphics card doesn't support dx11 but my respect for Crytek has gone down. Apparently the game doesn't even have DX10, and it runs on DX9 and still it looks amazing. as far as im concerned, i can live without DX11 support You're honestly justifying this? Starcraft 2 is also DX9, yet I don't hear people complaining about that, despite it being a 2010 game when dx11 cards were out for almost a year and dx10 cards are the norm.
That's because Brood War was practically 8-bit. Crysis was a revolution in computer graphics, and even to this day it takes a top of the line computer to run it -- and it came out 5 years ago. It had DX10 support back then, and the simple scale of options graphically it had was astounding. Now, they take away DX10, scale the graphics back immensely to a shadow of its former self.
You're seeing nothing wrong with that?
Unfortunately, Crysis without the graphic benchmarking is a poor mans halo/cod clone. That's all Crysis 2 is, to me.
|
On March 30 2011 05:18 Fruscainte wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2011 02:03 maartendq wrote:On March 29 2011 23:09 Fruscainte wrote:On March 29 2011 23:00 Enox wrote:On March 29 2011 22:49 Fruscainte wrote:On March 29 2011 22:45 Wesso wrote:lol, Crytek sure waited just long enough to debunk that rumour.... Not that it influences me because my graphics card doesn't support dx11 but my respect for Crytek has gone down. Apparently the game doesn't even have DX10, and it runs on DX9 and still it looks amazing. as far as im concerned, i can live without DX11 support You're honestly justifying this? Starcraft 2 is also DX9, yet I don't hear people complaining about that, despite it being a 2010 game when dx11 cards were out for almost a year and dx10 cards are the norm. That's because Brood War was practically 8-bit. Crysis was a revolution in computer graphics, and even to this day it takes a top of the line computer to run it -- and it came out 5 years ago. It had DX10 support back then, and the simple scale of options graphically it had was astounding. Now, they take away DX10, scale the graphics back immensely to a shadow of its former self. You're seeing nothing wrong with that? Unfortunately, Crysis without the graphic benchmarking is a poor mans halo/cod clone. That's all Crysis 2 is, to me.
I don't really, no. Video games are a buisness whether we like it or not. You say the reason yourself right here and even to this day it takes a top of the line computer to run it If they want to sell a game people have to be able to play it. The graphics are still phenomenal and look considerably better on PC than on consoles as expected. The actual gameplay is pretty smooth as well. If I only want something shiny to look at ill go play Crysis 1 or maybe watch Avatar on bluray.
Although Crytek shit the bed anyway with the launch and all the server/login/cd key problems so I guess they lowered the graphics quality for nothing haha
|
On March 30 2011 05:23 HardCorey wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2011 05:18 Fruscainte wrote:On March 30 2011 02:03 maartendq wrote:On March 29 2011 23:09 Fruscainte wrote:On March 29 2011 23:00 Enox wrote:On March 29 2011 22:49 Fruscainte wrote:On March 29 2011 22:45 Wesso wrote:lol, Crytek sure waited just long enough to debunk that rumour.... Not that it influences me because my graphics card doesn't support dx11 but my respect for Crytek has gone down. Apparently the game doesn't even have DX10, and it runs on DX9 and still it looks amazing. as far as im concerned, i can live without DX11 support You're honestly justifying this? Starcraft 2 is also DX9, yet I don't hear people complaining about that, despite it being a 2010 game when dx11 cards were out for almost a year and dx10 cards are the norm. That's because Brood War was practically 8-bit. Crysis was a revolution in computer graphics, and even to this day it takes a top of the line computer to run it -- and it came out 5 years ago. It had DX10 support back then, and the simple scale of options graphically it had was astounding. Now, they take away DX10, scale the graphics back immensely to a shadow of its former self. You're seeing nothing wrong with that? Unfortunately, Crysis without the graphic benchmarking is a poor mans halo/cod clone. That's all Crysis 2 is, to me. I don't really, no. Video games are a buisness whether we like it or not. You say the reason yourself right here If they want to sell a game people have to be able to play it. The graphics are still phenomenal and look considerably better on PC than on consoles as expected. The actual gameplay is pretty smooth as well. If I only want something shiny to look at ill go play Crysis 1 or maybe watch Avatar on bluray. Although Crytek shit the bed anyway with the launch and all the server/login/cd key problems so I guess they lowered the graphics quality for nothing haha
The fact is, Crysis 1 had DX12 support, and Crysis 2 only has DX9 support.
|
DX11, so far, has been over-rated, in my opinion.
Its biggest, most talked-about feature is "tesselation", which is cool in theory, but I've yet to see a game really do anything with it that's all that noticeable.
Also, the games that are utilizing DX11 tend to be extreme resource hogs. DX11 is supposed to be more resource-efficient, but again, I'm not seeing it. There's what we read in technology/game magazines, and then there's the reality of what we're seeing in games. Thus far, I don't really see the leap from DX9 to DX11 being all that great.
And yes, I have DX11 -- two ATI5870s with an i7 920 processor. I've played Metro 2033, and a couple other DX11 games. I just don't see what the fuss is about. Ultimately, any game's look is going to come down to meshes and textures. Crysis is gorgeous because of the high-level of details that went into all the designs. DX11 doesn't really change that.
With that said, Crysis is just eye-candy, so I'm not paying EA $59.99 for it. I'm happier owning the first one, and I prefer the tropic setting.
|
On March 30 2011 05:29 Fruscainte wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2011 05:23 HardCorey wrote:On March 30 2011 05:18 Fruscainte wrote:On March 30 2011 02:03 maartendq wrote:On March 29 2011 23:09 Fruscainte wrote:On March 29 2011 23:00 Enox wrote:On March 29 2011 22:49 Fruscainte wrote:On March 29 2011 22:45 Wesso wrote:lol, Crytek sure waited just long enough to debunk that rumour.... Not that it influences me because my graphics card doesn't support dx11 but my respect for Crytek has gone down. Apparently the game doesn't even have DX10, and it runs on DX9 and still it looks amazing. as far as im concerned, i can live without DX11 support You're honestly justifying this? Starcraft 2 is also DX9, yet I don't hear people complaining about that, despite it being a 2010 game when dx11 cards were out for almost a year and dx10 cards are the norm. That's because Brood War was practically 8-bit. Crysis was a revolution in computer graphics, and even to this day it takes a top of the line computer to run it -- and it came out 5 years ago. It had DX10 support back then, and the simple scale of options graphically it had was astounding. Now, they take away DX10, scale the graphics back immensely to a shadow of its former self. You're seeing nothing wrong with that? Unfortunately, Crysis without the graphic benchmarking is a poor mans halo/cod clone. That's all Crysis 2 is, to me. I don't really, no. Video games are a buisness whether we like it or not. You say the reason yourself right here and even to this day it takes a top of the line computer to run it If they want to sell a game people have to be able to play it. The graphics are still phenomenal and look considerably better on PC than on consoles as expected. The actual gameplay is pretty smooth as well. If I only want something shiny to look at ill go play Crysis 1 or maybe watch Avatar on bluray. Although Crytek shit the bed anyway with the launch and all the server/login/cd key problems so I guess they lowered the graphics quality for nothing haha The fact is, Crysis 1 had DX12 support, and Crysis 2 only has DX9 support.
If only 1% or less of their market share can even utilize or cares about what DX# they're using QQtek just wont give a shit though.
|
If you've ever played Golden Eye or TimeSplitters (TS1 is the best console shooter ever made in my opinion and the first to utilize the dual stick controls that ever since have remained the standard) - Free Radical design are now known as Crytek UK and are the boys behind the multiplayer in Crysis2! If the awards and quick paced feel of the game are familiar - that's why.
Best console shooter of this generation in my opinion, rivaled only by modern warfare.
Have it on PC as well and i'm not too disappointed, but i'll postpone online play 'til the next patch, the current lag on some servers and the penalty for leaving them is too frustrating.
|
On March 30 2011 06:02 HardCorey wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2011 05:29 Fruscainte wrote:On March 30 2011 05:23 HardCorey wrote:On March 30 2011 05:18 Fruscainte wrote:On March 30 2011 02:03 maartendq wrote:On March 29 2011 23:09 Fruscainte wrote:On March 29 2011 23:00 Enox wrote:On March 29 2011 22:49 Fruscainte wrote:On March 29 2011 22:45 Wesso wrote:lol, Crytek sure waited just long enough to debunk that rumour.... Not that it influences me because my graphics card doesn't support dx11 but my respect for Crytek has gone down. Apparently the game doesn't even have DX10, and it runs on DX9 and still it looks amazing. as far as im concerned, i can live without DX11 support You're honestly justifying this? Starcraft 2 is also DX9, yet I don't hear people complaining about that, despite it being a 2010 game when dx11 cards were out for almost a year and dx10 cards are the norm. That's because Brood War was practically 8-bit. Crysis was a revolution in computer graphics, and even to this day it takes a top of the line computer to run it -- and it came out 5 years ago. It had DX10 support back then, and the simple scale of options graphically it had was astounding. Now, they take away DX10, scale the graphics back immensely to a shadow of its former self. You're seeing nothing wrong with that? Unfortunately, Crysis without the graphic benchmarking is a poor mans halo/cod clone. That's all Crysis 2 is, to me. I don't really, no. Video games are a buisness whether we like it or not. You say the reason yourself right here and even to this day it takes a top of the line computer to run it If they want to sell a game people have to be able to play it. The graphics are still phenomenal and look considerably better on PC than on consoles as expected. The actual gameplay is pretty smooth as well. If I only want something shiny to look at ill go play Crysis 1 or maybe watch Avatar on bluray. Although Crytek shit the bed anyway with the launch and all the server/login/cd key problems so I guess they lowered the graphics quality for nothing haha The fact is, Crysis 1 had DX12 support, and Crysis 2 only has DX9 support. If only 1% or less of their market share can even utilize or cares about what DX# they're using QQtek just wont give a shit though.
Wow, great statistical evidence to back up your claim that only 1% of their userbase on PC has DX10+!
|
On March 30 2011 07:30 Fruscainte wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2011 06:02 HardCorey wrote:On March 30 2011 05:29 Fruscainte wrote:On March 30 2011 05:23 HardCorey wrote:On March 30 2011 05:18 Fruscainte wrote:On March 30 2011 02:03 maartendq wrote:On March 29 2011 23:09 Fruscainte wrote:On March 29 2011 23:00 Enox wrote:On March 29 2011 22:49 Fruscainte wrote:On March 29 2011 22:45 Wesso wrote:
[quote]
lol, Crytek sure waited just long enough to debunk that rumour....
Not that it influences me because my graphics card doesn't support dx11 but my respect for Crytek has gone down. Apparently the game doesn't even have DX10, and it runs on DX9 and still it looks amazing. as far as im concerned, i can live without DX11 support You're honestly justifying this? Starcraft 2 is also DX9, yet I don't hear people complaining about that, despite it being a 2010 game when dx11 cards were out for almost a year and dx10 cards are the norm. That's because Brood War was practically 8-bit. Crysis was a revolution in computer graphics, and even to this day it takes a top of the line computer to run it -- and it came out 5 years ago. It had DX10 support back then, and the simple scale of options graphically it had was astounding. Now, they take away DX10, scale the graphics back immensely to a shadow of its former self. You're seeing nothing wrong with that? Unfortunately, Crysis without the graphic benchmarking is a poor mans halo/cod clone. That's all Crysis 2 is, to me. I don't really, no. Video games are a buisness whether we like it or not. You say the reason yourself right here and even to this day it takes a top of the line computer to run it If they want to sell a game people have to be able to play it. The graphics are still phenomenal and look considerably better on PC than on consoles as expected. The actual gameplay is pretty smooth as well. If I only want something shiny to look at ill go play Crysis 1 or maybe watch Avatar on bluray. Although Crytek shit the bed anyway with the launch and all the server/login/cd key problems so I guess they lowered the graphics quality for nothing haha The fact is, Crysis 1 had DX12 support, and Crysis 2 only has DX9 support. If only 1% or less of their market share can even utilize or cares about what DX# they're using QQtek just wont give a shit though. Wow, great statistical evidence to back up your claim that only 1% of their userbase on PC has DX10+!
You got me. I made up a statistic, I apologize. The point stands though that in order to make more money they need to appeal to more people. Lower graphics standards is a very simple way to do that. Additionally spending a lot of time and money on making the game perform specially for a minority of people is huge expenditure of QQtek's resources. I don't like it either being someone that could utilize it, but i'm not going to demand something that doesn't make a game-breaking difference for only a small amount of people, aka the difference between DX9 and DX10 or 11.
|
On March 30 2011 07:57 HardCorey wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2011 07:30 Fruscainte wrote:On March 30 2011 06:02 HardCorey wrote:On March 30 2011 05:29 Fruscainte wrote:On March 30 2011 05:23 HardCorey wrote:On March 30 2011 05:18 Fruscainte wrote:On March 30 2011 02:03 maartendq wrote:On March 29 2011 23:09 Fruscainte wrote:On March 29 2011 23:00 Enox wrote:On March 29 2011 22:49 Fruscainte wrote:
[quote]
Apparently the game doesn't even have DX10, and it runs on DX9 and still it looks amazing. as far as im concerned, i can live without DX11 support You're honestly justifying this? Starcraft 2 is also DX9, yet I don't hear people complaining about that, despite it being a 2010 game when dx11 cards were out for almost a year and dx10 cards are the norm. That's because Brood War was practically 8-bit. Crysis was a revolution in computer graphics, and even to this day it takes a top of the line computer to run it -- and it came out 5 years ago. It had DX10 support back then, and the simple scale of options graphically it had was astounding. Now, they take away DX10, scale the graphics back immensely to a shadow of its former self. You're seeing nothing wrong with that? Unfortunately, Crysis without the graphic benchmarking is a poor mans halo/cod clone. That's all Crysis 2 is, to me. I don't really, no. Video games are a buisness whether we like it or not. You say the reason yourself right here and even to this day it takes a top of the line computer to run it If they want to sell a game people have to be able to play it. The graphics are still phenomenal and look considerably better on PC than on consoles as expected. The actual gameplay is pretty smooth as well. If I only want something shiny to look at ill go play Crysis 1 or maybe watch Avatar on bluray. Although Crytek shit the bed anyway with the launch and all the server/login/cd key problems so I guess they lowered the graphics quality for nothing haha The fact is, Crysis 1 had DX12 support, and Crysis 2 only has DX9 support. If only 1% or less of their market share can even utilize or cares about what DX# they're using QQtek just wont give a shit though. Wow, great statistical evidence to back up your claim that only 1% of their userbase on PC has DX10+! You got me. I made up a statistic, I apologize. The point stands though that in order to make more money they need to appeal to more people. Lower graphics standards is a very simple way to do that. Additionally spending a lot of time and money on making the game perform specially for a minority of people is huge expenditure of QQtek's resources. I don't like it either being someone that could utilize it, but i'm not going to demand something that doesn't make a game-breaking difference for only a small amount of people, aka the difference between DX9 and DX10 or 11.
Don't treat me as an imbecile. I know why they do it. I know perfectly why they do it and I understand why they do it.
Doesn't make it any more right.
|
The leaked beta that everyone pirated had/has DX11.
|
I kinda feel sorry for the developers of Crysis 2. Crysis 2 got it's singleplayer and multiplayer cracked.
Edit: 14% of sales from PC and the rest from consoles. I really hope when they release Crysis 3 they would still make a PC version.
|
On March 31 2011 10:11 Zeiryuu wrote:
I kinda feel sorry for the developers of Crysis 2. Crysis 2 got it's singleplayer and multiplayer cracked.
Edit: 14% of sales from PC and the rest from consoles. I really hope when they release Crysis 3 they would still make a PC version.
Doesn't include PC digital distribution sales. That said, in all probability, PC sales would still look low regardless. Crytek would probably be better off developing for the consoles exclusively at this point. Spend the saved money on something more important like advertising or other games.
|
On March 31 2011 10:36 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2011 10:11 Zeiryuu wrote:
I kinda feel sorry for the developers of Crysis 2. Crysis 2 got it's singleplayer and multiplayer cracked.
Edit: 14% of sales from PC and the rest from consoles. I really hope when they release Crysis 3 they would still make a PC version.
Doesn't include PC digital distribution sales. That said, in all probability, PC sales would still look low regardless. Crytek would probably be better off developing for the consoles exclusively at this point. Spend the saved money on something more important like advertising or other games.
i dont know anyone who even buys PC games at retail any more though tbh lol (and i do know a lot of people that buy PC games still).
none of them bought crysis 2 though because they believe it to be too much like every other FPS released in the last 3 years. I disagree with that but I can see where they're coming from.
|
On March 31 2011 15:32 Ideas wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2011 10:36 acker wrote:On March 31 2011 10:11 Zeiryuu wrote:
I kinda feel sorry for the developers of Crysis 2. Crysis 2 got it's singleplayer and multiplayer cracked.
Edit: 14% of sales from PC and the rest from consoles. I really hope when they release Crysis 3 they would still make a PC version.
Doesn't include PC digital distribution sales. That said, in all probability, PC sales would still look low regardless. Crytek would probably be better off developing for the consoles exclusively at this point. Spend the saved money on something more important like advertising or other games. i dont know anyone who even buys PC games at retail any more though tbh lol (and i do know a lot of people that buy PC games still). none of them bought crysis 2 though because they believe it to be too much like every other FPS released in the last 3 years. I disagree with that but I can see where they're coming from.
I'm getting that around half of total PC games were bought through digital distribution, with 2010 reports. Nothing specific on Crysis 2, though.
|
On March 31 2011 15:48 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2011 15:32 Ideas wrote:On March 31 2011 10:36 acker wrote:On March 31 2011 10:11 Zeiryuu wrote:
I kinda feel sorry for the developers of Crysis 2. Crysis 2 got it's singleplayer and multiplayer cracked.
Edit: 14% of sales from PC and the rest from consoles. I really hope when they release Crysis 3 they would still make a PC version.
Doesn't include PC digital distribution sales. That said, in all probability, PC sales would still look low regardless. Crytek would probably be better off developing for the consoles exclusively at this point. Spend the saved money on something more important like advertising or other games. i dont know anyone who even buys PC games at retail any more though tbh lol (and i do know a lot of people that buy PC games still). none of them bought crysis 2 though because they believe it to be too much like every other FPS released in the last 3 years. I disagree with that but I can see where they're coming from. I'm getting that around half of total PC games were bought through digital distribution, with 2010 reports. Nothing specific on Crysis 2, though.
Was that report region centric eg USA? Because if it was then digital distribution buyers % will be Much higher as here we have moved almost exclusively to steam because of delay in getting retail copies. Seriously who would spend $5 petrol to go to a shop and buy something for $50-60 when we can buy it for $5-50 on steam and that too a week or two before?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
