I've been looking forward to this game for a while, and this new trailer just got me more pumped for it. I never had the chance to play the first one since my pc was bad back then. I'm hoping it isn't just a crappy console port, and it lives up to the hype.
What do you guys think of the game from what you've seen/heard? Please post anything relevant to the game here like useful news, or videos. Thanks guys!
EDIT: Crytek announced there will be a PC demo before release!!!
On January 23 2011 16:04 Hikko wrote: I've heard it is actually less system intensive than the original game, which I can run on my computer on High settings
Yea I would hope cryengine 3 is better optimized. I heard the first game was poorly optimized.
I mean, for having graphics no other game matched for years, it was pretty well optimized. But not compared to newer games that learned from Crysis 1's mistakes.
urgh I hope they dont overfocus on MP. If a Game cant stand up with his SP then dont let it have MP at all good old times and focus on delievering an amazing SP experience thats what these Games are actually made for to tell a SP Story not some MP Crap. MP ruined so many SP games whith the amount of Work you have to invest in the PvP settings so much Time better invested in more longer SP.
and what do you have from MP anyway... some ladder standing, some Equipment or Achievements or what not and I guess FUN the first 100 or so Matches that always in the Core Sense the Game stay the Same.
MP where you can never tell when a Game is supposed to be over once you have 100% so you can move on to the next on the list never caught my intrest same with these huge Timewasters aka MMOs like you can take them seriously at all lols.
On January 23 2011 16:25 LoCaD wrote: urgh I hope they dont overfocus on MP. If a Game cant stand up with his SP then dont let it have MP at all good old times and focus on delievering an amazing SP experience thats what these Games are actually made for to tell a SP Story not some MP Crap. MP ruined so many SP games whith the amount of Work you have to invest in the PvP settings so much Time better invested in more longer SP.
and what do you have from MP anyway... some ladder standing, some Equipment or Achievements or what not and I guess FUN the first 100 or so Matches that always in the Core Sense the Game stay the Same.
MP where you can never tell when a Game is supposed to be over once you have 100% so you can move on to the next on the list never caught my intrest same with these huge Timewasters aka MMOs like you can take them seriously at all lols.
I mean there is something to be said about Crysis one not lasting long at all due to the fact MP was god awful.
On January 23 2011 16:04 Hikko wrote: I've heard it is actually less system intensive than the original game, which I can run on my computer on High settings !
Holy Moly is Cryengine 2 poorly optimized!! Crytek has told us that Cry3'll run on PS3 and 360 without "much" detail loss, so they're really working on it this time!
Hopefully Crysis 2's MP isn't ruined by bugs and cheaters like the first one was. Also I hope it runs better (you'd think it would, with 3+ years of hardware advancement and no visual improvement).
Armor mode is stupid, though. It needs to be changed. Also "midas touch" melee insta-kills in strength mode were retarded. Hopefully they balance everything out (I don't have a whole lot of faith).
they said crysis 2 has lower system requirements than crysis 1. and crysis 1 is 3,5 years old ... >_<
well, i guess it makes sense, when 5 year old xbox360 has to be able to handle the game as well. they said, the game is best on pc, but i doubt that goes further than higher resolution, antialising and mouse/keyboard control.
I'm glad it will have relatively low requirements, I mean if any game looked as good as Crysis 1 I would be more than happy, so this time they can focus on gameplay (and story, but I'm not a person who plays games for stories) Of course if it didn't look any better than it's predecessor I would be disappointed but I certainly don't expect a big improvement.
On January 24 2011 06:05 Genome852 wrote: Crysis was a tech demo.
Terrible story, boring characters, and the same gameplay as Far Cry (which is a superior game). The multiplayer community is also tiny.
If it didn't look the way it did, no one would have bothered with it.
Crysis's gameplay was nothing to write home about.
But Warhead was different. Intense and thrilling gameplay from the beginning to the end.
If Crysis can have "improved graphics" (which should be possible with directx 11) and Warhead's gameplay with a well written plot, then we got a game of the year on our hands.
I'm hoping the MP is something people will want to play. Crysis Wars was a graveyard from the start. People only got Crysis and Warhead for the single player.
On January 24 2011 06:05 Genome852 wrote: Crysis was a tech demo.
Terrible story, boring characters, and the same gameplay as Far Cry (which is a superior game). The multiplayer community is also tiny.
If it didn't look the way it did, no one would have bothered with it.
Crysis's gameplay was nothing to write home about.
But Warhead was different. Intense and thrilling gameplay from the beginning to the end.
If Crysis can have "improved graphics" (which should be possible with directx 11) and Warhead's gameplay with a well written plot, then we got a game of the year on our hands.
really, you're going to bash crysis 1 but then say warhead was awesome? I thought the 1st 2/3 of crysis (until you get into the alien ship) was just as good as warhead.
honestly I think of crysis/warhead as the last good single player FPS to come out. There really havent been any good ones since (probably because valve/crytek havent made any since).
Hmm.. I liked Crysis SP a lot actually. Yeah, MP was kinda dumb but there were a lot of obstacles since so few people had hardware for it (I only got a machine that I could play crysis on this year). Haven't finished warhead yet, but it seems pretty comparable to be honest, which is to say, I like it too.
I liked the continually changing environements (jungle/cave/snow/beach/daybreak/night/carrier/etc) and the changing gameplay (vehicles/VTOLs/zero G combat/etc) and the flexibility of choosing your own method of combating enemies and accomplishing objectives. I'm wondering how they will accomplish something similar with a city environment, or if they even plan to incorporate the same diversity.
Either way, I'll give it a shot when it comes out. If the single player is no good, I guess I'll be waiting for episode 3 (lol). If the MP doesn't work out, there's always TF2...
well, i guess it makes sense, when 5 year old xbox360 has to be able to handle the game as well. they said, the game is best on pc, but i doubt that goes further than higher resolution, antialising and mouse/keyboard control.
I really hope you're wrong about that but It's probably true.
On January 24 2011 06:05 Genome852 wrote: Crysis was a tech demo.
Terrible story, boring characters, and the same gameplay as Far Cry (which is a superior game). The multiplayer community is also tiny.
If it didn't look the way it did, no one would have bothered with it.
Crysis's gameplay was nothing to write home about.
But Warhead was different. Intense and thrilling gameplay from the beginning to the end.
If Crysis can have "improved graphics" (which should be possible with directx 11) and Warhead's gameplay with a well written plot, then we got a game of the year on our hands.
really, you're going to bash crysis 1 but then say warhead was awesome? I thought the 1st 2/3 of crysis (until you get into the alien ship) was just as good as warhead.
honestly I think of crysis/warhead as the last good single player FPS to come out. There really havent been any good ones since (probably because valve/crytek havent made any since).
One third of Crysis 1 consists of running around the jungle, enjoying the scenery. The fighting was fairly repetitive and the alien AI sucked.
Warhead, on the other hand, was never ending intensive action. Each level features its unique challenge and combat scenario. There was never a dull moment.
I'm hoping this is gonna be good, I really really liked Crysis 1 (the first 2/3 of the SP anyway), Warhead and Far Cry 1, so hopefully this will be good. The MP for Crysis was god awful, I tried to like it (because I liked the SP so much) but it was just plain bad.
My main concern with Crysis 2 is that they are going to have to cut corners because it is gonna be on consoles. I'm really hoping the environments are still huge and you have the options you had in Crysis 1, but the low RAM on the consoles may prohibit that. The good thing about being on consoles though is that the engine will probably be a lot better optimized.
IMO Crysis and Warhead were just inches from being an incredible game.
The graphics were obviously stunning, but also the art design.
The maps were amazingly large, and you were given great choice of how to approach objectives.
The suit abilities were the best new thing to vary FPS gameplay i've ever seen. They were so intuitive to use and once you got good at it it added a whole new level to playing.
unfortunately
The weapons were boring and frustrating to use.
The hit registration was poor.
The enemies were incredibly boring. (fucking floating aliens are teh worst enemies ever, they have no weak points, they fly so they circumvent using any terrain, you cant sneak up on them...awful.)
The suit abilites were not balanced well, you ended up using some of them a ton and others much less.
I'm hopeful that 2 can fix these issues, but I gotta say I'm not confident
On January 24 2011 11:55 sob3k wrote: IMO Crysis and Warhead were just inches from being an incredible game.
The graphics were obviously stunning, but also the art design.
The maps were amazingly large, and you were given great choice of how to approach objectives.
The suit abilities were the best new thing to vary FPS gameplay i've ever seen. They were so intuitive to use and once you got good at it it added a whole new level to playing.
unfortunately The weapons were boring and frustrating to use.
The hit registration was poor.
The enemies were incredibly boring. (fucking floating aliens are teh worst enemies ever, they have no weak points, they fly so they circumvent using any terrain, you cant sneak up on them...awful.)
The suit abilites were not balanced well, you ended up using some of them a ton and others much less.
I'm hopeful that 2 can fix these issues, but I gotta say I'm not confident
the SCAR in crysis is one of my favorite guns in an FPS ever :O
soooo satisfying to use. my biggest problem in crysis 1 was just that you never got any ammo for it after the 1st level lol.
On January 24 2011 11:55 sob3k wrote: IMO Crysis and Warhead were just inches from being an incredible game.
The graphics were obviously stunning, but also the art design.
The maps were amazingly large, and you were given great choice of how to approach objectives.
The suit abilities were the best new thing to vary FPS gameplay i've ever seen. They were so intuitive to use and once you got good at it it added a whole new level to playing.
unfortunately The weapons were boring and frustrating to use.
The hit registration was poor.
The enemies were incredibly boring. (fucking floating aliens are teh worst enemies ever, they have no weak points, they fly so they circumvent using any terrain, you cant sneak up on them...awful.)
The suit abilites were not balanced well, you ended up using some of them a ton and others much less.
I'm hopeful that 2 can fix these issues, but I gotta say I'm not confident
the SCAR in crysis is one of my favorite guns in an FPS ever :O
soooo satisfying to use. my biggest problem in crysis 1 was just that you never got any ammo for it after the 1st level lol.
The reason you like it is because you only use it during the first levels, where the enemies dont have the bulletproof vests that take an entire clip to kill.
On January 24 2011 11:55 sob3k wrote: IMO Crysis and Warhead were just inches from being an incredible game.
The graphics were obviously stunning, but also the art design.
The maps were amazingly large, and you were given great choice of how to approach objectives.
The suit abilities were the best new thing to vary FPS gameplay i've ever seen. They were so intuitive to use and once you got good at it it added a whole new level to playing.
unfortunately The weapons were boring and frustrating to use.
The hit registration was poor.
The enemies were incredibly boring. (fucking floating aliens are teh worst enemies ever, they have no weak points, they fly so they circumvent using any terrain, you cant sneak up on them...awful.)
The suit abilites were not balanced well, you ended up using some of them a ton and others much less.
I'm hopeful that 2 can fix these issues, but I gotta say I'm not confident
the SCAR in crysis is one of my favorite guns in an FPS ever :O
soooo satisfying to use. my biggest problem in crysis 1 was just that you never got any ammo for it after the 1st level lol.
The reason you like it is because you only use it during the first levels, where the enemies dont have the bulletproof vests that take an entire clip to kill.
Agreed. I bought Crysis after it came out and played it through so many times, but damn for such an "advanced" game the AI was super super bad. Delta difficulty was pretty bleh, the enemies had stupid amounts of health, and you were pretty much forced to use Cloak and Armour only. Some of the fights on Delta were just tedious and boring. The game was much more fun on easy or normal, where you could just dick around with the different abilities.
Anyways, I really liked the level design for the most part. The story line left a little something to be desired, but was alright (had some pretty awesome moments). The graphics are of course astounding, even on my bad computer. The multiplayer was pretty terrible, nothing really exciting at all. In the end, I spent TONS of time making custom maps, and AI and stuff like that with the Sandbox editor, which was fucking awesome. I hope that Crysis 2 improves on the weak spots of Crysis, unfortunately I doubt my computer will be able to run the second one unless they keep the same minimum requirements :/
The reason you like it is because you only use it during the first levels, where the enemies dont have the bulletproof vests that take an entire clip to kill.
Head shots are insta-kill even with a pistol. Once you've gotten the laser pointer the enemies become fairly easy to deal with. Plus, it's not like ammunition is scarce in the game.
My main gripe with Crysis (not so much Warhead) are the crappy vehicle sections (VTOL, anyone?) which really sucked. Hopefully they've improved on it significantly.
On January 24 2011 11:55 sob3k wrote: IMO Crysis and Warhead were just inches from being an incredible game.
The graphics were obviously stunning, but also the art design.
The maps were amazingly large, and you were given great choice of how to approach objectives.
The suit abilities were the best new thing to vary FPS gameplay i've ever seen. They were so intuitive to use and once you got good at it it added a whole new level to playing.
unfortunately The weapons were boring and frustrating to use.
The hit registration was poor.
The enemies were incredibly boring. (fucking floating aliens are teh worst enemies ever, they have no weak points, they fly so they circumvent using any terrain, you cant sneak up on them...awful.)
The suit abilites were not balanced well, you ended up using some of them a ton and others much less.
I'm hopeful that 2 can fix these issues, but I gotta say I'm not confident
the SCAR in crysis is one of my favorite guns in an FPS ever :O
soooo satisfying to use. my biggest problem in crysis 1 was just that you never got any ammo for it after the 1st level lol.
The reason you like it is because you only use it during the first levels, where the enemies dont have the bulletproof vests that take an entire clip to kill.
This actually only happens if you have a suppressor on a weapon. Your bullets literally do almost no damage at long range (stupid design) if so. You can shoot them 30 times, hear the 'hit' sound every time, and the guy is still standing.
On January 24 2011 11:55 sob3k wrote: IMO Crysis and Warhead were just inches from being an incredible game.
The graphics were obviously stunning, but also the art design.
The maps were amazingly large, and you were given great choice of how to approach objectives.
The suit abilities were the best new thing to vary FPS gameplay i've ever seen. They were so intuitive to use and once you got good at it it added a whole new level to playing.
unfortunately The weapons were boring and frustrating to use.
The hit registration was poor.
The enemies were incredibly boring. (fucking floating aliens are teh worst enemies ever, they have no weak points, they fly so they circumvent using any terrain, you cant sneak up on them...awful.)
The suit abilites were not balanced well, you ended up using some of them a ton and others much less.
I'm hopeful that 2 can fix these issues, but I gotta say I'm not confident
the SCAR in crysis is one of my favorite guns in an FPS ever :O
soooo satisfying to use. my biggest problem in crysis 1 was just that you never got any ammo for it after the 1st level lol.
The reason you like it is because you only use it during the first levels, where the enemies dont have the bulletproof vests that take an entire clip to kill.
This actually only happens if you have a suppressor on a weapon. Your bullets literally do almost no damage at long range (stupid design) if so. You can shoot them 30 times, hear the 'hit' sound every time, and the guy is still standing.
im so pissed that the crysis 2 demo is only for 360. wtf. if youre not a SUCKER and dont actually pay 60$ a year to play a system online, you cant play the demo at all.
Wow, the multiplayer will have so much potential for interesting tactics and skill moves with the maximum speed, armor, strength and invisibility that each player has access to. Looks like there's some new stuff like sliding on the ground, which adds even more depth to the game. I'm definitely gonna be buying this game!
Was pretty unimpressed by the demo tbh. it seemed all the fun things were there but the controls were just so loose that things didnt really happen when you wanted it to and i felt they couldve worked on the graphics for the 360 port more because everything just didnt look sharp (a bit like bfbc2 on 360) but apart from that as long as they tweak the controls i believe it will be a hit.
On January 24 2011 11:55 sob3k wrote: IMO Crysis and Warhead were just inches from being an incredible game.
The graphics were obviously stunning, but also the art design.
The maps were amazingly large, and you were given great choice of how to approach objectives.
The suit abilities were the best new thing to vary FPS gameplay i've ever seen. They were so intuitive to use and once you got good at it it added a whole new level to playing.
unfortunately The weapons were boring and frustrating to use.
The hit registration was poor.
The enemies were incredibly boring. (fucking floating aliens are teh worst enemies ever, they have no weak points, they fly so they circumvent using any terrain, you cant sneak up on them...awful.)
The suit abilites were not balanced well, you ended up using some of them a ton and others much less.
I'm hopeful that 2 can fix these issues, but I gotta say I'm not confident
the SCAR in crysis is one of my favorite guns in an FPS ever :O
soooo satisfying to use. my biggest problem in crysis 1 was just that you never got any ammo for it after the 1st level lol.
The reason you like it is because you only use it during the first levels, where the enemies dont have the bulletproof vests that take an entire clip to kill.
This actually only happens if you have a suppressor on a weapon. Your bullets literally do almost no damage at long range (stupid design) if so. You can shoot them 30 times, hear the 'hit' sound every time, and the guy is still standing.
that's called physics and not " stupid design "
Realism argument... ahh. In real life, suppressing a weapon does not turn it into a water gun. Most modern suppressors don't slow bullet velocity either. So no, someone shot 30 times with a rifle shouldn't be standing no matter how far he is from you.
On February 01 2011 14:33 Kolvacs wrote: I LOVED the other Crysis games (more the story line). But I'm also REALLY pumped for the multiplayer in this game.
All I remember: you go to an island looking for researchers, turns out there are 'aliens' buried underground, you escape and something hints that Prophet is not a normal person. The end.
Whats the point of buying a super awesome machine if they lower the the requirements bleh
Yea, maybe Crysis single player story was bad, but who gave a shit? see that enemy camp? how about I pick up a dumpster and throw it at them with my ball crushing maximum strength. Or maybe I could steal a truck drive it into them off that cliff. or fuck it, Ill just go in rambo style and grab one guy as a shield and blow the other guys away. The sandbox style of the game was what turned me on a lot, and if the graphics are less intense then its already taking away alot of what this game is. Scratch that, without graphics, crysis would be stupid.
On February 01 2011 14:33 Kolvacs wrote: I LOVED the other Crysis games (more the story line). But I'm also REALLY pumped for the multiplayer in this game.
All I remember: you go to an island looking for researchers, turns out there are 'aliens' buried underground, you escape and something hints that Prophet is not a normal person. The end.
Just because you didn't like it doesn't mean others don't. I liked crysis 1 + expansion for the storyline as well. But the multiplayer might actually be good in this one we shall see can't wait
I think minimum requirements are lower. Probably a more efficient engine. You can probably bet they'll make the maximum requirements just as demanding.
I believe there are some logical limitations to how intense they can make the graphics in multiplayer.
On February 01 2011 15:02 DanceCommander wrote: Whats the point of buying a super awesome machine if they lower the the requirements bleh
Agreed. Game development is mostly focused around consoles now... which means even if you have the best hardware in the world, the software - atleast in multiplatform games - likely won't catch up.
Wasn't really much to like about Crysis 1, Warhead or Far Cry 2. Gameplay was tedious. Control was clumsy and unresponsive. Story didn't exist.
I had the most fun in Crysis stacking up a tower of boxes in the back of a ute and trying to do stunts without spilling any. That and carrying a pet turtle around wherever I went. Oh and trying to chop down as many trees as I could, knock down every house and try to kill the ai with objects only. When that turtle died randomly when I tried to set him down on the beach I completely lost interest in the game and closed it.
In Far Cry 2 the most fun I had was starting fires in the grass and watching it spread and cause havoc. Once that got old it was the same old boring junk so again I closed it. There wasn't even any turtles
I just wish they would do more with such an awesome engine and destructible environments. Half Life 1 was a more solid shooter than any Crysis game. They need to try something different. Right now Crysis 2 looks like some guys went "Hey the problem with the original game was it was on an island and people got bored. It should be more like CoD. BRILLIANT"
I'll reserve final judgement until I play it but until then it's a nice tech demo I guess.
I played the demo on 360 and I'll give you my unbiased review: It's exactly like COD4:MW with the addition of sliding, camouflage, assassinations and armor. When I say exactly I mean exactly almost as if they ripped the engine out directly. It even comes the same type of class system (4 preset and a few create your own slots), same perks (3 tiers of perks), same weapons ( 1 main, one sub, attachments, etc.), same kill streaks (3 radar, 5 airstrike, 7 helicopter) . I have no opinion on that matter of whether or not this is a bad or good thing that they blatantly copied the call of duty series. I did not play crysis one but I suspect the gameplay is vastly different. Here's the stuff that's different from call of duty:
The Melee System: Is a punch that kills in one hit like a COD knife, if you punch someone from behind you go into a little assassination animation which takes time and can get you killed, but it gives you some extra points.
Energy System: Armor, Sprint, and Camouflage all share one energy bar. They can be kept on until your energy drains to 0. Armor and camouflage overwrite each other but you can sprint with either one of them on. The energy recovers pretty quickly when not using one of the 3.
Armor: Causes you to take less damage and deal more damage. It supposedly causes a melee to require two hits to kill you. Impact on gameplay: I think it skews gameplay too much, you never know how many shots it's going to take to kill someone because you may not have your armor up (increasing your damage) or they might have theirs up (reducing the damage you do) thus making melee very effective and weapons unreliable.
Sprint : Works like a normal sprint except you can tap crouch ( I could be wrong on which button) and preform a power slide, you can even shoot while sliding, but it's very difficult to aim.
Camouflage: My personal favorite, The less you move the less visible you are. If you preform an action other then sprint or climb all your energy is drained and you get flashed. Sounds horrid but you just toggle it off before shooting, meleeing, throwing nade, ect. Impact on gameplay: Promotes camping big time, very easy to camp and one shot melee people or groups of people as they pass by.
Killstreak System: The killstreak system is exactly like COD's except one minor detail, all your kills don't count, you have to pick up a "dog tag" by walking over it on the ground and pressing "A", which means you have to go to their dead body. Impact on gameplay: Promotes the use of CQC and discourages the use of guns.
My take on the game: Visually stunning and fun, but ridiculous from a competitive stand point. I would go 20 kills and under 3 deaths every game just by camping with camo in high traffic areas, with a proximity alarm perk, and one hit meleeing people. The guns were so unreliable that out of the 20 kills 2 would be from guns maximum. Sniping was impossible players move too fast, very few highground locations on the map, players moving stealthed, and inability to collect dog tags from your cross map kills (no kill streaks for you). The whole system seems to gear towards meleeing way too much.
I recommend this game only if you enjoy the COD series starting from COD4:MW and above, if you like camping, enjoy not getting sniped from across the map, or if you like knifing people. Sounds sarcastic but its not, if you like all that then by all means have at it. If you don't steer very clear from this game.
I always like part the farcry, crysis, until mutants/aliens start showing up. I also enjoy looking at the scenary, enviroument. However the actual gameplay, multiplayer doesn't fit my taste, and not many other game uses its engine.
I am playing Crysis 1 right now. I'm at the part where the ship is blowing to shits. A lot of people told me the game was a generic piece of crap.
Now I wonder what their idea of "amazing" is, because I'm having loads of fun! It's a bit bothersome that I die a lot on normal because random shit hits me square in the face, but love the graphics, the guns and the different strengths you have!
I played the demo on 360 and I'll give you my unbiased review: It's exactly like COD4:MW with the addition of sliding, camouflage, assassinations and armor. When I say exactly I mean exactly almost as if they ripped the engine out directly. It even comes the same type of class system (4 preset and a few create your own slots), same perks (3 tiers of perks), same weapons ( 1 main, one sub, attachments, etc.), same kill streaks (3 radar, 5 airstrike, 7 helicopter) . I have no opinion on that matter of whether or not this is a bad or good thing that they blatantly copied the call of duty series. I did not play crysis one but I suspect the gameplay is vastly different. Here's the stuff that's different from call of duty:
The Melee System: Is a punch that kills in one hit like a COD knife, if you punch someone from behind you go into a little assassination animation which takes time and can get you killed, but it gives you some extra points.
Energy System: Armor, Sprint, and Camouflage all share one energy bar. They can be kept on until your energy drains to 0. Armor and camouflage overwrite each other but you can sprint with either one of them on. The energy recovers pretty quickly when not using one of the 3.
Armor: Causes you to take less damage and deal more damage. It supposedly causes a melee to require two hits to kill you. Impact on gameplay: I think it skews gameplay too much, you never know how many shots it's going to take to kill someone because you may not have your armor up (increasing your damage) or they might have theirs up (reducing the damage you do) thus making melee very effective and weapons unreliable.
Sprint : Works like a normal sprint except you can tap crouch ( I could be wrong on which button) and preform a power slide, you can even shoot while sliding, but it's very difficult to aim.
Camouflage: My personal favorite, The less you move the less visible you are. If you preform an action other then sprint or climb all your energy is drained and you get flashed. Sounds horrid but you just toggle it off before shooting, meleeing, throwing nade, ect. Impact on gameplay: Promotes camping big time, very easy to camp and one shot melee people or groups of people as they pass by.
Killstreak System: The killstreak system is exactly like COD's except one minor detail, all your kills don't count, you have to pick up a "dog tag" by walking over it on the ground and pressing "A", which means you have to go to their dead body. Impact on gameplay: Promotes the use of CQC and discourages the use of guns.
My take on the game: Visually stunning and fun, but ridiculous from a competitive stand point. I would go 20 kills and under 3 deaths every game just by camping with camo in high traffic areas, with a proximity alarm perk, and one hit meleeing people. The guns were so unreliable that out of the 20 kills 2 would be from guns maximum. Sniping was impossible players move too fast, very few highground locations on the map, players moving stealthed, and inability to collect dog tags from your cross map kills (no kill streaks for you). The whole system seems to gear towards meleeing way too much.
I recommend this game only if you enjoy the COD series starting from COD4:MW and above, if you like camping, enjoy not getting sniped from across the map, or if you like knifing people. Sounds sarcastic but its not, if you like all that then by all means have at it. If you don't steer very clear from this game.
haven't actually tried the demo yet, cause i only have the PC atm, but from the looks of it the different module set up system are very similar to CoD:MW load out... but the modules set up are much inventive than MW imo, like the module that lets u trace enemy shots and footsteps and stealth tracking, and all sort of stuff are more "fun" to play around with, but i agree on the point that melee sees so much more powerful than them guns...
have to play it to really get how well it all ties together though...
This is going to hurt them by...a lot. Luckily, it hasn't gone gold yet and it's probably pretty buggy right now.
Seriously, people, if you're going to crack a game, could you please wait just five days after release before taking up the challenge? Do you enjoy watching developers migrate to consoles or something?
I don't generally care much about pirating..but one and a half month early? Thats just brutal, and will have far higher consequences than the normal "cracket 14 days after".
First off we could be seeing a delayed release (unlikely, but they would be well within their rights too). Secondly we could be seeing a crysis 3 not supported on PC (again, unlikely). Thirdly, and more probably, we could be looking at more drm.
wow, crytek is so fucked. how could they let that happen. someone got angry after getting fired? i only hope that beta has some serious flaws and the multiplayer wont work for long.
its been 4 years since the original crytek and crysis 2 looks on par with crysis 1 graphically.. and the multiplayer looks like its tailoring to consoles.. ugh consoles
On February 12 2011 09:33 TaKemE wrote: This is going to hurt Crytek so much and could imo end their support for PC in the feature if sales are very bad. <.<
You are aware that Xbox 360 and Ps3 is cracked, right?
On February 12 2011 12:08 Qzy wrote: You are aware that Xbox 360 and Ps3 is cracked, right?
You're aware that developers are moving away from PCs due to piracy***, right? Crytek's one of the last major devs who, quite admirably, stick up for PCs. Quite honestly, I think video game developers more about video game piracy than any of us, they're paid to make buckets of money*.
It's much more difficult to crack an Xbox 360 or PS3 than, say, play a downloaded image file on a PC. I don't think anyone's even managed to create a soft-mod crack for either console yet**. And hardmodding is relatively unpopular for obvious reasons. Not exactly a DIY job...unlike, say, every PC crack.
*Anyone who thinks that devs are moving towards consoles because they're heartless bastards who hate PC nerds is an idiot. They're heartless bastards paid millions to make profits, not rage on people.
**I'm only absolutely certain that this is true for the PS3, though no amount of Google has uncovered a Xbox 360 softmod.
***Admittedly, piracy has also helped move developers towards multiplayer, which is not a bad thing.
On February 12 2011 12:08 Qzy wrote: You are aware that Xbox 360 and Ps3 is cracked, right?
You're aware that developers are moving away from PCs due to piracy***, right? Crytek's one of the last major devs who, quite admirably, stick up for PCs. Quite honestly, I think video game developers more about video game piracy than any of us, they're paid to make buckets of money*.
It's much more difficult to crack an Xbox 360 or PS3 than, say, play a downloaded image file on a PC. I don't think anyone's even managed to create a soft-mod crack for either console yet**. And hardmodding is relatively unpopular for obvious reasons. Not exactly a DIY job...unlike, say, every PC crack.
*Anyone who thinks that devs are moving towards consoles because they're heartless bastards who hate PC nerds is an idiot. They're heartless bastards paid millions to make profits, not rage on people.
**I'm only absolutely certain that this is true for the PS3, though no amount of Google has uncovered a Xbox 360 softmod.
***Admittedly, piracy has also helped move developers towards multiplayer, which is not a bad thing.
1. Order a firmware-flashed xbox online. 2. Burn dual layer dvds. 3. Insert into xbox
Not that hard compared to extracting files, moving cracks around, etc. Mind you: PC sales exceeded console-sales last year. WHERE IS YOUR GOD NOW?
The MP on the 360 was OK, aside from the insta-kill melee bash, although the stealth kills are very satisfying. But, I'm holding off until I upgrade my PC to get it, PC games are just smoother and cleaner to play for me compared to the console versions.
I've heard they were making the xbox and ps3 versions first, so that almost always means a console port.
But I would say we PC gamers deserve it, we pirated the game till no end and now we are going to get a crappy console port on the PC, with shitty controls, slow response time and buggy as hell.
Admittedly Crytek did shoot themselves in the foot quite a bit, by making Crysis the most demanding game that no PC can handle at that time.
On February 12 2011 13:41 Qzy wrote: 1. Order a firmware-flashed xbox online. 2. Burn dual layer dvds. 3. Insert into xbox
Not that hard compared to extracting files, moving cracks around, etc. Mind you: PC sales exceeded console-sales last year.
Or you could mount the iso and play on the PC in...a minute*. Without ordering anything. Without burning anything. Any idiot with an internet connection can do it. It's much harder and tedious to play cracked games on a console than it is to play cracked games on a PC.
Just looked up firmware flashing. SATA chip set compatibility, hard drive removal...unless you feel like shipping the Xbox somewhere and paying someone else. Much more difficult than any game for the PC. I'd say stuff about DVD burning, but that'd be going too far. And then there's the console's ability for mass retribution if you get caught.
I notice you haven't said anything about PS3 hard drive flashing, either.
*Of course, you'd have to install it, too. And the bolded part is nonsense and you know it, it takes ten seconds to move a crack and you'd have to extract Xbox 360 files before burning DVDs.
On February 12 2011 13:41 Qzy wrote: Mind you: PC sales exceeded console-sales last year.
Err...duh? However, if you look at PC games sold/pirated and console games sold/pirated, the ratio is most heavily skewed for...PCs. By a factor of anywhere from 5 to 1, in comparison to console games sold/pirated. Even after adjusting for different amount of sales. Video game devs are migrating into consoles for a reason, despite console inflexibility.
If Crytek makes their next game a console exclusive, I could care less. Crysis 2 is already a borderline console game to begin with. I'd rather have good companies like Tripwire and GSC Gameworld take up the throne of PC game development anyway.
Why is everyone crying about Crysis 2 being on consoles? Does anyone actually understand how game engine design works? Most likely, they simply added profiles to the Crytek Engine 3 to support PS3 and Xbox 360 hardware.
Why on earth would they ditch their old Crysis 1 engine and completely rebuild their engine to FOCUS on consoles? Because that's what they would have to do to do any kind of "porting to PC" that everyone's accusing them of doing.
If your in to Crysis 2. Which is the sole purpose i live xD lol You should check out my Youtube channel for alot of leaked footage,interviews, gameplay and trailers. Not advertising lol just alot there i wish for people to see Youtube.com/crysis2hd
No, seriously, I'm still not seeing what you don't deserve. They haven't pushed back the release date or added more DRM or, well, anything*. And as far as I know, they didn't tell the entire PC community to die in a fire**.
*At least, not yet. Nothing I can see you can complain about for the present.
**are you complaining because of...harsh language? Really?
im quite glad it leaked cause now i see it for the consoletarded piece of shit it is. wouldnt be surprised if a disgusted employee leaked it cause this thing looks worse than the first crysis, and has turned into a linear, tiny, CoD clone (but completely stripped of any excitement). i am not surprised they kept all the PC info and screenshots close to their chest, except for repeating the "it will be :awesome:" mantra
also its hard to believe but they managed to make enemies more boring, bland, and dumber than in the original.
On February 12 2011 17:48 LunarC wrote: Why is everyone crying about Crysis 2 being on consoles? Does anyone actually understand how game engine design works? Most likely, they simply added profiles to the Crytek Engine 3 to support PS3 and Xbox 360 hardware.
Why on earth would they ditch their old Crysis 1 engine and completely rebuild their engine to FOCUS on consoles? Because that's what they would have to do to do any kind of "porting to PC" that everyone's accusing them of doing.
You dont' know why? Because on PC you can add so much more to multiplayer then you can for consoles. So they make sure that everything that works for console and then make almost no changes and its a dumbed down version of a game that could be good for pc.
look at call of duty modern warfail 2. They took away features the PC always had because of the console and they were too lazy to add it to the pc version.
Lots of companies have been shitting on the pc version making it just like a console game (which again pc can do alot more then a console can) which is just retarded. Luckily not all companies do that but alot do when they do all 3 platforms.
I can already tell that sliding thing is going to be the gayest thing ever. Everyone and their fucking dog is just going to be sliding around constantly. Going to be a clusterfuck. Curious to see how pure stealth works in a game like this (not partial stealth like you see in halo/tf2).
On February 12 2011 17:48 LunarC wrote: Why is everyone crying about Crysis 2 being on consoles? Does anyone actually understand how game engine design works? Most likely, they simply added profiles to the Crytek Engine 3 to support PS3 and Xbox 360 hardware.
You really think porting the Crytek engine to consoles was easy as adding a profile? The Xbox 360 barely meets Crysis 1's minimum requirements.
Why on earth would they ditch their old Crysis 1 engine and completely rebuild their engine to FOCUS on consoles? Because that's what they would have to do to do any kind of "porting to PC" that everyone's accusing them of doing.
They're not "porting to the PC"; that's hyperbole. It is obvious, however, that Crysis 2 has been designed with consoles in mind (UI, simplified powers, no lean, no prone, smaller more linear maps, more handholding throughout etc.).
Now you ask, why would they focus on consoles? Because EA wants more money.
After watching crysis 2 trailers I started to notice the music sounding quite similar to another game ( MW 2) which I really loved ( the music that is). Shortly after I started doing some research (google) and found out that Hans Zimmer composed the music for it.
CRYSIS 2 PC DEMO TOMORROW!! FFFF YEA... so like, we should get some TL games and maybe a TL server for Crysis 2 ja? Too bad about the leak, but I"m a good person so i will abstain until my pre-ordered copy arrives via steam :p... that won't stop me from a little warmup with the demo TOMORROW!!!!
On February 12 2011 12:08 Qzy wrote: You are aware that Xbox 360 and Ps3 is cracked, right?
You're aware that developers are moving away from PCs due to piracy***, right? Crytek's one of the last major devs who, quite admirably, stick up for PCs. Quite honestly, I think video game developers more about video game piracy than any of us, they're paid to make buckets of money*.
It's much more difficult to crack an Xbox 360 or PS3 than, say, play a downloaded image file on a PC. I don't think anyone's even managed to create a soft-mod crack for either console yet**. And hardmodding is relatively unpopular for obvious reasons. Not exactly a DIY job...unlike, say, every PC crack.
*Anyone who thinks that devs are moving towards consoles because they're heartless bastards who hate PC nerds is an idiot. They're heartless bastards paid millions to make profits, not rage on people.
**I'm only absolutely certain that this is true for the PS3, though no amount of Google has uncovered a Xbox 360 softmod.
***Admittedly, piracy has also helped move developers towards multiplayer, which is not a bad thing.
You know, I can agree with this "piracy hurting PC sales" bullshit but for very different reasons than what the publishers want you to believe.
Piracy hurts PC sales not because you can potentially get something you want and not pay for it. It hurts because you can download a game, play it for 20 minutes, realise that it is yet another clumsy console port or that the game just simply sucks, delete and forget about it. This is what happens with 95% of the games that I download. I download them because you cannot return a game you bought because you thought it sucked, which is what is fundamentally wrong with the gaming industry. Why do you think publishers are so reluctant to make demos these days?
If the game is actually good, I would argue that piracy is actually free promotion and helps the sales or in the worst case does not hurt them.
On February 12 2011 12:08 Qzy wrote: You are aware that Xbox 360 and Ps3 is cracked, right?
You're aware that developers are moving away from PCs due to piracy***, right? Crytek's one of the last major devs who, quite admirably, stick up for PCs. Quite honestly, I think video game developers more about video game piracy than any of us, they're paid to make buckets of money*.
It's much more difficult to crack an Xbox 360 or PS3 than, say, play a downloaded image file on a PC. I don't think anyone's even managed to create a soft-mod crack for either console yet**. And hardmodding is relatively unpopular for obvious reasons. Not exactly a DIY job...unlike, say, every PC crack.
*Anyone who thinks that devs are moving towards consoles because they're heartless bastards who hate PC nerds is an idiot. They're heartless bastards paid millions to make profits, not rage on people.
**I'm only absolutely certain that this is true for the PS3, though no amount of Google has uncovered a Xbox 360 softmod.
***Admittedly, piracy has also helped move developers towards multiplayer, which is not a bad thing.
You know, I can agree with this "piracy hurting PC sales" bullshit but for very different reasons than what the publishers want you to believe.
Piracy hurts PC sales not because you can potentially get something you want and not pay for it. It hurts because you can download a game, play it for 20 minutes, realise that it is yet another clumsy console port or that the game just simply sucks, delete and forget about it. This is what happens with 95% of the games that I download. I download them because you cannot return a game you bought because you thought it sucked, which is what is fundamentally wrong with the gaming industry. Why do you think publishers are so reluctant to make demos these days?
If the game is actually good, I would argue that piracy is actually free promotion and helps the sales or in the worst case does not hurt them.
THIS. I don't think there has ever been a game that I pirated and enjoyed, that I didn't actually buy. On the other hand, there have been many games that I pirated, realized it sucked balls, deleted it, then never played it again.
I'm disappointed by their switch to consoles. I'm going to wait and see how people fare this game on the PC and playing a FPS game on a console is heresy. (Only times I do that is if its console exclusive though.)
Even my beloved BF series is now going to be on consoles...
ok just played it for about an hour on PC. i found it pretty fun so far. i could barely run crysis 1 on a playable FPS on high, but playing crysis 2 on lowest settings at a perfect framerate and it looks GREAT. very fucking impressed so far. didnt even mess around with higher settings yet.
main assault rifle feels really good to me, other guns were kinda meh. shotgun doesnt feel like it has enough kick to it, but i only used it for like 5 minutes.
my only real gripes so far are the low player limit (only 6v6, i feel like 8v8 would be so much better. too hard to find players a lot of the time, and especially hard to find more than 1 at a time lol) and sliding is sorta hard to do. if i press crouch too long i just crouch instead of slide, and if i press it not long enough i'll only slide for like 1 second... i'll probably get a hang of it pretty quick though.
also the power drop thing sorta sucks lol. really small radius and really long animation :\
overall i'm quite pleased with it so far. new suit powers management is a lot more fluid than crysis 1 and i just feel a whole lot more mobile than in the 1st. the drop pod mode is really fun too. I just wish they didnt have all the dumb killstreak stuff :\
On March 01 2011 20:47 Hunted wrote: Looking like another shitty console port tbh. "Press START to continue" and having auto aim wtf.
yea i remember seeing the "aim assist" option in the menus but i honestly cant notice any auto-aim at all. im not really sure if that's just a remnant from the consoles (like the press start to play thing) and doesnt do anything or if it's just a really really crappy auto-aim or if it's something else. I'm 90% sure that i have it enabled and there is no autoaim at all.
On March 01 2011 23:48 meegrean wrote: just great... my computer can't even run crysis 1. guess i won't be playing this game for at least another decade
i've give the demo a shot. it runs really good on my PC and i could barely run crysis 1.
graphics are ok i guess. worse than crysis 1, better than 90% of the other shooters. dx 11 might boost it a little in the final release, since demo is only dx9. also the game has a lot lower system requirements than i expected. i run it with a e8400 dual core and a gf460 at max setting in 1650x1050.
multiplayer is dissappointing so far. i dont see this game ever have a competetive scene. it mostly feels like 12 guys running arround on a map and no teamwork at all. what i find most annyoing is the fact that u almost never know where ur enemies are. u must always be afraid of getting attacked from behind and damn, u die fast in that game. so nearly all death u just dont stand a chance, because enemy saw u first. i did best with camping stealthed, but this isnt exactly fun.
i would give the multiplayer a 6 out of 10. hope the singleplayer can deliver.
So it runs better than crysis 1. im sitting steady at 30-40fps @ 1680x1050 with this setup:
intel core 2 duo e7400 OCD to 3.4 ghz GTX 275 4 gb ddr2 RAM velociraptor hdd win 7 x64
note this is with the highest graphics settings. unfortunately theres nothing to tweak, there are 3 option for the graphics: gamer, advanced, and hardcore. im on hardcore obviously, runs fine, looks really good. My complaints stem from to much COD which i hate, and the multiplayer feels to similar to cod, BUT the armor abilites are really great, mainly cloack which i abuse all the time.
All in all, great for a few games if you just wanna kill stuff, fairly fast paced, and most pc's will run it, and the graphics i will say are unique and worth a look. Go try it folks.
When I saw the comparison screens between the new crytek engine and the first one I had zero intentions of ever touching crysis 2, and from the gameplay I've seen in video's etc on youtube from the dev leak I most certainly will never play the game.
(In response to all you complaining about the graphics)
I don't think the retail version is a direct console port. iirc Crytek made sure that the PC version would allow much higher graphics compared to consoles because PCs obviously have better hardware; rather then continue the cycle of console ports now-a-days which gimps PC graphics.
There's no reason for a company like Crytek who has built their reputation in the gaming world around graphics to shoot themselves in the foot and give PC gamers some half-baked console port which has terrible graphics and can run on anything.
edit: Not to mention the fact that why would you buy a game purely for graphics? Sure Crysis 1 looked great but I found the gameplay to be fantastic as well.
Crytek made sure that the PC version would allow much higher graphics
no, they SAID they will make sure. well newsflash for you, game developers lie. also even if what they say is true, and it looks better than on consoles, still doesnt mean it looks better than crysis 1 on pc.
anyway the issue isnt if it looks better than console versions or not (it obviously should, considering how much more powerful and expensive pcs are), its whether it looks state of the art. thats what people are expecting from crytek games, along with huge sandbox like maps (which the campaign doesnt have, it plays more like a cod clone than a crytek game). they're supposed to push the limits. you dont push the limits by looking worse than your aged predecessor.
the most depressing thing is, it doesnt even work that much better than crysis 2. on maximum details im getting the same framerates on both, but one has enormous maps filled with lush jungles, the other is a corridor shooter with environments basically made out of huge boxes.
also you mentioned not buying a game cause of graphics, and i agree. i played crysis 1 and warhead a couple of times through cause of fun and freeform gameplay. but when i tried playing the leaked beta i got bored after a few levels, not cause its unfinished or anything, but cause the gameplay was butchered.
On March 02 2011 04:38 WiljushkA wrote: the most depressing thing is, it doesnt even work that much better than crysis 2. on maximum details im getting the same framerates on both, but one has enormous maps filled with lush jungles, the other is a corridor shooter with environments basically made out of huge boxes.
Yeah but this is only the demo right. Who's to say that they left out the highest/higher graphical settings for the official release? If this was another company sure but being Crysis I'd doubt they'd gimp themselves so much.
edit: Game play aside though. A lot of people seem to be hating on the aiming assist on already and such and I can't speak to the game play. If the game play blows well sure thats sucks (since I enjoyed the game play of Crysis 1) and then the graphics don't really matter so much.
but why would they gimp themselves with negative marketing thats bound to enrage customers (unless thats the only thing they can show)? also nobody releases demos with incomplete graphics anymore, it doesnt make any sense.
and anyway, why would a leaked beta (used by crytek's own people) and demo both have the same intentionally limited options. why for a beta? and dont say they're incomplete cause development isnt finished, its probably bloody well finished cause they send games to printing much earlier than 1 month prior to the release.
Just played a few hours of the multiplayer beta. It's a terrible COD clone with some shitty gimmicks like invisibility, making the game even more hide'n'seek than it has to. Not to mention the game is a consolized mess, with auto-aim and mouse acceleration on by default. This game is to quake 3 what halo wars is to starcraf. might be fun but if you're looking for an FPS with depth keep looking.
On March 02 2011 04:50 WiljushkA wrote: but why would they gimp themselves with negative marketing thats bound to enrage customers (unless thats the only thing they can show)? also nobody releases demos with incomplete graphics anymore, it doesnt make any sense.
and anyway, why would a leaked beta (used by crytek's own people) and demo both have the same intentionally limited options. why for a beta? and dont say they're incomplete cause development isnt finished, its probably bloody well finished cause they send games to printing much earlier than 1 month prior to the release.
Well some people seem to be saying they may have left out the higher textures to save bandwidith, and that theres no DX-11 options. Wasn't there initially reports that there wasn't going to be a PC demo which sparked an out-roar from PC users? It could be that they simply did a console port of the 360 multiplayer demo hence the apparent "press the start button" at the start of the demo.
That being said no idea as to why the leaked beta has limited options other than maybe it not being 100% finished and they hadn't thrown them in yet, dunno.
{Again, I haven't played the leaked beta or the multiplayer demo. I'm just going off what people have said in regards to the demo so far so feel free to correct me}.
Edit: autoaim being on by default could be more evidence of a potential console-to-pc demo port.
I fear Crysis has been raped by console faggotry. ;/ Let's see how it pans out. I'll only play the singleplayer campaign as these kind of games always have horrible multiplayer.
Basically Crytek lied and console ported Crysis 2. Its happened many times before but Crytek was a shinning example of PC game development. Pushing both graphics and exploring new gameplay elements.
Due to greed however they fell back and started to cut features and dumb down their games in general for a wider CoD audience.
Just played the demo. I think it's pretty fun. It adds interesting elements with the whole cloak and armor abilities. Personally, I thought the graphics were exceptional.
I'm running a GT 230M on my laptop, and i was afraid that Crysis 2 would run badly, to my surprise, it runs amazing! the multiplayer gets some taking used to with excessive motion blur and dynamic lighting, but it all adds to the incredibly real visualization accompanied by the game... Well worth the $60 when it comes out.
On March 02 2011 10:26 Zombo Joe wrote: Basically Crytek lied and console ported Crysis 2. Its happened many times before but Crytek was a shinning example of PC game development. Pushing both graphics and exploring new gameplay elements.
Due to greed however they fell back and started to cut features and dumb down their games in general for a wider CoD audience.
you cant really single crytek out though. essentially ALL FPS games are made for consoles now.
On March 02 2011 12:08 Ideas wrote: pc demo is just 6v6. it's not really that bad but at times i feel like 8v8 would be better. ideally custom servers will be able to break that limit.
Ahh, it's good that you can maybe change it with Custom servers, i think 12v12 would work out nicely if their is some bigger maps to come.
Honestly, the most annoying thing by far is it's unbelievably overused motion blur. If anything it takes away from any realism they were going for, in my opinion.
On March 02 2011 10:36 Dalguno wrote: Just played the demo. I think it's pretty fun. It adds interesting elements with the whole cloak and armor abilities. Personally, I thought the graphics were exceptional.
crysis 1 had the whole cloak and armor abilities... nothing interesting in 2 :[
Honestly, its just a gimmicky run and gun as most people in the thread are suggesting. Console port or not, the graphics and lighting can be blinding and pretty at the same time. My Core 2 Duo E6750 with a EVGA 460 runs it on max at 1920 by 1080 with a good amount of frame rate loss when outdoors on the highest quality, but the medium quality it runs great. I was pretty shocked at how low the requirements were to actually run the game. I was guessing my processor wasn't going to be able to take it. They haven't really added anything new mechanics wise in comparison with the first Crysis and it's respective expansion. If anything, vehicle combat is non existant except for kill streak or dog tag streaks, whatever you want to call it. Maybe vehicles will be present elsewhere, maybe in single player? I don't know. I don't think I'll be buying it because it does feel like a CoD clone but with a cloaking feature. There isn't much strategy to the game as of yet, thats for sure.
3 / 5: 2 for pretty graphics at a low cost, and 1 for frenetic, but deceptively repetitive and CoD-like, game play
just played a bit of the demo (max level ) and gotta say it's a decent game as far as i can tell but i kinda expected more from crytec...gameplaywise and graphicwise, even for a demo the game was different from other fps, no doubt....but it felt just kinda like a mix of cod, bf and other current more or less successful fps-titles
to all the people complaining about the graphics, i just dont understand. what games look better than crysis 2? crysis 1? maybe, but performance is like 5x better on crysis 2. although yea i think crysis 1 was a lot more impressive with the scope of each level.
and to people saying that the demo is bad/boring/etc, could you name what FPSs you prefer to it? Im trying to understand why I like when i have stupidly high standards for games usually and yet it seems most people posting on the thread think it's fucking garbage.
I just saw the video. Why are they screaming "activating armour?" Where's the female voice going "maximum armour." That voice was the best part about crysis.
The sliding mechanism looks weird. Sliding is so fast and it seems like you can slide indefinitely; it looks like there's no friction.
to all the people complaining about the graphics, i just dont understand. what games look better than crysis 2? crysis 1? maybe, but performance is like 5x better on crysis 2. although yea i think crysis 1 was a lot more impressive with the scope of each level.
and to people saying that the demo is bad/boring/etc, could you name what FPSs you prefer to it? Im trying to understand why I like when i have stupidly high standards for games usually and yet it seems most people posting on the thread think it's fucking garbage.
It's not that there's anything out there that sets itself from the pack. Crysis 2 has some neat gimmicks with the cloaking and armor and power modules, but in the end its the same as we've always seen. The adaptive nano-suit is nice, but FPS seriously needs something genre-breaking for it to become interesting again beyond a moment's glance.
Just tried the demo last night and I'm impressed. Before playing the demo I was thinking that only the single player mattered. Superb graphics and performance!
i hope something is currently wrong with their service because i cant eve get past the log in screen. its telling me every account i have that my user name is invalid. makes me want to pull my hair out!
Edit* got it working just start typing random letters into the account info XD didn't think of that!
Overall im most impressed of the optimization of the engine anyone who was a fan of the first knows that was one the things they should have improved on the most. It ran perfect on my system at max settings with dual monitors and watching gsl games i missed on my other screen so i couldn't be happier with that. The multiplayer is nothing ground breaking other then the gimmick of the nano suit but if you have ever played the original crysis multiplayer you would easily see that this is a improvement. Its at least fun and OK nothing special but worth trying out, crysis 1 and its multiplayer was a train wreck compared to this so im really glad they have improved that.
With that said tho who cares about multiplayer Crysis has always been about the singleplayer experience! With the new engine that runs WAY better + a respectable multiplayer crysis 2 is looking superb im easily getting it day one. For anyone who is a fan of the franchise and what its came from will love the new game.
On January 23 2011 16:25 LoCaD wrote: urgh I hope they dont overfocus on MP. If a Game cant stand up with his SP then dont let it have MP at all good old times and focus on delievering an amazing SP experience thats what these Games are actually made for to tell a SP Story not some MP Crap. MP ruined so many SP games whith the amount of Work you have to invest in the PvP settings so much Time better invested in more longer SP.
and what do you have from MP anyway... some ladder standing, some Equipment or Achievements or what not and I guess FUN the first 100 or so Matches that always in the Core Sense the Game stay the Same.
MP where you can never tell when a Game is supposed to be over once you have 100% so you can move on to the next on the list never caught my intrest same with these huge Timewasters aka MMOs like you can take them seriously at all lols.
What" Good old" days.. Quake 1 in 1996 was one of the first full-3d shooters, was multiplayer oriented and is still some of the best multiplayer FPS gameplay available :p
Damn as a resident of the city i always hope games that feature NYC areas do it in a realistic manner in terms of city layout. Of course they need to change stuff for gameplay reasons, but if it wasn't for the empire state building on "skyline" you'd have no idea it's even New York.
Just wishful thinking on my part i guess Would be so cool to see a directly copied, albeit blown up, parts of the real deal.
I dont think anything "groundbreaking" is going to come along in the FPS genre for quite a while... if you're talking about MP anyway. The only FPS that I've found not to become completely repetitive and boring is battlefield vietnam.. but even that gets old. Thats why we play sc2 right?
The demo is pretty sweet, but it's going to leave a lot of people behind because you need a great system to run it at a good level (60fps+). My system is OK and I'm getting nowhere near that on the lowest settings.
With the right maps it could be a great multiplayer game - the specialisms of the suits give it a lot of versatility.
So I played the demo finally. It definitely is a console port, but it is somewhat fun I guess. However it is like Call of Duty. Killstreaks are there, but you have to pick up their dogtags (meaning harder time for long range snipers) and the guns don't sound like they pack a punch. Hardly any recoil. The LMG is so frackin' terrible - the barrel can be pointed at the target, but the cone spread is so huge you'll be lucky if you kill him.
Don't believe it was for console first and you believe their claim of "PC is still the most important"? Look at this.
Press Start Button:
Adjust your TV Brightness:
Also add these to the end of your executable - it removes the intro splash screens, motion blur, and sets your FOV to 90 (from a measly default 55)
to be fair, there is no auto-aim when using a mouse. I think that's just for those weird people that plug in a controller to play it or just a really sloppy porting job.
Not sure where the FPS complaints stem from. I'm hitting my vsync of 60 100% of the time on 1920x1080 with a 5870 and 2 gigs of RAM on a Phenom II X6. The requirements for this game are far less than Crysis.
As for the actual gameplay... it feels pretty terrible. For instance, I'll run into someone and unload about 100 rounds into them and they don't die. Meanwhile, I tend to die in one or two shots. I noticed that my rank is always lower than everyone else, and I can't help but feel they do more damage or have more health because of their rank. I'm sure it's fine once you get playing for a while, but I didn't even have the patience to make it through a single game because it was quite literally impossible for me to kill anyone unless I managed to sneak up behind them and unload into the back of their head.
It also looks like you have to unlock classes. I was only able to use Assault, whereas I was killed multiple times by snipers. Not a big fan of the whole... "you have to put in x hours before you can be competitive" style.
I also dislike the graphics. They look decent (you can tell it's a console port, though) but I feel like I'm about to have a seizure the entire time I'm playing. There's so much blur and random camera movement that it's simply disorienting.
I may buy this for singleplayer, but as far as multiplayer goes it's not worth picking up. Just another generic console shooter ported to PC with a few gimmicks like sliding thrown in.
I guess the game would be fun - if I could log in. I have had an account on MyCrysis for a long time and it still works on the site. In game though I put in my username and password and press the log in button and the "Logging in" splash screen. After that it goes back to the login screen. It isn't a connectivity issue, because if I change the username I immediately get an "Wrong username/password" error.
On March 03 2011 09:21 KOPF wrote: I guess the game would be fun - if I could log in. I have had an account on MyCrysis for a long time and it still works on the site. In game though I put in my username and password and press the log in button and the "Logging in" splash screen. After that it goes back to the login screen. It isn't a connectivity issue, because if I change the username I immediately get an "Wrong username/password" error.
EDIT: Added some more info on the error.
I had the same problem-- for some reason, just registering a new account in-game and logging in to that one worked fine.
On March 03 2011 08:40 Serejai wrote: Not sure where the FPS complaints stem from. I'm hitting my vsync of 60 100% of the time on 1920x1080 with a 5870 and 2 gigs of RAM on a Phenom II X6. The requirements for this game are far less than Crysis.
So the game is running on a 180€ graphics card? I'm sure where the FPS complaints stem from.
Im also having a problem logging in. When i register a username its says its taken then i try another and it says my email is already in use tried using a different email and have the same problem. I know its just a demo but there are some big bugs in it and that does not bode will imo for the finished product. That being said I hope its great. Loved the final level of crysis1 on full graphics completely epic!
On one hand I can understand putting it on consoles because of the massive piracy numbers for Crysis. But on the other I just can't say it's okay to do a complete, and let's just say it, shit port of the game from a console to the PC when the original was designed with the PC only in mind. You can tell that this is a console port through and through. Auto-Aim? TV settings? Really? And Crytek has the nerve to say that the PC is their primary platform, but they just do completely shoddy development like this. And even IF it is a demo it still leaves a sour taste in the mouth of anyone that played and loved the first one and got shoveled this shit. A demo should make me want to buy the game. However I'm more tempted now to open up BitTorrent at the end of the day after seeing this.
It just isn't that good either. Completely cookie cutter and generic now. Granted it is a step up in MP from the first one, but it isn't exactly hard to improve on crap. It just feels like every other generic shooter though, with the exception of the suit. I might as well be playing Modern Warfare 3 at this point. Because that's exactly what it is.
I really didn't have high hopes for this, and I'm rather thankful I didn't. It's going to be more of a benchmark for my system over an actual game, and oddly enough I don't even think it looks as good as Crysis.
with all the dumbe down menues aside, the game itself is REALLY REALLY SOLID. The Aim system still doesnt feel as smooth as Counter Strike but its definitely WAY BETER than Bad Company 2 (I am talking about the lag-ness of moving ur hud around and hit detection). However CS and COD series still takes the throne in that, (although we have to recognize that in CS and COD there are actually no bullets/projectiles, just allignment, where as Battlefield series actually uses bullets instead of just lining shit up)
Crysis 2 feels overall great 8.5/10 ! Very very well optimized for PC btw
There are 3 settings Gamer (an optimized low?) Advanced (an optimized med. ?) Hardcore (an optimized high. ?) DX9 (this game is so far only dx9, no news of x10/11, rumors that dx11 wont actually be supported at launch) 1680x1050 Celeron Dual Core E3300 2.5ghz @ 4.0ghz (yes its a fucking $50 celeron, cheapest cpu i could find @ my local store at that time) HD4850 512mb 4GB DDR2 8800mhz Win7 Prof. 64bit
Gamer Setting: 37-40fps average Advanced Setting: 31-35 fps average Hardcore Setting: haven't tested
DO NOTE: that the difference between Gamer->Advanced->Hardcore is VERY minimal. Their were picto comparisons and it just had to do with different motion blurs being used, it could VERY WELL Be that the retail version holds nothing similar to this demo.
I actually really enjoyed the demo. Mostly I'm liking how the nanosuit adds to the gameplay in a much more fluid manner than in the first crysis. But armor mode seems kind of useless. If someone activates it more often than not they are sitting ducks.
My only issue with the demo was that I wasn't able to run it super smoothly, so a lot of my gameplay impressions were not super great. Still, I'm surprised my laptop could run it smoothly enough to actually play it.
Well, maybe not that extreme. Still it was the death of me several times :D Also, watch this. Old but still somewhat accurate IMO (yeah it's an early comparison and PC vs console but just look at it). Otherwise I like the gameplay on the skyline map, the other one is a bit too camper-ish for me. I've only played the 1st crysis singleplayer, however the weapon feel was way better there IMO.. Here it's practically no-go to shoot without holding down aim/zoom/whatever - it's practically melee, plus the recoil seems a bit too random/high even when you aim. As for the suit modes - cloak is fairly easy to spot once you get used to it
Well, maybe not that extreme. Still it was the death of me several times :D Also, watch this. Old but still somewhat accurate IMO (yeah it's an early comparison and PC vs console but just look at it). Otherwise I like the gameplay on the skyline map, the other one is a bit too camper-ish for me. I've only played the 1st crysis singleplayer, however the weapon feel was way better there IMO.. Here it's practically no-go to shoot without holding down aim/zoom/whatever - it's practically melee, plus the recoil seems a bit too random/high even when you aim. As for the suit modes - cloak is fairly easy to spot once you get used to it
You can change the vof and turn off the motion blur and sskip the opening splash screens by going to C:\program files\Electronic Arts\Crytek\Crysis 2 Demo\Bin32 Then you make a shortcut to Crysis2Demo.exe Right click your shortcut and press properties in the target bar, paste +g_skipintro 1 +cl_fov 85 +pl_movement.power_sprint_targetFov 85 +r_DrawNearFoV 85 +r_MotionBlur 0 behind the exe location (with a space in between and behind the quotes)
Well, maybe not that extreme. Still it was the death of me several times :D Also, watch this. Old but still somewhat accurate IMO (yeah it's an early comparison and PC vs console but just look at it). Otherwise I like the gameplay on the skyline map, the other one is a bit too camper-ish for me. I've only played the 1st crysis singleplayer, however the weapon feel was way better there IMO.. Here it's practically no-go to shoot without holding down aim/zoom/whatever - it's practically melee, plus the recoil seems a bit too random/high even when you aim. As for the suit modes - cloak is fairly easy to spot once you get used to it
You can change the vof and turn off the motion blur and sskip the opening splash screens by going to C:\program files\Electronic Arts\Crytek\Crysis 2 Demo\Bin32 Then you make a shortcut to Crysis2Demo.exe Right click your shortcut and press properties in the target bar, paste +g_skipintro 1 +cl_fov 85 +pl_movement.power_sprint_targetFov 85 +r_DrawNearFoV 85 +r_MotionBlur 0 behind the exe location (with a space in between and behind the quotes)
Already did those (saw a .bat creator on guru3d.com, however on stream :>) Tried 110 FOV but it's a bit too much (or it might be that I should not have tried it on the beach map...).
1st i tried to make an account 2 hours ago, it told me that my email is already in use..which isnt tried "forgot password" button which didnt do anything, made a new account and played a bit. Now I am trying to logon its saying check your network even though I am watching a stream atm..the crysis 2 footage video totally describes the game.
On March 03 2011 23:27 Kikimiki wrote: 1st i tried to make an account 2 hours ago, it told me that my email is already in use..which isnt tried "forgot password" button which didnt do anything, made a new account and played a bit. Now I am trying to logon its saying check your network even though I am watching a stream atm..the crysis 2 footage video totally describes the game.
I'm having the same problem. It was OK last night. Hmmm....
Only good thing about the game is the graphics, in my opinion.
Played the full beta and it's horrible. It's not like like the original at all, which was great for competitive gaming. It's extremely easy...I didn't finish the campaign but I got 1/3 of the way and only died once, and it was because I fell too far. The movement speed is about as fast as a handicapped person and it takes energy to sprint as fast as a normal human.
The performance unlocks break everything about an online experience that could be fair. A lot of weapons and features in the game are useless, for example air stomp or the rockets.
Flashbangs cause you to slow down and have a hard time aiming.
The gameplay is basically a game of whoever shoots first wins the battle. Because people move so slow and you are required to aim down a sight to make an accurate shot, you are pretty much rooted to the ground when in battle and it's incredibly easy to aim at anyone because of this.\
Nanovision is pretty much the most useful suit feature and you should bind it to your mouse and click it on every few seconds to check where enemies are, it's so much easier to spot players with it on and seeing someone first is key to winning.
Cloak is useless like always because you can see the shadow, the distortion, it can be somewhat seen in nanovision, and has very high energy drain.
Strafe jump is gone so speed mode is nearly useless because the speed increase isn't as valuable as the energy you can save for armor mode.
Oh and the singleplayer story makes no sense and totally unrelated to the crysis 1 story which had an unfinished ending. Pretty bad.
I'm working on a multiplayer mod to make the game have a pace more similar to UT or quake, but unsure if I'll be able to fully finish it; they will have to release the SDK with source code for the game.
I'm (was) a Crysis 1/Crysis Wars top 1% player and sc newb
On March 04 2011 04:12 sevenfour wrote: I'm working on a multiplayer mod to make the game have a pace more similar to UT or quake, but unsure if I'll be able to fully finish it; they will have to release the SDK with source code for the game.
actually crysis 2 so far is just a mix of COD and UT was just missing a darkwalker and prestige
Crysis 2 was never going to be about the multiplayer no matter how hard Crytek tried. You cannot have a Team Deathmatch mode and expect everyone to use the Nanosuit's powers. TD will always be about killing the opponents as quicky as possible and can never be fun played at this pace.
We will have to wait for the full version to see what other game modes they add and whether some of the cooler modes from the previous games return. They should take a lot of knowledge from Splinter Cell which was about how to effectively use your skill in an online situation. And, so far, Crytek don't seem to be achieving the same level of success with the Nanosuit.
Now, Crysis 2, will always be about the singleplayer. However, if this game is mostly about the alien invasion (which does not seem to be the case), then that might just be a bit of mixed news. Proper fans of Crysis feel that the first 3rd of the original game are what made it with stalking silly Koreans using the Nanosuits powers. If that is still present in this game and hopefully lots of advancements have been made to the AI to make us put our brain to good work, then Crysis 2 will be definitely worth it.
Overall, however, the most important reason for buying this game is going to be to prove who has a bigger e-peen with their kick-ass PC. I myself have a GTX-570 and it handles Crysis 2 admirably on Hardcore. But the demo is DX9 only, so it will be interesting to see how the improved tessellation and other features in DX11 have a hit on the performance. We will also have to see whether hardcore is truly "hardcore" or whether tweaking can take the game to another level by unlocking some locked variables. So, it's all going to be good - the most technically advanced engine to date and hopefully some solid shooter mechanics to make this game worth it.
The second map, Pier 17 or something, makes me want to puke on hardcore. It's just so messy, with blur everywhere. Everything (bits of debris, railings etc) wobble like a console game, even with motion blur turned off/vsync on (2500k + 580). Fun for five minutes in singleplayer mode but god awful for a multiplayer shooter.
i dont know what kind of casual gamers you guys are but the multiplayer demo totally blew my mind. I come from a professional quake3 background with over 9 years of beeing in sponsored teams and after that ive been playing some ut99/ut2k3, CS (dont like very much) and all the COD games since mw1 and after i installed the crysis2 demo i fell in love with this game. the game looks awesome in mp!
PROS: Graphics- best ive seen in a mp game! Weapon Models / Feedback and Sound? - best ive seen in any video game! Gameplay / Movement? - Arcadeish, reminds me of ut2k3 with Parkour and SLIDING!!!111 <3 Airkills - sooooo sexy! i wonder if this game has a rocketlauncher! Still balanced with limited energy supply. No bunny hopping / infinite sprinting etc... Tactical choices of equipment / perks Rooftops map is supersexy!
CONS: Killstreaks- this is not COD, i dont need killstreaks / ppl camping for killstreaks! Pier map sucks!
Haters gonna hate, but i think this game has some potential and it runs great on my machine without any sacrifices. It is NOT Counter-Strike and its not Quake3 and it will never be as competetive as either of them so if your looking for a hardcore competetive game look elsewhere. Crysis 2 is the first ego shooter i enjoy in years and im sick of all the cs/cod gamers who claim that their game is the only real fps experience and bash on every new fps that gets released!
I have been playing the demo a ton the last 3 days (way more than SC amazingly) and this game is phenomenal both in multiplayer gameplay and graphics. It definitely has a COD:MW2 feeling so if you hate cod you might hate this, but it adds in an awesome mix of UT and Halo Reach. I have been looking for a shooter with great graphics, strategic gameplay, and fast paced action for awhile and here it is. I look forward to purchasing it.
On March 07 2011 22:49 AT_Tack wrote: i dont know what kind of casual gamers you guys are but the multiplayer demo totally blew my mind. I come from a professional quake3 background with over 9 years of beeing in sponsored teams and after that ive been playing some ut99/ut2k3, CS (dont like very much) and all the COD games since mw1 and after i installed the crysis2 demo i fell in love with this game. the game looks awesome in mp!
PROS: Graphics- best ive seen in a mp game! Weapon Models / Feedback and Sound? - best ive seen in any video game! Gameplay / Movement? - Arcadeish, reminds me of ut2k3 with Parkour and SLIDING!!!111 <3 Airkills - sooooo sexy! i wonder if this game has a rocketlauncher! Still balanced with limited energy supply. No bunny hopping / infinite sprinting etc... Tactical choices of equipment / perks Rooftops map is supersexy!
CONS: Killstreaks- this is not COD, i dont need killstreaks / ppl camping for killstreaks! Pier map sucks!
Haters gonna hate, but i think this game has some potential and it runs great on my machine without any sacrifices. It is NOT Counter-Strike and its not Quake3 and it will never be as competetive as either of them so if your looking for a hardcore competetive game look elsewhere. Crysis 2 is the first ego shooter i enjoy in years and im sick of all the cs/cod gamers who claim that their game is the only real fps experience and bash on every new fps that gets released!
I agree. The multiplayer of Crysis 2 is surprisingly impressive to me. While it is a similar formula to CoD, there's a reason why millions of people purchased every title within the CoD franchise. It's a formula that works and in comparison to Crysis Wars, it's a world's leap ahead.
I haven't found the killstreaks to be anything outrageous. If anything, they made killstreaks more sensible than in the Call of Duty games simply because you now have to acquire the dog tags of the players you frag. I played about 10-20 games and haven't seen anyone reach the gunship.
Most of the comments I've read seem to be complaints about the actual engine (such as motion blur) which will likely allow for major tweaks on release. I'd be quite surprised if you're unable to remove motion blur in the settings of the PC launch version.
buying this for multiplayer would be like buying bioshock 2 for multiplayer. I bought the first one when I built my pc a few years ago and was just not impressed at all, I mean it was pretty but so shallow. Everything I've heard about this one makes it sound like a port.
The multiplayer just doesn't play right. Too hard to do anything tactical, too easy to play in heat vision mode, weapons don't work in a reasonable way.
The multiplayer demo for PC atleast is total garbage, arguably the worst FPS gameplay ever. This is such a console game, all movements are jerky and not fluid AT ALL. Have you ever tried to melee someone like you do in CoD for example? Add to that the powers which are just plain annoying, for example I just hate jumping so high and falling so slow. You walk like an old lady and only have a very very limited sprint. Also the damned killstreaks rewards a la CoD....
Crysis 2 is a techdemo, that's it. It's really, really beautiful and still not very demanding. But the multiplayer is the worst thing I have seen in many, many years. Only hope the SP will be worth it.
EDIT: A role model for FPS on PC should be CS, Quake and to some extent, CoD. They all give the player very smooth and precise movement unlike this junk and bad company 2 (which had other excellent features to make up for the console crap)
Crysis is the epitome of what I do not like about gaming these days. Focus on graphics at the cost of everything else. I had more fun in that game glitching out the enemies or tricking them into doing dumb shit like drown themselves, walk into fire willingly or walk off cliffs instead of playing it properly. Or piling shit up at the gas station in that village level with the hostage and blowing it up from the shack on the hill. Think the only perk about it was you could throw a dude at a building in strength mode and watch the building collapse on him because apparently they don't use nails or bolts to keep them sturdy?
So I played the MP beta for about 5 hours and I have to say I'm pleasantly surprised. The first crysis was almost unplayable, but this is a tolerable COD style team based shooter. They've made the interface infinitely more enjoyable and streamlined to play at high intensity, and give a smart player more tools than any other player than any other shooter I've seen.
they resolve so many of the stupid problems with FPS games- you can jump and vault up onto almost anything, including gap vaults and you can ass slide under things as well. Both of these options alone almost completely kill camping, I tried a couple of times, but it's too easy to just run around, vault up 3 stories behind you and knife you in the back.
You have a load of awesome abilities, but they all drain energy. you get -armor: (makes you about twice as tough while it's up, but drains energy super fast as you get hit, somewhat fast passively) -cloak: a serious cloak option. there is only the slightest of shimmers, cloakers literally just vanish, so thoroughly that you can use it to dodge out of getting shot. It drains energy super fast though. you get about 8-10 seconds of cloaking on the move - power jump: you can jump about 2m - sprint: sprinting is faster than in most games, but consumes energy - power slide: consumes a bit of energy - nanovision: sort of IR vision, everything is greyed out except players, gunfire, explosions and ships, which are super bright orange-green-blue IR tones. You can see cloaked players as a blue field, not as distinct as a non cloaked player though. This makes the game even less camper friendly, I started to get the hang of tapping on NV as I entered an area, and it makes it SO obvious where people are. you might miss a cloaked guy if you're being sloppy, but in all the cluttered visuals of the game, this is the one thing that sold me the most. The only annoying thing is the default key is N, waaaay away from the standard control cluster. Nano vision also drains energy, you get about 30-40 seconds of sight from a full battery.
you can combo all of these, so you can sprint around cloaked with armor activated using nanovision, but you'll get all of 3 seconds of battery life, so you get this awesome dynamic of energy management. switching armor on only when you're being shot at, not sprinting into battle because you need all your energy for cloak and armor, tapping vision on and off quickly to scan for cloakers and distant targets etc.
It all adds up to an intense and extremely tactical game, and they've done a lot to make the feel more mainstream, adding COD style unlocks, experience, customizeable perks and kits etc.
Unfortunately there are some letdowns. Grenades still use the old '3rd weapon' style, which feels outdated and clunky given how intense the play can get. I need to be able to drop nades at a moment's notice. That said, your Q and E keys are already taken with armor abilities. I'd rebind nanovision to F, so that doesn't leave much around the cluster for nades.
The main problem however is the maps. There's so much visual clutter it's super easy to get confused, stuck on something or whatever. It helps in some ways, since everyone is wearing camo and it actually makes picking out even non cloaked guys tricky sometimes, but it taxes the processor and makes the fast paced shooting incredibly chaotic visually. Somewhere between CS's minimalist designs and the way it currently is would feel more palatable.
I also think the layout is a bit chaotic. They're going for the same feel as COD, but this is actually a far superior shooter as far as what the player can do. No stupid nade spamming, dual shotguns, prone spamming etc, every player however does get access to the tools to both be the aggressor and the defender. If this game was built with open plan deathmatch levels or side-defined team levels (like CTF maps, but a bit less obvious) and given some other formats for serious play, it could be an incredible spectator sport. I can only imagine what pros could do with the tools you get. It's obvious that they're just leveraging single player aesthetics for their multiplayer. I hope they can do better than that
The lobby system could also do with a fair bit of work, but that's a minor niggle
So yeah. I was a crysis hater. I literally wrote essays panning the first one. Even if most of what they've done here is derivative, the unique stuff is incredibly well delivered and has enormous potential. Give the demo a try if you can spare the bandwidth
"I encourage everybody to explore because we haven’t documented all of them. We don’t teach them all the subtle things through the tutorials. But for example, when you’re in Armor and you’re zoomed in with a scope or iron sights, and you press what would be the “sprint” button, you can stabilize the weapon. The muscles of the suit get tighter and then stabilize the weapon.
There’s lots of small features like that. If you kick a car, and you want to kick it quickly versus if you press and hold the kick, it kicks it harder and farther. There’s a lot of little subtle nuances in there. If you grab an enemy or object, the longer you hold them before releasing the trigger, the more powerful the throw is. There are lot of small things in there like that, that I encourage everybody to play with and find.
These are the nuances that will give you the advantage in single player and multiplayer when you use them and remember to use them." Executive producer, Nathan Camarillo
Things like this (if they really have more of those hidden mechanics) could definately add another skill layer to the game, separating noobs from better players in the multiplayer. Not the worst idea =)
There was a final beta leak over a month ago. Was the full game more or less. I have a pretty beastly comp at 2x geforce 580 (3gb total) and 24gb of ram. Ran it with all max graphics and i will say first hand. This game is fucking incredible. Their is a multiplAyer demo out atm btw.
I have the demo on PC. Graphically speaking, the game is on a completely different level than anything you have ever played (assuming your system and max it out 100%). The physics, ambient lighting, 3D sound, and visuals are breathtaking. However, I must point out that if you are looking for accuracy, being defined as how responsive the input actions by the gamer is (mouse, keyboard, shooting, fast turning), you will be disappointed with the output.
This is nothing like traditional FPS's. The complexity of the game, and the futurism may be a portion of why the game doesn't seem to be as accurate, as some others are hinting at with "registry" (i'll define that also as accuracy). If they can find a way to make the game's general movement speed a bit more concrete, and not so fluid like water splashes on rocks, then I think it has great potential. Until then, it's just very visually appealing.
8/10 for graphics. Gameplay... it's fun. Just not that fun.
On March 18 2011 04:08 gulati wrote: I have the demo on PC. Graphically speaking, the game is on a completely different level than anything you have ever played (assuming your system and max it out 100%). The physics, ambient lighting, 3D sound, and visuals are breathtaking. However, I must point out that if you are looking for accuracy, being defined as how responsive the input actions by the gamer is (mouse, keyboard, shooting, fast turning), you will be disappointed with the output.
This is nothing like traditional FPS's. The complexity of the game, and the futurism may be a portion of why the game doesn't seem to be as accurate, as some others are hinting at with "registry" (i'll define that also as accuracy). If they can find a way to make the game's general movement speed a bit more concrete, and not so fluid like water splashes on rocks, then I think it has great potential. Until then, it's just very visually appealing.
8/10 for graphics. Gameplay... it's fun. Just not that fun.
Have you turned movement blur and mouse smoothing off? Because I noticed a huge increase in responsiveness after that. Without turning those 2 off, it was horrible I agree. Afterwards it was at least on par with CoD BO. (except for jumping and sometimes you'll get lag because you are on suboptimal server). Admittedly CoD BO wasn't the best, but it wasn't bad either.
I probably come off as a fanboy, but the difference was really that noticable for me
It IS horrible that you can't change those settings ingame however...
Singleplayer looks fun, but I'm not a SP guy, I pre-ordered after playing the MP demo for 15 hours
sigh looks like they even took out destructible environments. That explosion would destroy that building you'd imagine but didn't do it. So disappointed i can't believe how consolized they made the game :/.
I have the demo on PC. Graphically speaking, the game is on a completely different level than anything you have ever played (assuming your system and max it out 100%).
Assuming you haven't played Crysis 1 or Metro 2033.
I have the demo on PC. Graphically speaking, the game is on a completely different level than anything you have ever played (assuming your system and max it out 100%).
Assuming you haven't played Crysis 1 or Metro 2033.
Pretty much this. If Crysis is on a completely different level, Metro 2033 is godlike.
cant wait cant wait cant wait. I am quite pumped to start playing again. Logged almost 30 hours on the demo. The multiplayer is actually fairly strategic from my primarily RTS gaming experience. Its very fast paced and just the simple stuff like moving around the map is a blast. The mobility and the quick paced action mixed in with the abilities makes it really fun. Oh and I guess then there the SP ill have to take a shot at.
I didnt find it entertaining, it was just cool looking another mainstream shooter with hero abilities, nanosuit, killstreaks, perks and wannabe cool things like this. Do not want. Why games like CoD2 or at least 4 with mod tools arent made nowadays?
Grr I can't decide whether to pick this up for PC or 360. Most of my friends only have xboxes, and I'm much better at console shooters than pc shooters, but on pc it just looks... so... pretty...
I have the demo on PC. Graphically speaking, the game is on a completely different level than anything you have ever played (assuming your system and max it out 100%).
Assuming you haven't played Crysis 1 or Metro 2033.
Pretty much this. If Crysis is on a completely different level, Metro 2033 is godlike.
I have the demo on PC. Graphically speaking, the game is on a completely different level than anything you have ever played (assuming your system and max it out 100%).
Assuming you haven't played Crysis 1 or Metro 2033.
Pretty much this. If Crysis is on a completely different level, Metro 2033 is godlike.
Except crysis looked better then metro :O
not to mention that crysis 1 had huge open levels with lots of physics and whatnot.
On March 22 2011 04:42 Stropheum wrote: Does the demo not work anymore? Because I can still log in but at most i'll find one server and it'll be full, then I go to refresh, none show up
I have the demo on PC. Graphically speaking, the game is on a completely different level than anything you have ever played (assuming your system and max it out 100%).
Assuming you haven't played Crysis 1 or Metro 2033.
Pretty much this. If Crysis is on a completely different level, Metro 2033 is godlike.
um, just because something is so badly optimized it needs a future PC to run doesn't mean it looks good. no engine comes close to anything the guys at crytek do except for id software.
On March 22 2011 04:42 Stropheum wrote: Does the demo not work anymore? Because I can still log in but at most i'll find one server and it'll be full, then I go to refresh, none show up
The demo has been closed idd.
Why... Why in gods name would they do that? How can I figure out if my PC will run it well if there's no demo?
On March 22 2011 04:42 Stropheum wrote: Does the demo not work anymore? Because I can still log in but at most i'll find one server and it'll be full, then I go to refresh, none show up
The demo has been closed idd.
Why... Why in gods name would they do that? How can I figure out if my PC will run it well if there's no demo?
Because they wanted some time to fix stuff before release probably (like any game that you can try out before release, only then it's called beta ). Maybe there will be a new demo after release.
i really wish there was a single player demo. i really dont care about multiplayer at all. and it looks like the single-player will be hurt the most by the move to consoles, whereas the multiplayer got much more focused and is a lot better than it was before (although its not like it will be a new CoD/bf/cs/tf2 or anything).
gives a good estimate on whether or not you will be able to run a game at minimum or recommended settings.
edit: looks like crysis 2 only has minimum settings for now on that site. if i remember correctly the recommended specs were a 2.4 core2duo and a gtx 260. not sure if those were official or not.
It is not as open as Crysis 1, but there are at least some choices, basically three - stealth, flank, infiltrate. Or standardish head on full attack I didnt enjoy it much, played it just because I wanted to know how it ends
Screw Crytek. My Limited Edition content doesn't exist, I tried to get it through their website channels, it's listed as a DLC, but the DLC can't be downloaded. Given all the other issues exploding on their feedback forums right now, I'd suggest waiting a bit for this if you can, don't waste your money until they resolve all the problems.
It's the demo all over again, but with money and false advertising suits on the line.
reviews coming in make the single player sound pretty mediocre and stuff. what i thought was really funny was how gamespot said one of the worst things was how the AI was pretty poor. but when crysis 2 was announced, yerli (crytek CEO) said that crysis 2 would have "the best AI ever". exact quote lol
sucks that it sounds like somehow the multiplayer will probably be better than the single player (and I dont even really want to play the multiplayer!) .... wtf crytek
i'm going to buy this when i get back to my dorm (where my desktop is) from break. it seems like it's not as good as the original crysis, but still better than just about every other single-player FPS released since (thinking back on it all, the only fps single player game that was decent was far cry 2, and i didnt even have the drive to finish that after 9ish hours lol).
I guess we'll just have to wait for valve to release half-life 3 or something like that to rescue FPSs from their current rut.
Well, the graphics are OK, the physics are solid, and the gameplay is improved. The AI kind of ranges from kindergarten paintball day to fairly decent.
The graphics could be vastly improved if it was possible to actually set them up, instead of guessing and hoping you picked the right settings. High, Very High, Extreme. Ignoring the implicit arrogance of the labels, they're confusing, and PC gamers expect real settings.
On the plus side, they fixed the issue where you couldn't unlock Limited Edition content finally.
On March 23 2011 04:51 JingleHell wrote: Well, the graphics are OK, the physics are solid, and the gameplay is improved. The AI kind of ranges from kindergarten paintball day to fairly decent.
The graphics could be vastly improved if it was possible to actually set them up, instead of guessing and hoping you picked the right settings. High, Very High, Extreme. Ignoring the implicit arrogance of the labels, they're confusing, and PC gamers expect real settings.
On the plus side, they fixed the issue where you couldn't unlock Limited Edition content finally.
seriously, thw lowest setting is called "High"? Damn
On March 23 2011 04:51 JingleHell wrote: Well, the graphics are OK, the physics are solid, and the gameplay is improved. The AI kind of ranges from kindergarten paintball day to fairly decent.
The graphics could be vastly improved if it was possible to actually set them up, instead of guessing and hoping you picked the right settings. High, Very High, Extreme. Ignoring the implicit arrogance of the labels, they're confusing, and PC gamers expect real settings.
On the plus side, they fixed the issue where you couldn't unlock Limited Edition content finally.
are you complaining about graphics customization or are you really complaining taht the game doesn't look that good. because honestly im pretty sure it's one of the best looking games ever... I mean what pc game that's come out in the last year looks better?
On March 23 2011 04:51 JingleHell wrote: Well, the graphics are OK, the physics are solid, and the gameplay is improved. The AI kind of ranges from kindergarten paintball day to fairly decent.
The graphics could be vastly improved if it was possible to actually set them up, instead of guessing and hoping you picked the right settings. High, Very High, Extreme. Ignoring the implicit arrogance of the labels, they're confusing, and PC gamers expect real settings.
On the plus side, they fixed the issue where you couldn't unlock Limited Edition content finally.
are you complaining about graphics customization or are you really complaining taht the game doesn't look that good. because honestly im pretty sure it's one of the best looking games ever... I mean what pc game that's come out in the last year looks better?
I think he complains that it's just unneccesary to not give us these options. We know how to adjust them by manipulating the shortcut, so it shouldn't be that hard to give us a simple graphics option menu. But they don't want to because either: they use the console version and don't want to change the option screen, or: they think too many options scares "noob" players. And both of those reasons suck.
Actually, most of the shortcut tweaks got turned off, according to mycrysis.com forumites.
The graphics are ok, but frankly, since I don't know what is and isn't on, or what any eye candy is set to, I can only judge by looking at it, and it seems like there should be something prettier available. Yeah, it's a good looking game, but it doesn't look maxed to me, and since I have no idea, I'm just assuming it isn't really maxed. Maybe once there's an SLI profile and a new driver, I'll try forcing some stuff in nvidia, if only to know what settings I'm really running at.
Edit: Maybe I'll just review the little chunks I played so far.
SP Gameplay: AI is spastic, from moronic to decent. Plot feels like you have a fishing hook pulling you around by the left testicle. Better pacing than Crysis 1, but ammo is a little bit stupid. You start with a weapon that dumps a magazine in about 1.3 seconds, and you can only carry 4 spares for it. I kept having to resort to my pistol.
Definately faster paced than the original, which is good, but still leans a little in the direction of forcing too much stealth mode.
SP graphics/physics: Slightly better than MP, for those who played the demo. Not massively, AA feels a little weak, and certain textures could stand with being higher resolution, but poly count seems decent at least, character textures are solid. Motion blur and lighting are still capable of causing major headaches if the demo had that effect.
MP feels like the lead on this one, and while I felt the original Crysis was held up by the tech demo graphics nature of it, they probably could have stuck a little closer on the overall feel of gameplay and had something more natural.
On March 23 2011 05:18 JingleHell wrote: Actually, most of the shortcut tweaks got turned off, according to mycrysis.com forumites.
wtf, I'm actually considering cancelling my preorder now... That shit was unplayable without those tweaks (hit registration was shite and motion blur nauseating)
EDIT: Ahh, you can still fix the hit registration and FOV, Motion Blur not though, but it's good enough for me. Still rediculous though....
On March 23 2011 05:18 JingleHell wrote: Actually, most of the shortcut tweaks got turned off, according to mycrysis.com forumites.
wtf, I'm actually considering cancelling my preorder now... That shit was unplayable without those tweaks (hit registration was shite and motion blur nauseating)
EDIT: Ahh, you can still fix the hit registration and FOV, Motion Blur not though, but it's good enough for me. Still rediculous though....
The motion blur in the demo didn't bother me. In the SP it gave me a headache in 45 minutes or less.
Not saying don't buy, but maybe get a gameplay vid first, or play a friends copy.
On March 23 2011 05:18 JingleHell wrote: Actually, most of the shortcut tweaks got turned off, according to mycrysis.com forumites.
wtf, I'm actually considering cancelling my preorder now... That shit was unplayable without those tweaks (hit registration was shite and motion blur nauseating)
EDIT: Ahh, you can still fix the hit registration and FOV, Motion Blur not though, but it's good enough for me. Still rediculous though....
The motion blur in the demo didn't bother me. In the SP it gave me a headache in 45 minutes or less.
Not saying don't buy, but maybe get a gameplay vid first, or play a friends copy.
Is it better in the MP? Because I buy it for the MP, I've got 2 CoDs on my steam account with 0 hours in SP adn 100+ in MP
On March 23 2011 05:18 JingleHell wrote: Actually, most of the shortcut tweaks got turned off, according to mycrysis.com forumites.
wtf, I'm actually considering cancelling my preorder now... That shit was unplayable without those tweaks (hit registration was shite and motion blur nauseating)
EDIT: Ahh, you can still fix the hit registration and FOV, Motion Blur not though, but it's good enough for me. Still rediculous though....
The motion blur in the demo didn't bother me. In the SP it gave me a headache in 45 minutes or less.
Not saying don't buy, but maybe get a gameplay vid first, or play a friends copy.
Is it better in the MP? Because I buy it for the MP, I've got 2 CoDs on my steam account with 0 hours in SP adn 100+ in MP
The MP didn't seem very different from the demo, aside from being fleshed out.
If nothing else, lower settings should include lower motion blur, since that's a graphics eater.
On March 23 2011 05:18 JingleHell wrote: Actually, most of the shortcut tweaks got turned off, according to mycrysis.com forumites.
wtf, I'm actually considering cancelling my preorder now... That shit was unplayable without those tweaks (hit registration was shite and motion blur nauseating)
EDIT: Ahh, you can still fix the hit registration and FOV, Motion Blur not though, but it's good enough for me. Still rediculous though....
Damn I'm so ashamed of myself. You can still edit all of the settings you could in the beta, you just need a different workaround... I hate it when people complain about things that aren't true. But it is ridiculous we need a workaround
On March 23 2011 07:26 HardCorey wrote: I just want my internet to be faster so this damn Steam download can finish. GoGo Crysis 2.
Really, given all the exploding of the launch being barely better planned than the demo launch, you may be a more satisfied customer to have had to wait.
I think if I'd gotten a Steam copy, I might be less angry with Crytek overall, and the game to a lesser extent, just because by the time my DL would have finished, I wouldn't have had to wait the extra several hours to actually get my LE content, since 5 or 6 threats of litigation scared them into making that fix in a hurry.
Nothing takes the fun out of a game like having to wait 3 hours for the stuff the box says is included to finally exist. Imagine the people who went to midnight releases...
On January 23 2011 16:25 LoCaD wrote: urgh I hope they dont overfocus on MP. If a Game cant stand up with his SP then dont let it have MP at all good old times and focus on delievering an amazing SP experience thats what these Games are actually made for to tell a SP Story not some MP Crap. MP ruined so many SP games whith the amount of Work you have to invest in the PvP settings so much Time better invested in more longer SP.
and what do you have from MP anyway... some ladder standing, some Equipment or Achievements or what not and I guess FUN the first 100 or so Matches that always in the Core Sense the Game stay the Same.
MP where you can never tell when a Game is supposed to be over once you have 100% so you can move on to the next on the list never caught my intrest same with these huge Timewasters aka MMOs like you can take them seriously at all lols.
I mean there is something to be said about Crysis one not lasting long at all due to the fact MP was god awful.
Anything they do will be an improvement IMO
It was not awful. It was genious. Just because you failed at Crysis 1 doesn't mean it was shit. Last time I checked Crysis servers are still full whereas COD 4 (the worst game in history) is empty. Crysis 2 is an abomination for xbox kiddies with jam covered fingers.
I played the MP, and it was aweful. I hate all those new-school FPS that try so hard to introduce new mechanics, but indefinitely end up with a broken concept of a video game. The camouflage suit is just retarded. I want to play a game were superior skill and decisions win battles (like sc2) not pushing a button to get invisible. Running around with nanovision all the time is just not acceptable. Can't wait to play an old school shooter like TacOps (or even CS although i dont like CS) again.
On March 23 2011 22:15 SoylentCreep wrote: I played the MP, and it was aweful. I hate all those new-school FPS that try so hard to introduce new mechanics, but indefinitely end up with a broken concept of a video game. The camouflage suit is just retarded. I want to play a game were superior skill and decisions win battles (like sc2) not pushing a button to get invisible. Running around with nanovision all the time is just not acceptable. Can't wait to play an old school shooter like TacOps (or even CS although i dont like CS) again.
Gogo Modders^^
yea after i couldnt play the mp for crysis i just went and played cs. its crazy that 1.6 is still the most played game on steam lol.
On March 23 2011 22:15 SoylentCreep wrote: I played the MP, and it was aweful. I hate all those new-school FPS that try so hard to introduce new mechanics, but indefinitely end up with a broken concept of a video game. The camouflage suit is just retarded. I want to play a game were superior skill and decisions win battles (like sc2) not pushing a button to get invisible. Running around with nanovision all the time is just not acceptable. Can't wait to play an old school shooter like TacOps (or even CS although i dont like CS) again.
Gogo Modders^^
yea i had the same issus with the "new style" cod like shooters. aka push button x to activate something stuipd to kill a random enemy without any skill involved ( = killstreaks).
you most probably already know it, but the best fps is free.
So, for us Europeans we cant play the game till Friday if I'm correct? But with the battlefield games and some other on steam you could proxy and play it pre-release if it already out in US, but just tried and didnt work for me. So does anyone know a legal work-around? I mean, I've bought the game and just dont feel like waiting for release when it's already out in US <.<
On March 23 2011 22:15 SoylentCreep wrote: I played the MP, and it was aweful. I hate all those new-school FPS that try so hard to introduce new mechanics, but indefinitely end up with a broken concept of a video game. The camouflage suit is just retarded. I want to play a game were superior skill and decisions win battles (like sc2) not pushing a button to get invisible. Running around with nanovision all the time is just not acceptable. Can't wait to play an old school shooter like TacOps (or even CS although i dont like CS) again.
Gogo Modders^^
yea i had the same issus with the "new style" cod like shooters. aka push button x to activate something stuipd to kill a random enemy without any skill involved ( = killstreaks).
you most probably already know it, but the best fps is free.
Really disappointing launch. Serial Key issues, Login Issues, and now server's not starting issues. I was a big supporter of this game because I enjoyed the demo so much but because of the litany of issues I would not recommend anyone purchasing it for PC until we are 100% sure everything works properly. Single Player is alright though but $60 pricetag does not warrant this. There are also some hilarious AI issues but nothing game breaking.
I don't know how games get released with this many interface issues. It completely boggles my mind. crytek.
i played some crysis 1 again, and i must say people flaming crysis 2 for not looking better than crysis 1 are idiots. sure crysis 2 achieves his look with less far-sightednessand various other tricks, also the water looks a lot worse, but thats pretty much it. everything else is off the hook. people should really stop flaming crysis 2 for not being another graphics revolution and accept, that it still looks fantastic.
On March 26 2011 09:27 Azza wrote: What game graphically beats it? I still say it's stunning and an awsome game.
Crysis 1 on total max is I believe still better because they streamlined Crysis 2 a lot more, but this may have changed and Crysis 2 is better, but I can't say.
The game is very, very beautiful and is basically a better and alienized version of Modern Warfare 2. Took me about 2 days to beat it, which is about 12-15 hours playtime or something?
On March 26 2011 09:27 Azza wrote: What game graphically beats it? I still say it's stunning and an awsome game.
Crysis 1 on total max is I believe still better because they streamlined Crysis 2 a lot more, but this may have changed and Crysis 2 is better, but I can't say.
i would say they look about the same (IE best looking games to date pretty much) but crysis 1 is still a lot more impressive because the levels are huge and it has better and more intensive physics. although i want to say that crysis 2 has somewhat better lighting...
On March 25 2011 05:03 Corvi wrote: i played some crysis 1 again, and i must say people flaming crysis 2 for not looking better than crysis 1 are idiots. sure crysis 2 achieves his look with less far-sightednessand various other tricks, also the water looks a lot worse, but thats pretty much it. everything else is off the hook. people should really stop flaming crysis 2 for not being another graphics revolution and accept, that it still looks fantastic.
The lighting model in Crysis 2 is no doubt more impressive, but the environments in the original Crysis are more visually striking than the skyscrapers in Crysis 2. There's just something about the jungle, the water and the little islands that's much prettier to look at, natural beauty.
Game releases and I'm broke for the month! Everyone should keep in mind that a cityscape is easier to render than far off vistas with tons of foliage and variable terrain. I'm sure that's why it's set in NY instead of the original's Far Cry-esque levels.
Multiplayer is terrific, a true delight brought to us by the people behind Golden Eye and Timesplitters. PC version has its issues but i have faith in patches.
On March 27 2011 11:01 Fruscainte wrote: Pirated it to try it out. No autosave feature, horrendous FOV, downgraded graphics, might as well be playing halo, story takes a nose dive.
Uninstalled instantly.
Waited so long for nothing ;-;
I'm sure Crytek are very concerned that a pirate uninstalled their game....
On topic, I find the single player engrossing and the A.I to be extremely intelligent for the majority of the time. The graphics are still amazing as well as how detailed the world is. If you liked Crysis 1, you'll most likely love this one too.
Multiplayer is incredibly fun when it works. This game was dogged by a lot of issues since release (Serial keys not working properly, multiplayer ranked servers not starting, profiles not being saved correctly, etc) but just today I've seen a good number of these issues disappear, or at least not affect me. The biggest problem now is a recent wave of hackers getting online. I wonder exactly what kind of countermeasures they have in place. The Nanosuit is now super streamlined and adds tons of fun to the game. The cloak is kinda cheesy but overall I think its fine.
Good game, but sadly there is no Direct X 10 or 11 support.. 9 is all we get, this is a far cry from what should have been done. but the consoles won out on the bid so we all get to cry a little inside.
On March 27 2011 11:01 Fruscainte wrote: Pirated it to try it out. No autosave feature, horrendous FOV, downgraded graphics, might as well be playing halo, story takes a nose dive.
Uninstalled instantly.
Waited so long for nothing ;-;
I'm sure Crytek are very concerned that a pirate uninstalled their game....
On topic, I find the single player engrossing and the A.I to be extremely intelligent for the majority of the time. The graphics are still amazing as well as how detailed the world is. If you liked Crysis 1, you'll most likely love this one too.
Uhhhh... I loved crysis 1, it was a damn good game that had a good system with the suit. But with crysis 2? What. The. Fuck. First of all, where the hell are my bloody saves? All i get is checkpoint systems. For fuck sakes im sick and tired of fucking checkpoints, when i want to stop playing, I WANT TO STOP FUCKING PLAYING. Not wait till i get to a certain section then go, oh ok checkpoint now i can stop.
Next point is the suit. Its stupid how the suit has 'downgraded'. No more max speed, your 'max speed' is the bloody sprint... I mean seriously what the fuck? I don't mind the new 'max strength' since i don't have to constantly switch to it but at the cost of my super fast speed? Fuck no. I also liked how armour was the default in crysis 1 and i didn't have to constantly switch, even if the new armour is buffed. The only real improvement is the thermal vision which is a nice touch i must admit. I'm not counting the new upgrade system cause i haven't really delved into it and first impressions im not that impressed anyway.
So far the story has been a pile of steaming shit. I'm hardly engrossed in it and + Show Spoiler +
that incompetent Gould idiot somehow left the location of his next hideout on his computer in the lab? I mean seriously? Who the fuck is really that stupid? Isn't this guy supposed to be smart? I know its trivial but its just stupid and silly.
Graphics? Don't really give a shit, sure they look nice but its neither a huge improvement or decline in quality.
From what i see, overall i'd give crysis 2 a 6/10 for the SP, compared to crysis 1, crysis 2 has got NOTHING on it. I mean sure i still have to play more and maybe it can redeem itself, but so far i ain't impressed.
i'm wondering how many people actually played this game, or how far they played cause the levels are pretty damn large, and the scale of some of the buildings is awesome. it just seems less open cause its not all trees and jungle.
I just finished playing the SP and it was GOOD! I liked it a lot! I feel like the strong points of the single player is the suspense, and the story. But there are some thing that I didn't like (the checkpoint system, and that the levels sometimes feel a little repetitive)
On March 28 2011 13:28 skindzer wrote: Just finished SP, story was "fine" but there are HUGE plotholes if youve played Crysis 1 and Warhead. Pretty meh theres no Psycho or Nomad also.
Also, im fucking tired of mute protagonists. The game starts kind of slow but is fine once it starts to get momentum.
And the nuke thing ya because it worked so well is Crysis 1.
But i think the game is good but not as good as Crysis 1.
The single player was awful (and I thought SC2's campaign was amazing, that tells you how bad Crysis 2's is). The story felt like it was written by several different people who didn't communicate with each other. You get orders from several different characters without knowing what you're really doing. Then again Far Cry and Crysis both had terrible stories as well.
The tactical options are pretty much useless, and it played out much like a CoD shooter. Kill waves of enemies, move to next section, kill more waves, repeat. The AI is unimpressive, unlike Far Cry when it was released, and the enemies have perfect accuracy on you even through walls (easy to see this with one of the "perks" you can unlock that traces enemy fire). There aren't many weapons, and against the aliens you'll really only be using an electricity gun because the normal rifles do almost no damage to them.
I finished the SP in 5 hours... it definitely isn't a 10+ hour campaign even if you explore every nook and cranny of the game map, unless you can't hit any shots or something.
The multiplayer is a buggy mess and also feels like CoD with special powers. Cloak is surprisingly annoying... and the nanosuit in general feels like a gimmick in multiplayer. Essentially, you hit Q (armor mode) every time when you start shooting someone, as there's nothing else you can do with your energy in an engagement really. So "Q" just becomes another 'useless' button you press (if no one had armor mode, the game would play almost exactly the same).
Sprinting also decreases energy, which is needed in armor mode to absorb damage, so if you sprint around, see another player, and both of you start shooting at each other at the same time, you will lose (even if you're better than the other player) because you had less suit energy. Now, you could say you should just not sprint then... but the normal movement speed feels like a grandma walking.
Visually impressive. Not groundbreaking, but it seems well optimized for the graphics you get. However, everything feels blurry (perhaps to increase FPS for the consoles...). Things moderately far away just don't look sharp at all, as if your character needs glasses. And there is a lot of bloom and motion blur.
I am shocked at how well received the game seems to be with the critics. Ugh.
Overall a pretty meh experience, sure it has a pretty long campaign but it feels drawn out and I really didnt feel that imersed into the story. When the suitupgrades are introduced I really wanted to kill the aliens for upgrades but when I actually got them they fel pretty meh and didnt really add that much.
Weapons and ammo are thrown around every 5 meters so no real challenge there. I did run around stealth killing most of the enemies since that was quite enjoyable.
Overall I did have a much better time playing through bulletstorm even though that sp was much shorter. I think Crysis 2 played too much on having nice graphics and a relative long sp and neglecting some game play and story because of it.
I really like the Crysis 2 SP, I don't play games for story (I actually have no idea what's going on in most of the games I play, because I skip as much story as I can) but the gameplay is very fluent and fun. Also the game is way less linear than people made it out to be, It has almost as much paths as Crysis 1 but in Crysis 1 there was much more open ground so that looked way more open. The graphics are beautiful, really the only slight problem I have is the lame upgrade system and the delay before you jump. Also, I have to agree with the person above me, ammo and weapons everywhere (I don't mind the ammo, but I like an element of getting good weapons that you can't find everywhere) I don't understand all the hate on the game, it's definitly a step in the right direction compared to CoD. (Why the developers had to limit our graphics options I still don't understand but that's why people make these kinds of programs:
On March 28 2011 18:02 Wesso wrote: I really like the Crysis 2 SP, I don't play games for story (I actually have no idea what's going on in most of the games I play, because I skip as much story as I can)
On March 28 2011 18:02 Wesso wrote: I really like the Crysis 2 SP, I don't play games for story (I actually have no idea what's going on in most of the games I play, because I skip as much story as I can)
Why? O_O
I don't know why, I can't remember any storyline from games I played when I was young (except for games with a really poor/short storyline, like pokemon) so I don't think it's a recent trait. Maybe it's because I have always read a lot and game stories in general are just really bad compared to most books.
No final boss? seriously? Crysis 1 had an epic finale against huge fucking machines :<<< And in crysis 2, you get one of those retarded guitar-hero-wanna-be-hollywood-movies scenes, where you just press a button and 'something cool happens'... my god...
I liked the Crysis 2 SP as well, though as others said its story line wasn't great. The whole tactical options thing meant you didn't have to do trial and error to get through parts like in other shooters where they just expect you to guess what they meant when they designed the area.
MP is heaps of fun though, the whole tension between suit energy conservation / cloak / armour mode is great. The modules (perks) and weapons seem well balanced, no cod style invulnerability when knifing, requirement to aim for headshots due to a 2.2x multiplier on head means good aim is encouraged. Weapon recoil is present but minimal, ability to put some weapons into single shot mode is nice too.
Game feels like a mixup of quake/cod in MP and I'm really enjoying it.
On March 27 2011 11:01 Fruscainte wrote: Pirated it to try it out. No autosave feature, horrendous FOV, downgraded graphics, might as well be playing halo, story takes a nose dive.
Uninstalled instantly.
Waited so long for nothing ;-;
I'm sure Crytek are very concerned that a pirate uninstalled their game....
On topic, I find the single player engrossing and the A.I to be extremely intelligent for the majority of the time. The graphics are still amazing as well as how detailed the world is. If you liked Crysis 1, you'll most likely love this one too.
Uhhhh... I loved crysis 1, it was a damn good game that had a good system with the suit. But with crysis 2? What. The. Fuck. First of all, where the hell are my bloody saves? All i get is checkpoint systems. For fuck sakes im sick and tired of fucking checkpoints, when i want to stop playing, I WANT TO STOP FUCKING PLAYING. Not wait till i get to a certain section then go, oh ok checkpoint now i can stop.
Next point is the suit. Its stupid how the suit has 'downgraded'. No more max speed, your 'max speed' is the bloody sprint... I mean seriously what the fuck? I don't mind the new 'max strength' since i don't have to constantly switch to it but at the cost of my super fast speed? Fuck no. I also liked how armour was the default in crysis 1 and i didn't have to constantly switch, even if the new armour is buffed. The only real improvement is the thermal vision which is a nice touch i must admit. I'm not counting the new upgrade system cause i haven't really delved into it and first impressions im not that impressed anyway.
So far the story has been a pile of steaming shit. I'm hardly engrossed in it and + Show Spoiler +
that incompetent Gould idiot somehow left the location of his next hideout on his computer in the lab? I mean seriously? Who the fuck is really that stupid? Isn't this guy supposed to be smart? I know its trivial but its just stupid and silly.
Graphics? Don't really give a shit, sure they look nice but its neither a huge improvement or decline in quality.
From what i see, overall i'd give crysis 2 a 6/10 for the SP, compared to crysis 1, crysis 2 has got NOTHING on it. I mean sure i still have to play more and maybe it can redeem itself, but so far i ain't impressed.
Well look at that, my exact thoughts written down! I could not have worded it better myself.
On March 28 2011 18:02 Wesso wrote: I really like the Crysis 2 SP, I don't play games for story (I actually have no idea what's going on in most of the games I play, because I skip as much story as I can)
Why? O_O
I don't know why, I can't remember any storyline from games I played when I was young (except for games with a really poor/short storyline, like pokemon) so I don't think it's a recent trait. Maybe it's because I have always read a lot and game stories in general are just really bad compared to most books.
so like when you play d2 you just skip the story and ignore what all the merchants say?
I guess that wouldn't be rediculous since I played it for 5 years and still don't know the story
Never played Crysis 1, but I enjoyed the SP of Crysis 2 very much. The upgrade system is kinda lame in the single player, but I love the element of the nanosuit that separates it from other shooters, not to even mention the graphics are the best of any game I have ever played. I liked the storyline, however it leaves you confused for about the first half of the game. The multiplayer is really awesome, there are so many things that you can do with your classes, however I wish there was more guns. Overall, I'm happy I bought it.
so I'm about 5 hours into the game now, here are some impressions (will write a lot more after I finish it)
i've actually been pleasantly surprised by it so far. I thought it'd be a lot worse judging by reviews and lots of people bashing it on the net, but it's exceeded my expectations so far (although I've had somewhat low expectations since last year when I realized it was going to be a console port).
im very happy that almost every mechanic from the 1st game is back (stuff like picking up items and throwing them, changing firing-modes, realtime weapon customization, etc). leaning is basically in the game with the "click mouse2 to lean" function that generally works OK (wish I didn't have to aim down the sights while leaning though) and is probably the best "cover-system" I've seen implemented in a FPS (IE something that is specifically "going into cover and shooting over it" and not just crouching/uncrouching). definitely a lot better than that lame stuff from like rainbow six vegas where you just go 3rd person.
the AI for humans is better than I expected (hearing about how awful it was), or at least it seems to be pretty decent (because there are so many of them). the alien AI seems pretty lacking, or at least fighting aliens in general is pretty underwhelming. they just dont really attack much ever, and when they do they don't do a lot of damage. overall: fighting human soldiers has been pretty fun, fighting aliens sorta sucks (at least so far). so far I like all the weapons a lot, BUT THERE ARE SO MANY AMMO CRATES HOLY SHIT WTF. some level designer must of gotten a huge bonus for every ammo crate he put in the game or something. goddamn.
I feel the level design is about on par with crysis 1/warhead, but teh game is definitely missing the open world feel. I never have as many options as I would have in a truly sandbox game (for instance I can't sneak around and get different angles in most levels, I can just go down like 2 or 3 paths basically).
overall I'm enjoying the game, but as expected, not at the level of the first crysis/warhead.
started playing today i never played much of the first crysis but im enjoying this one so much, the cut scenes and storyline seem quite well done so far, and the graphics are absolutely amazing also it runs very well on my computer "quad core 2.6ghz, gtx260, 8 gigs of ram," i was suprised it ran at the max settings quite smoothly when my graphics card is almost 2 years old.
this is actually a lot better then the first crysis imo.
The only thing i struggle with is the multiplayer, there seem to be issues with hitboxes (sometimes i die in midair and get killed by a headshot, but on the killcam im still on the ground), respawning points, (imagine enemies spawning in your face while you are carrying the flag in ctf) and cloak in general.
Im only lvl 20 now but i hope this game has perks that kind of tones down cloaking in this game. People hiding and decloaking in your back is very frustrating and it happens every 30 seconds!
ps: i dont miss the open world feeling in sp at all, i am from the doom / quake scene and i enjoy this straight to the point action, not having to walk for miles to reach stuff thing.
Just finished Crysis 2 at Sunday. And here is my feelings on few aspects.
As a game, it really is great experience. Storyline hits you with weird info that confuses shit out of you, but after a while it all clears out. Something was loaned from other stories + Show Spoiler +
like the guy inside tube from FO:new vegas
. Overall storyline flow was great, there was no dull moments with it.
Game was bit tunneling. Sometimes I just stealth trough everything cause it seemed to be much easier than should have been. Also I played on hardest mode and stealth was way too overpowered than it should have been. Specially when you get best stealth upgrade, you can shoot 2-3 shots from stealth and not show up at all.
Graphics we're just utterly amazing. Nothing beats this game on that section. When 2 20+ apartment houses collapse, it just sucked me inside the game with the relevant realism it provided.
AI was bit funny, I still think those hirelings should not have grenades. Best scene was one of those parking garages with 2 hummers. First open had 5 soldiers and 1 at top of minigun mount. I killed something like 2 of them, rest self exploded and also blowed up the hummer with minigun mount. Also when they saw me, duck, stealth move 1 meter and voila, they can't see me or hear me.
Overall, 7 and half hour of full action packed gold. Definitely anyone with good computer should pick this up.
On March 28 2011 18:02 Wesso wrote: I really like the Crysis 2 SP, I don't play games for story (I actually have no idea what's going on in most of the games I play, because I skip as much story as I can)
Why? O_O
I don't know why, I can't remember any storyline from games I played when I was young (except for games with a really poor/short storyline, like pokemon) so I don't think it's a recent trait. Maybe it's because I have always read a lot and game stories in general are just really bad compared to most books.
so like when you play d2 you just skip the story and ignore what all the merchants say?
I guess that wouldn't be rediculous since I played it for 5 years and still don't know the story
exactly
A question, how do you unlock new weapon attachments in the campaign? By picking up a version of the weapon that already had it?
@2 persons above me: IMO it's better than CoD, but that's personal. What I can say is that it feels different , but the principles are the same. ("small" maps, lots of action, no vehicles less teamwork than say BFBC2) So If you already have a CoD (like MW2) I'd advice to buy this anyway. You can always torrent the PC version to try it out. (I torrented it to wait for my pre-order to arrive, and it works good, you should download the videosettings program from last page though)
On March 29 2011 17:13 Wesso wrote: A question, how do you unlock new weapon attachments in the campaign? By picking up a version of the weapon that already had it?
The weapons have different names like "Spec-ops supergun of evilness" and "Ranged supergun of evilness" which indicates different attachments
On March 29 2011 16:59 35spike1 wrote: Is the multiplayer good on the PS3/PC (Better than opting for Black Ops)? I'm considering getting it soon
the multiplayer is great! (playing it on PC) Normally i finish the SP first before i start the MP, but i made the "mistake" to have a look at the MP too early^^ its really awesome, especially because of the big variety of game modes (6 different ones). its pretty equal to black ops in terms of classes, perks and customisation, but as mentioned earlier, the nano suit just brings it to a whole new level. im "only" lvl 15 of 50 so far, but i can really recommend it. played around 20h in MP and another 5 in SP. the game is totally worth its money already. if your still not sure weather to buy or not, just check out some MP videos on youtube
I got a pretty good pc but the game wont work :/ When i start the game after a few seconds in the submarine my screen goes black and i get a message that my display driver stopped working but recovered, then i can play for a few sec ans the same happens My specs are :
On March 29 2011 18:37 Butcherski wrote: I got a pretty good pc but the game wont work :/ When i start the game after a few seconds in the submarine my screen goes black and i get a message that my display driver stopped working but recovered, then i can play for a few sec ans the same happens My specs are :
i had the same issue with my GTX 285 for more than a year. finally i found a solution. i bought the amp version which is basicly an overclocked version (which i didnt know). i clocked down the core and memory bus to the "normal" values with ntune and now it works perfectly in every game. i also dont really see a reduced performance. maybe that helps
No patch was ever confirmed, I have no idea why this website even posted such information. This thread is locked just the same as the others for trying to spread inaccurate information.
On March 29 2011 16:59 35spike1 wrote: Is the multiplayer good on the PS3/PC (Better than opting for Black Ops)? I'm considering getting it soon
the multiplayer is great! (playing it on PC) Normally i finish the SP first before i start the MP, but i made the "mistake" to have a look at the MP too early^^ its really awesome, especially because of the big variety of game modes (6 different ones). its pretty equal to black ops in terms of classes, perks and customisation, but as mentioned earlier, the nano suit just brings it to a whole new level. im "only" lvl 15 of 50 so far, but i can really recommend it. played around 20h in MP and another 5 in SP. the game is totally worth its money already. if your still not sure weather to buy or not, just check out some MP videos on youtube
haha ya same thing i was about 2 hours into SP, then was like "oh hey i'll give multiplayer a try"
now i have no desire to go back to the SP, the MP is so addicting. i really like that the rounds/games are typically quick, so it's easy to just get numerous games in instead of being stuck on one for what feels like forever
No patch was ever confirmed, I have no idea why this website even posted such information. This thread is locked just the same as the others for trying to spread inaccurate information.
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.
No patch was ever confirmed, I have no idea why this website even posted such information. This thread is locked just the same as the others for trying to spread inaccurate information.
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
No patch was ever confirmed, I have no idea why this website even posted such information. This thread is locked just the same as the others for trying to spread inaccurate information.
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
No patch was ever confirmed, I have no idea why this website even posted such information. This thread is locked just the same as the others for trying to spread inaccurate information.
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
No patch was ever confirmed, I have no idea why this website even posted such information. This thread is locked just the same as the others for trying to spread inaccurate information.
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
No patch was ever confirmed, I have no idea why this website even posted such information. This thread is locked just the same as the others for trying to spread inaccurate information.
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.
No patch was ever confirmed, I have no idea why this website even posted such information. This thread is locked just the same as the others for trying to spread inaccurate information.
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.
No patch was ever confirmed, I have no idea why this website even posted such information. This thread is locked just the same as the others for trying to spread inaccurate information.
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.
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?
No patch was ever confirmed, I have no idea why this website even posted such information. This thread is locked just the same as the others for trying to spread inaccurate information.
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.
No patch was ever confirmed, I have no idea why this website even posted such information. This thread is locked just the same as the others for trying to spread inaccurate information.
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
No patch was ever confirmed, I have no idea why this website even posted such information. This thread is locked just the same as the others for trying to spread inaccurate information.
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.
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.
No patch was ever confirmed, I have no idea why this website even posted such information. This thread is locked just the same as the others for trying to spread inaccurate information.
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.
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+!
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.
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.
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 10:11 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 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 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?
is anyone elses crysis 2 buggy as shit? specially waypoints and enemies on radar seem to be constantly screwed, some video's refused to play and some other random things :/
I'm really disappointed of crysis 2, no let's call it I'm mad as shit.
I loved Crytek's games up until now. They just were something different. The game is nice compared to other shooters and it still wipes the floor with CoD and it's clones but like Blizzard or Bioware I hold Crytek to a higher standart.
First off is the graphics. No Dx11 sure sucks but I can accept that but the moment I had to download an extra application to adjust my graphic settings was the moment it doomed on me: "this thing is not what you expected".
The whole thing is dumbed down for the mainstream console market. Instead of thinking of new ways to use the speed/strength modes of the suit we get only armor and stealth now.
The AI is an affront and there's no "wow" moment... whenever someone talks about crysis I have the mental image of that huge mountain crumbling, with crysis 2 ? nothing except that I had to load a damed tool to adjust my graphic settings.
On March 31 2011 17:54 Assault_1 wrote: Blizzard has the right idea.. release amazing multiplayer games with no lan and everyones gonna buy it
Single-player exclusive games are just downloaded like free pizzas, no matter how good they are
you're not wrong but crysis still sold one million copies. Considering it was the second game of crytek and had insane hardware requirements I think that's really decent. Back then I was about 3-4 months away from buying a new rig so I waited until then to buy the game so I could at least play it on ~High settings
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?
Ah, I see, you're from India. Not exactly sure if those statistics are for the USA/West or the world. I'm fairly certain that the vast majority of the sales from games like this comes from the US and Europe, though.
I know I am a minority, who actually bought the original Crysis and Farcry simply because of the beautiful graphics. I enjoyed touring around the environment more than playing the actual game.
Their sandbox editor were really great too, It was so easy to make a nice looking level with it.
My dream is to play some sort MMO RTS/FPS game on that sort of graphics.
On March 31 2011 17:30 Bloodash wrote: is anyone elses crysis 2 buggy as shit? specially waypoints and enemies on radar seem to be constantly screwed, some video's refused to play and some other random things :/
I've had it crash on me 2 or 3 times during loading screens, but other than that it's ran perfectly. I did have a really crappy bug though when after it crashed, all the alien DNA money I would collect wouldn't be counted, so basically all the money I collected in the entire 2nd half of the game I never got to spend, although honestly thats not too big of a deal for me. all the expensive powers just make the game easier/lamer anyway lol
On April 01 2011 06:59 SweetNJoshSauce wrote: It's kind of hard to feel bad for all the people saying that the game turned out to be dumbed down for the console mainstream.
No shit!
The signs were everywhere people, it was pretty obvious it was going to happen yet you still bought the game anyway
yea the time to be let down was a year ago when they 1st showed the game lol (which I was )
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 another note, the multiplayer is so fail. You can change client side xml files to get godmode/unlimited ammo/fast rank up. Nothing is checked on server side...
I still cant agree with all the complaints about the game. The multiplayer is so good, especially the assault mode. The last time i had that much fun in a shooter were my first days of CS and thats like 15 years ago. I also tryed black ops after its release, but it doesnt even come close to Crysis 2.
About those 14% PC sales; if it really doesnt include digital distribution, the number is pretty meaningless. the game was #1 top seller on steam for many days and currently its still on #2. Also, the Multiplayer servers are quite packed. Of course i can only guess, but i think EA/Crytek made profit from the PC version
Tried the multiplayer today, latency is worse then black ops.. Why is it that every mp shooter can't get their networking right. I want my bullets to go where I am shooting, and other peoples bullets were they are shooting... Not some magical anti lag time travel bullshit.
On April 02 2011 03:38 eXiled wrote: Tried the multiplayer today, latency is worse then black ops.. Why is it that every mp shooter can't get their networking right. I want my bullets to go where I am shooting, and other peoples bullets were they are shooting... Not some magical anti lag time travel bullshit.
Because devs seem to prefer company-owned servers as opposed to user-owned servers.
On April 02 2011 04:18 jstar wrote: I have a couple questions about this. Is the PC version a port from consoles? If it is I would be sad.
Secondly, I heard the multiplayer is really buggy and incomplete, is this being addressed?
Pc version is a port. Obvious in the menus and the lack of options that can be changed (graphics etc). Played some DM matches, and the spawns are horrible, multiple times spawned right in front of enemies.
On April 02 2011 04:18 jstar wrote: I have a couple questions about this. Is the PC version a port from consoles? If it is I would be sad.
Secondly, I heard the multiplayer is really buggy and incomplete, is this being addressed?
Pc version is a port. Obvious in the menus and the lack of options that can be changed (graphics etc). Played some DM matches, and the spawns are horrible, multiple times spawned right in front of enemies.
any proof besides menu options? and you didn't really answer the second question..
On April 02 2011 04:18 jstar wrote: I have a couple questions about this. Is the PC version a port from consoles? If it is I would be sad.
Secondly, I heard the multiplayer is really buggy and incomplete, is this being addressed?
I wouldn't call it buggy and incomplete. Yes, spawns are not always perfect, but it happens pretty rarely that you spawn right in front of someone. Most of the times, you switch to stealth mode right after the respawn anyway to get in a good position. There is only one bug i found so far, which is also related to spawn locations. On the assault map Sanctuary, it is possible that 1 or 2 player start in the enemy spawn location, which can be either good or bad, depending on which team you are. Beside that, I didn't really find any bugs yet. Also, I'm not sure why the MP should be incomplete. Could you got into detail there, what should be missing or was left out/not implemented?
On April 02 2011 04:18 jstar wrote: I have a couple questions about this. Is the PC version a port from consoles? If it is I would be sad.
Secondly, I heard the multiplayer is really buggy and incomplete, is this being addressed?
I wouldn't call it buggy and incomplete. Yes, spawns are not always perfect, but it happens pretty rarely that you spawn right in front of someone. Most of the times, you switch to stealth mode right after the respawn anyway to get in a good position. There is only one bug i found so far, which is also related to spawn locations. On the assault map Sanctuary, it is possible that 1 or 2 player start in the enemy spawn location, which can be either good or bad, depending on which team you are. Beside that, I didn't really find any bugs yet. Also, I'm not sure why the MP should be incomplete. Could you got into detail there, what should be missing or was left out/not implemented?
I heard that rank ups and levels don't save when you leave the game and there are lots of crash/lagging issues.
On April 02 2011 04:18 jstar wrote: I have a couple questions about this. Is the PC version a port from consoles? If it is I would be sad.
Secondly, I heard the multiplayer is really buggy and incomplete, is this being addressed?
I wouldn't call it buggy and incomplete. Yes, spawns are not always perfect, but it happens pretty rarely that you spawn right in front of someone. Most of the times, you switch to stealth mode right after the respawn anyway to get in a good position. There is only one bug i found so far, which is also related to spawn locations. On the assault map Sanctuary, it is possible that 1 or 2 player start in the enemy spawn location, which can be either good or bad, depending on which team you are. Beside that, I didn't really find any bugs yet. Also, I'm not sure why the MP should be incomplete. Could you got into detail there, what should be missing or was left out/not implemented?
I heard that rank ups and levels don't save when you leave the game and there are lots of crash/lagging issues.
the rank up issue was only in the first few days annd should be fixed now afaik.. also it didnt affect everyone. i never lost any XP or ranks.
lagging issues only occur if you join servers with a high ping, but you can filter for that. i always chose servers with a ping <150 and never had any problems with lag so far.
the game crashed for me twice, but i think i know why and its easy to avoid. when a map is over you have 1 minute in the menu to see your perks, customise classes and so on, like in black ops. if you switch to another menu page right in the second where the next map starts, it crashes. so if you just avoid switching menus in the last seconds of the cooldown, it basically cant happen.
Crysis just got such great graphics and crysis 2 tops it in every little thing. I love it. But if you want to play crysis 2 with the highest settings you´ll need such a good system.
On April 07 2011 01:35 furymonkey wrote: So is the entire single player happened in a urban setting? Do we still get to see some forest environment like the one shown in GDC?
I'm pretty sure Crytek is working on like 3 different unannounced games right now lol. I'm sure one of them will have forests. But no, nothing in crysis 2 looked like that screenshot. There were some trees in a park level, but not that many lol
this game is one of the worst FPSs I have ever played.
the good: graphics - UNBELIEVABLE.
the bad: gameplay - to be fair, it isn't that much more indepth than even the original crysis. get guns, kill shit. snipe them, rocket them, knife them. but its the linearity of the game. i stopped paying attention to the story not long after realizing all i really needed to do was run forward and kill shit for the next couple of hours.
and speaking of the story
the ugly: (beware spoilers)
story - i dont even ... michael bay films are more coherent and enjoyable than this mess. i had no idea what was going on (and why) most of the time and who the hell all these characters were. let alone the fact + Show Spoiler +
they dont even fucking realize who is in the suit until a good hour or two into the game
the alien tech upgrades are presumably the perk unlocks you access by hitting H. You buy them with the sparkly shit aliens drop when you kill them (nanocatalyst or whateva). Oddly, you seem to keep any weapon accessories or catalyst unlocks you get during a play through if you decide to go through again, so you can start out with air stomp or fast regen etc. Not sure what to think of that, though i guess it would be awesome going through on hardest difficulty and having to be ultra tricky (you die *so* quickly from the bit I've played, one burst from an assault rifle, two hits from a mounted gun.
I think the game really comes into it's own if you challenge yourself difficulty wise and have to really start abusing the suit abilities. That's not excusing the gameplay, unfortunately, but if you're kind of just armoring up, walking into the middle of it and shooting everyone you're probably not playing on a hard enough difficulty.
But yeah, story was pretty bad >.>. Though the guy who played hargreave was a great voice actor. really got that rich american bastard vibe rolling strong and deep.
when you confront hargreave at the prism, turn on nanovision and look around his office. One of the suits in the cases is 'active', or at least shows up as a heat source. I wonder if it's either a beautifully placed easter egg hinting that hargreave isn't so bedbound after all, or the leftovers of a planned boss fight with a nanosuiter that got axed. Anyone else notice that?
On April 08 2011 10:35 a176 wrote: the good: graphics - UNBELIEVABLE.
are you kidding me! It does not support DX11 as we all kind of anticipated, blur motion, ground/wall texture looks flat, no parallax oclusion mapping like its previous...
Dont get me wrong the graphics are still "good" but they did neglect the graphics probably due to console sections.
It was basically a broken game in the first 2 weeks and crucial bugs still persist for some people.
What I miss is the moments where you stop and throw away your guns for a moment and just enjoy the amazing landscape.
On April 08 2011 10:35 a176 wrote: the good: graphics - UNBELIEVABLE.
are you kidding me! It does not support DX11 as we all kind of anticipated, blur motion, ground/wall texture looks flat, no parallax oclusion mapping like its previous...
Dont get me wrong the graphics are still "good" but they did neglect the graphics probably due to console sections.
It was basically a broken game in the first 2 weeks and crucial bugs still persist for some people.
What I miss is the moments where you stop and throw away your guns for a moment and just enjoy the amazing landscape.
It doesn't have DX10. It runs solely on DX9. Crysis 1 had DX12.
the bad: gameplay - to be fair, it isn't that much more indepth than even the original crysis. get guns, kill shit. snipe them, rocket them, knife them. but its the linearity of the game. i stopped paying attention to the story not long after realizing all i really needed to do was run forward and kill shit for the next couple of hours.
i dont get it. wtf are you comparing this to. you're just complaining that it's a first person shooter pretty much. I cant even think of a FPS where you DONT just kill shit. even the later half-life games minimized puzzles and stuff...
you're like the 50th person to come in this thread and just bash the game for having bad gameplay but then you dont compare it to anything. this is more of a rant on mainstream games in general instead of just crysis 2. which I would be OK with if you labeled it as that instead of just saying "omg crysis 2 is one of the worst FPSs ever! all you do is shoot stuff!"
the bad: gameplay - to be fair, it isn't that much more indepth than even the original crysis. get guns, kill shit. snipe them, rocket them, knife them. but its the linearity of the game. i stopped paying attention to the story not long after realizing all i really needed to do was run forward and kill shit for the next couple of hours.
i dont get it. wtf are you comparing this to. you're just complaining that it's a first person shooter pretty much. I cant even think of a FPS where you DONT just kill shit. even the later half-life games minimized puzzles and stuff...
you're like the 50th person to come in this thread and just bash the game for having bad gameplay but then you dont compare it to anything. this is more of a rant on mainstream games in general instead of just crysis 2. which I would be OK with if you labeled it as that instead of just saying "omg crysis 2 is one of the worst FPSs ever! all you do is shoot stuff!"
the bad: gameplay - to be fair, it isn't that much more indepth than even the original crysis. get guns, kill shit. snipe them, rocket them, knife them. but its the linearity of the game. i stopped paying attention to the story not long after realizing all i really needed to do was run forward and kill shit for the next couple of hours.
i dont get it. wtf are you comparing this to. you're just complaining that it's a first person shooter pretty much. I cant even think of a FPS where you DONT just kill shit. even the later half-life games minimized puzzles and stuff...
you're like the 50th person to come in this thread and just bash the game for having bad gameplay but then you dont compare it to anything. this is more of a rant on mainstream games in general instead of just crysis 2. which I would be OK with if you labeled it as that instead of just saying "omg crysis 2 is one of the worst FPSs ever! all you do is shoot stuff!"
"to be fair"
edit- oh ok. i get what youre saying now I think. I guess it must suck to like games when you dont like what the majority of big releases are nowadays though :\
edit2- I also dont get why you would call it "one of the worst FPS ever". it's honestly probably the best single player FPS in the last 3 years. what games do you think is better? Im assuming we just have really different tastes in FPSs, but i can never understand so many people that shit on crysis 2 because they never say what the "good" FPSs are.
On April 08 2011 10:35 a176 wrote: this game is one of the worst FPSs I have ever played.
the good: graphics - UNBELIEVABLE.
the bad: gameplay - to be fair, it isn't that much more indepth than even the original crysis. get guns, kill shit. snipe them, rocket them, knife them. but its the linearity of the game. i stopped paying attention to the story not long after realizing all i really needed to do was run forward and kill shit for the next couple of hours.
and speaking of the story
the ugly: (beware spoilers)
story - i dont even ... michael bay films are more coherent and enjoyable than this mess. i had no idea what was going on (and why) most of the time and who the hell all these characters were. let alone the fact + Show Spoiler +
they dont even fucking realize who is in the suit until a good hour or two into the game
alien technology upgrades for the suit BUT THERE ISNT ANY AND NOTHING EVER HAPPENS ???
as above, i said "fuck this shit" quite early in the game and just played for stealth kills
You stop paying attention to the story and then complain that you can't follow the story? What the hell. I honestly don't even understand how you can make a complaint like that.
If this is one of the worst FPS games you've ever played I'm quite curious as to what other FPS games you've played because this game certainly wasn't bad compared to the norm.
the thought the game was waaaay too easy, and often you can just stealth by the encounters. You're not even forced to fight most of the times, though that big robot thing really took some time to learn, but that's about it. I would have liked it if it was more like the call of duty single player series. You die so freakin fast if you dont watch your back all the time.
On April 12 2011 12:40 Coolguy wrote: the thought the game was waaaay too easy, and often you can just stealth by the encounters. You're not even forced to fight most of the times, though that big robot thing really took some time to learn, but that's about it. I would have liked it if it was more like the call of duty single player series. You die so freakin fast if you dont watch your back all the time.
ever thought about changing the game difficulty level to higher if you find it too easy instead of complaining? harder settings are what you are looking for.
multiplayer was pretty fun, but the fact that i played the PC version means i have to deal with all kinds of hackers, goes from aimbotters to wall hackers... just saw the sales figure for it as well, only 14% of the sales came from PC, and this was suppose to be the "big" game for PC, how not dead are the PC FPS genre?
On April 12 2011 12:40 Coolguy wrote: the thought the game was waaaay too easy, and often you can just stealth by the encounters. You're not even forced to fight most of the times, though that big robot thing really took some time to learn, but that's about it. I would have liked it if it was more like the call of duty single player series. You die so freakin fast if you dont watch your back all the time.
ever thought about changing the game difficulty level to higher if you find it too easy instead of complaining? harder settings are what you are looking for.
multiplayer was pretty fun, but the fact that i played the PC version means i have to deal with all kinds of hackers, goes from aimbotters to wall hackers... just saw the sales figure for it as well, only 14% of the sales came from PC, and this was suppose to be the "big" game for PC, how not dead are the PC FPS genre?
if you read earlier in the thread you would see that that figure doesn't include online sales, so PC sales are actually much higher than just 14%.
Its bizarre how the engine has no feel, I lost interest in the game after 4 hours, never played it again. In fact writing this post, reminds me that I should uninstall it.
same here, it does feel kind of... less interesting somehow, mainly because the story is shite and is told by some terrible generic voices, but had loads of fun with the game besides that
graphically it's truly amazing, its well designed and polished, I don't understand what people are complaining about for graphics
On April 12 2011 12:40 Coolguy wrote: the thought the game was waaaay too easy, and often you can just stealth by the encounters. You're not even forced to fight most of the times, though that big robot thing really took some time to learn, but that's about it. I would have liked it if it was more like the call of duty single player series. You die so freakin fast if you dont watch your back all the time.
ever thought about changing the game difficulty level to higher if you find it too easy instead of complaining? harder settings are what you are looking for.
multiplayer was pretty fun, but the fact that i played the PC version means i have to deal with all kinds of hackers, goes from aimbotters to wall hackers... just saw the sales figure for it as well, only 14% of the sales came from PC, and this was suppose to be the "big" game for PC, how not dead are the PC FPS genre?
if you read earlier in the thread you would see that that figure doesn't include online sales, so PC sales are actually much higher than just 14%.
On April 08 2011 10:35 a176 wrote: the good: graphics - UNBELIEVABLE.
are you kidding me! It does not support DX11 as we all kind of anticipated, blur motion, ground/wall texture looks flat, no parallax oclusion mapping like its previous...
Dont get me wrong the graphics are still "good" but they did neglect the graphics probably due to console sections.
It was basically a broken game in the first 2 weeks and crucial bugs still persist for some people.
What I miss is the moments where you stop and throw away your guns for a moment and just enjoy the amazing landscape.
yes sir, I also miss that too. I guess with this game as well as others similiar to it the only way it'll keep me interested like that again, is after smoking a big fat blunt. It's just, for lack of a better word, boring... but who knows, if I ever get bored with some of the other games I have in my possession, I might try it again. Does the story get much better as it goes on?
On April 08 2011 10:35 a176 wrote: the good: graphics - UNBELIEVABLE.
are you kidding me! It does not support DX11 as we all kind of anticipated, blur motion, ground/wall texture looks flat, no parallax oclusion mapping like its previous...
Dont get me wrong the graphics are still "good" but they did neglect the graphics probably due to console sections.
It was basically a broken game in the first 2 weeks and crucial bugs still persist for some people.
What I miss is the moments where you stop and throw away your guns for a moment and just enjoy the amazing landscape.
yes sir, I also miss that too. I guess with this game as well as others similiar to it the only way it'll keep me interested like that again, is after smoking a big fat blunt. It's just, for lack of a better word, boring... but who knows, if I ever get bored with some of the other games I have in my possession, I might try it again. Does the story get much better as it goes on?
The game kind of picks up once you stop confronting C.E.L.L. and start confronting the Ceph. Gets more difficult too since the Ceph don't die as easily as the CELL operatives.
Bah, since Crytek decided not to include lower graphics options than "High" it seems I wont be able to play this anytime soon -.- Unless I get it for my Xbox that is...
On April 12 2011 18:44 Excessive wrote: Bah, since Crytek decided not to include lower graphics options than "High" it seems I wont be able to play this anytime soon -.- Unless I get it for my Xbox that is...
the name of the settings doesn't matter. It would be called low in any other game with the exact same settings. Actually it was first called casual.
On April 12 2011 18:44 Excessive wrote: Bah, since Crytek decided not to include lower graphics options than "High" it seems I wont be able to play this anytime soon -.- Unless I get it for my Xbox that is...
Xbox looks practically the same as the "high" spec on PC...
On April 12 2011 18:44 Excessive wrote: Bah, since Crytek decided not to include lower graphics options than "High" it seems I wont be able to play this anytime soon -.- Unless I get it for my Xbox that is...
the name of the settings doesn't matter. It would be called low in any other game with the exact same settings. Actually it was first called casual.
yea crytek thought they were fooling people by calling it high in crysis warhead because so many people complained that they couldnt run crysis 1 on high lol
I actually thought Crysis 2 was very entertaining. Granted, the lack of weapon variety & very narrow customization did make it a bit repetitive, but there's a certain extent to which I call graphics "good" and I don't bother trying to differentiate between, Amazing and Colossal. Playing Call of Duty 2 was revolutionary enough for me.
Gameplay was fine, and the voice actor for Hargreave was absolutely amazing. I do wish that they would add a bit more customization and build-up, and a simplified version of collecting the nano-shards instead of running up to every freaking guy you kill in stealth.
I beat it in the hardest difficulty, but it wasn't anything monstrous. Overall fun-game. I can't imagine it being a great // mainstream multiplayer though.
Like many, I was at first hyped about the game a few weeks before it came out, but had a slightly bad feeling about it after hearing all of the console tailoring.
Now, I've never been one to hate on a game just because it is also on console as well as PC, and generally disagreed with most of the immature comments from the anti-Call of Duty crowd, but after playing the demo and seeing the "press start to continue", "auto-aim" option, and lack of graphic option tailoring, I was hesitant about getting it.
Nevertheless, I bit the bullet and bought it on day 2, and was really wowed by it for the first hour or two, even having a Half-Life 2 -like moment when you first step into a chaotic outdoor world. I have to agree with many of the previous posters about a couple pretty serious issues with it:
The story is not engaging in the least, and is just a barely-visible link between action setpieces. I never cared about anyone or anything in the narrative. Most of the voice acting, with the exception of Hargreave and Prophet, is outright amateur.
The enemy AI is definitely some of the worst, and I don't say this lightly, that I have played in any modern FPS. It is worse than other console shooters (CoD, Killzone 3) and far worse than Half-Life 2 or even 1. You can literally beat levels running, without stealth, through enemy patrols. If you are far enough away from an enemy, human soldier or alien, and shoot them, they do not respond in any way and instead just stand there to die. The setpieces, where soldiers rappel down into a greenhouse or ambush you in total darkness, have them enter and then just stand still waiting for you in the open. This was absolutely gamebreaking for me, and made the entire game not fun at all (I played it on post-human warrior, the hardest difficulty on my first and only playthrough).
I would actually suggest to play it on easiest or normal, as the increased difficulty doesn't translate into any more fun or any smarter AI, but instead just more bullets to kill the same dumb enemies.
Multiplayer is alright and I have had fun with it, although there is still rampant cheating going on. Also, there are still many issues with the game saving and updating your profile and unlocks online, and if a server disconnects you before you manually "save and exit" from a server, no matter how long you've been playing, you will lose all of your progress.
Overall, it's a good game, definitely a standout for the graphics and suit innovations, but has several issues that would cause me not to recommend it to anyone, at least til they fix some issues.
This game was amazing in 3D. I usually play games on 360 but picked this one up for PS3 just because that console works with TVs much better for 3D mode. Playing this 3D game really changed my console gaming experience. I just hope the 3D quality doesnt turn out to be like the movies, where avatar demonstrated amazing quality and all the rest to follow have been complete garbage.
On April 12 2011 12:40 Coolguy wrote: the thought the game was waaaay too easy, and often you can just stealth by the encounters. You're not even forced to fight most of the times, though that big robot thing really took some time to learn, but that's about it. I would have liked it if it was more like the call of duty single player series. You die so freakin fast if you dont watch your back all the time.
ever thought about changing the game difficulty level to higher if you find it too easy instead of complaining? harder settings are what you are looking for.
sorry for the misunderstanding, but i played it on the hardest difficulty without doing it on lower ones first.
I think the biggest mistake design-wise that crytek made was how easy they made it for people to be able to just cloak through all the levels if they want. they made you have to try too hard to make the game challenging lol. Especially all the dumb suite upgrades that just make the game exponentially easier. Once you get the super nano-suite recharge the game becomes insanely easy.
On April 13 2011 03:28 eAZy1 wrote: Like many, I was at first hyped about the game a few weeks before it came out, but had a slightly bad feeling about it after hearing all of the console tailoring.
Now, I've never been one to hate on a game just because it is also on console as well as PC, and generally disagreed with most of the immature comments from the anti-Call of Duty crowd, but after playing the demo and seeing the "press start to continue", "auto-aim" option, and lack of graphic option tailoring, I was hesitant about getting it.
Nevertheless, I bit the bullet and bought it on day 2, and was really wowed by it for the first hour or two, even having a Half-Life 2 -like moment when you first step into a chaotic outdoor world. I have to agree with many of the previous posters about a couple pretty serious issues with it:
The story is not engaging in the least, and is just a barely-visible link between action setpieces. I never cared about anyone or anything in the narrative. Most of the voice acting, with the exception of Hargreave and Prophet, is outright amateur.
The enemy AI is definitely some of the worst, and I don't say this lightly, that I have played in any modern FPS. It is worse than other console shooters (CoD, Killzone 3) and far worse than Half-Life 2 or even 1. You can literally beat levels running, without stealth, through enemy patrols. If you are far enough away from an enemy, human soldier or alien, and shoot them, they do not respond in any way and instead just stand there to die. The setpieces, where soldiers rappel down into a greenhouse or ambush you in total darkness, have them enter and then just stand still waiting for you in the open. This was absolutely gamebreaking for me, and made the entire game not fun at all (I played it on post-human warrior, the hardest difficulty on my first and only playthrough).
I would actually suggest to play it on easiest or normal, as the increased difficulty doesn't translate into any more fun or any smarter AI, but instead just more bullets to kill the same dumb enemies.
Multiplayer is alright and I have had fun with it, although there is still rampant cheating going on. Also, there are still many issues with the game saving and updating your profile and unlocks online, and if a server disconnects you before you manually "save and exit" from a server, no matter how long you've been playing, you will lose all of your progress.
Overall, it's a good game, definitely a standout for the graphics and suit innovations, but has several issues that would cause me not to recommend it to anyone, at least til they fix some issues.
In regards to the multiplayer disconnect issue, it just down-levels you once, you don't lose all your progress.
EDIT: I would agree with you though that this is not a game anyone should buy at the moment. It simply isn't worth the money with all the bugs and issues. If the game had launched without so many blatant errors I wouldn't regret my purchase as much. It just feels unprofessional and has made me lose respect for Crytek as a company.
On April 13 2011 09:23 HardCorey wrote: In regards to the multiplayer disconnect issue, it just down-levels you once, you don't lose all your progress.
EDIT: I would agree with you though that this is not a game anyone should buy at the moment. It simply isn't worth the money with all the bugs and issues. If the game had launched without so many blatant errors I wouldn't regret my purchase as much. It just feels unprofessional and has made me lose respect for Crytek as a company.
Yeah, I'm definitely going to be wary of Crytek from now on, as well as other PC-to-console shooters. They seem to sacrifice too much while pretending that they aren't.
Let's hope Rage doesn't turn out the same as Crysis 2.
I'm wondering if I should buy this game, for multi-player purposes only, since I've pretty much concluded that the story sucks from your posts and other reviews.
I had a lot of fun playing Halo multi-player, as well as counterstrike and COD series. Obviously those games have quite good multi-player dynamics, but I watched some Crysis matches and I was baffled by the temporary semi-cloak ability, which I thought was OP.
How is the mulit-player scene? is it fun or stupid?
Also I'm expecting DX11 Metro 2033-like graphics to harness my gtx560ti, will I get that? thanks!
played the demo, didn't like it. now a lot of people i used to play other games with ( tactical ops, ut99, ut2k4 ) play it and rave about it. did they change a lot of shit since the demo?
On April 13 2011 13:21 zyglrox wrote: played the demo, didn't like it. now a lot of people i used to play other games with ( tactical ops, ut99, ut2k4 ) play it and rave about it. did they change a lot of shit since the demo?
there are a lot more weapons/maps in the final game so that is nice, but other than that, not really anything has changed.
On April 13 2011 12:14 HotSoup470 wrote: I'm wondering if I should buy this game, for multi-player purposes only, since I've pretty much concluded that the story sucks from your posts and other reviews.
I had a lot of fun playing Halo multi-player, as well as counterstrike and COD series. Obviously those games have quite good multi-player dynamics, but I watched some Crysis matches and I was baffled by the temporary semi-cloak ability, which I thought was OP.
How is the mulit-player scene? is it fun or stupid?
Also I'm expecting DX11 Metro 2033-like graphics to harness my gtx560ti, will I get that? thanks!
Might take awhile to get use to the cloak mechanics, but its not as OP or fucked up as one might think, on the PC i've been playing an average of 4-5 hours per day for 2 weeks and i'm already ranked top1% in terms of exp score, never mind that the top 0.5% cheated their way up there, the game has very few weapon selection but what makes it different from other FPS is the way u manage ur nanosuit energy, thats the key feature of this game, at first ur will rely alot on cloaking to get some sense of security, but after u played long enough, u can actually detect cloaked ppl running around with ur naked eye once u know whats the sign to look for, and its generally a bad practise to run around with cloak since it leaves ur energy too low most of the time when a encounters happens, ie: not enough energy for armor.
hit register is fine, not like the weirdly delayed on Battlefield games, most weapon shots hit instantly except for one weapon. the graphic is absolutely sublime if u can squeeze the best out of it with ur systems. overall i'm having alot of fun with the multiplayer experience, albeit the occasional game spoiling cheaters..
thanks Shizuru, sounds like a good multi-player experience then... managing suit energy sounds like what good players will naturally be forced to do
is there some sort of matchmaking system, or do you just get to own up random players? basically i'm asking if once you get good, is there a way you can be able to only play other good players?
On April 13 2011 13:46 HotSoup470 wrote: thanks Shizuru, sounds like a good multi-player experience then... managing suit energy sounds like what good players will naturally be forced to do
is there some sort of matchmaking system, or do you just get to own up random players? basically i'm asking if once you get good, is there a way you can be able to only play other good players?
random, even though this game was released not more than a month ago, the player count on the PC is extremely low, could be hard to get games some times.
I am enjoying the single player, but it's nothing mind blowing. It was pretty dull up until the point where shit goes crazy and the aliens show up for reals. And I like the visual design of the levels after that point as well.
SP is probably the best 'cinematic linear fps' released - not that it has much honest competition against Call of Duty 3: Epic American Soldier 5. Still, it's not what Crysis was when it was released in 07. Definitely lacks replayability, which is a shame as the game looks incredible and clearly has high production values put into it. I'd give it an 8/10.
MP is where the game really lets itself down. The MP for the original Crysis and the revamped version released with Warhead were criminally underplayed due to the system requirements needed at the time. It was a shame as the maps were large, open areas full of foliage to go prone in, and scattered with 'urban' military bases containing objectives (e.g. vehicle production facilities, respawn points). It gave the game a kind of Battlefield feel, except you had an awesome nanosuit and better netcode.
The MP for Crysis 2 forgoes this for a more arcade style Call of Duty MP, with smaller maps designed to be quickly sprinted around multiple times in a constant manhunt. It feels consolised, 'streamlined' for a 'wider' audience. It just doesn't strike me to have any lasting appeal.
On April 13 2011 09:19 Twisted wrote: Anyone know how to fix the bug at the end of the semper fi or die mission? The bomber doesn't show up and I can't continue with the game =[.
do you mean the mission where the objective is to defend against the alien threat and nothing shows up? i was stuck there for a while, too. you can just go over the wall to the right and ignore the objective. the mission will finish if you go on for a bit
Just bought the game yesterday. Phenomenal graphics. It will run on a medium+ computer, because it uses DX9, instead of Crysis which used DX10. The game, graphically speaking, is almost identical to Crysis (not better, not worse), but Crysis allowed for modded textures which made Crysis look even better.
Either way, the gameplay is amazing, as are the graphics.
I am looking for more people to play online with (PC). Please add me on Crysis 2 if you have it for PC, and are a good FPS player. MyCrysis ID: gulati
With a highly anticipated FPS, backed by publishing giant EA, recieving --for the most part-- good reviews, one would assume that Crysis 2 is a much-played game across all platforms, right? Well, they would wrong; it's not.
According to Xbox LIVE data published by Microsoft's "Major Nelson" yesterday, Crysis 2 isn't even on the top 20 most played games on Xbox LIVE, with titles such as Call of Duty: World at War and even 2007's Halo 3 making appearances on the list -- meaning that more people play said games than Crysis 2.
Things only look worse when we take a look at statistics on Steam. According to the service, there are currently 472 players on right now, with the "peak" being 551. We're unable to take a gander at numbers on the PlayStation 3 version.
Crysis 2 sales 800,000 on the 360 600,000 on the PS3 200,000 on the PC
They're also selling a $10 map pack on the PC, 360 and PS3 to further split the community.
Crysis 1 was the most pirated game of all time, and one of the top 20 most selling games of all time. It built up a huge loyal fanbase, including me, and tried to gather the "CoD Crowd". Therefore alienating their loyal fanbase with that gameplay, and the CoD Crowd becoming completely uninteresting because at the end of the day -- it's still not CoD so they don't care and will not remember it.
Considering how much they probably spent on marketing and producing this game and how hyped they made it, I can't help but call this game a flop. Financially? Not overall, I'm sure they made at least SOME profit, if not a decent amount. Don't get me wrong on that note. But it was by no means a home run like it should and could have been, and the community is for all intensive purposes dead. People in the PC community are now approaching this like they are with CoD, extremely skeptical unless they can prove it's not a steaming pile of shit instead of vice versa.
I'm not going to be a mindless Crytek hater. I still play Crysis 1 all the time, along with Warhead. It's boat loads of fun, and I think this was just more or less a wake up call for them. Hopefully they listen to it and this could just be "that game" that they made.
EDIT: I'm hearing from friends that the budget for Crysis 2 was around $90 million overall. With 1.6 million sales at $60 a pop, that comes out to be $96 million total in profit. And considering most of those sales occurred in actual stores, I think the figure was Developers get roughly 8-12% of the revenue because of the cost of the holder holding the game, packaging the same, selling the game, the labor, the shipping to the store, and of course the Publisher (Activision) getting a portion of the revenue. So it was probably closer to a flat 90 million gained, if anything.
Alright, I finished up Crysis 2. The single player was okish. I liked it up to the alien part. The Crysis 2 urban combat was more entertaining than Crysis 1's Koreans. However, the flow of Crysis 2 felt a bit messy. In addition, the aliens felt inferior to Warhead's counterparts. Also, the final "boss" battle was very very underwhelming. I didn't even realize I was at the last chapter of Crysis 2 until the credits rolled.
The multiplayer was kinda fun. I can't really comment on it though as I haven't played enough.
On May 25 2011 04:58 dukethegold wrote: Warhead remains the best Crysis.
I've been sitting on a sealed copy of it for three years now. I didn't think it was worth playing (I beta tested Crysis Wars and it was kinda fun) so I was hoping to sell it. I guess I'd better open it up now, especially because MechWarrior: Living Legends 0.5.0 Open Beta was just released.
With a highly anticipated FPS, backed by publishing giant EA, recieving --for the most part-- good reviews, one would assume that Crysis 2 is a much-played game across all platforms, right? Well, they would wrong; it's not.
According to Xbox LIVE data published by Microsoft's "Major Nelson" yesterday, Crysis 2 isn't even on the top 20 most played games on Xbox LIVE, with titles such as Call of Duty: World at War and even 2007's Halo 3 making appearances on the list -- meaning that more people play said games than Crysis 2.
Things only look worse when we take a look at statistics on Steam. According to the service, there are currently 472 players on right now, with the "peak" being 551. We're unable to take a gander at numbers on the PlayStation 3 version.
Crysis 2 sales 800,000 on the 360 600,000 on the PS3 200,000 on the PC
They're also selling a $10 map pack on the PC, 360 and PS3 to further split the community.
Crysis 1 was the most pirated game of all time, and one of the top 20 most selling games of all time. It built up a huge loyal fanbase, including me, and tried to gather the "CoD Crowd". Therefore alienating their loyal fanbase with that gameplay, and the CoD Crowd becoming completely uninteresting because at the end of the day -- it's still not CoD so they don't care and will not remember it.
Considering how much they probably spent on marketing and producing this game and how hyped they made it, I can't help but call this game a flop. Financially? Not overall, I'm sure they made at least SOME profit, if not a decent amount. Don't get me wrong on that note. But it was by no means a home run like it should and could have been, and the community is for all intensive purposes dead. People in the PC community are now approaching this like they are with CoD, extremely skeptical unless they can prove it's not a steaming pile of shit instead of vice versa.
I'm not going to be a mindless Crytek hater. I still play Crysis 1 all the time, along with Warhead. It's boat loads of fun, and I think this was just more or less a wake up call for them. Hopefully they listen to it and this could just be "that game" that they made.
EDIT: I'm hearing from friends that the budget for Crysis 2 was around $90 million overall. With 1.6 million sales at $60 a pop, that comes out to be $96 million total in profit. And considering most of those sales occurred in actual stores, I think the figure was Developers get roughly 8-12% of the revenue because of the cost of the holder holding the game, packaging the same, selling the game, the labor, the shipping to the store, and of course the Publisher (Activision) getting a portion of the revenue. So it was probably closer to a flat 90 million gained, if anything.
2 questions: do those count online sells for the PC version? And where did you get the stats of crysis 1 being "most pirated game of all time"? I remember several news articles about spore being the most pirated game of all time, and that came out a year after crysis 1.
It was the most pirated for a while, it was overcame by Spore and something else. But it's in the top 5 now. I just remembered that now that you tell me, haha. Spore had like 4.1 mil, and I think Crysis was like 2 million or something.
On May 25 2011 04:52 Fruscainte wrote: EDIT: I'm hearing from friends that the budget for Crysis 2 was around $90 million overall. With 1.6 million sales at $60 a pop, that comes out to be $96 million total in profit. And considering most of those sales occurred in actual stores, I think the figure was Developers get roughly 8-12% of the revenue because of the cost of the holder holding the game, packaging the same, selling the game, the labor, the shipping to the store, and of course the Publisher (Activision) getting a portion of the revenue. So it was probably closer to a flat 90 million gained, if anything.
Revenue, not profit.
I'm pretty disappointed by Crysis 2. The graphics effects are phenomenal (lighting, shadows, omfg) but the textures are awfully lowres. The controls are terrible and the overall feeling is console-ish, which is something I abhor. I didn't play Halo because of it - and I didn't finish Mass Effect partly because of it (the other part was the game's excessive level of repetitiveness). I personally like Crysis 1 better than Warhead, if only for the fact that it's a bit longer.
Got the game on PC for steam, haven't touched the SP (only really care about MP). Really disappointed, not at all because of the gameplay or graphics (both of which are amazing and I love) but because nobody fucking plays it. Either the matchmaking system's broken or there's actually hardly anyone on, because there are only a few populated servers most of the time and the quick match function brings me to an empty server over and over again. Hopefully the DX11 patch will get more people playing it, it's an amazing game and surpasses CoD on so many levels.
I just downloaded the DX11 and high-res textures patch. DX11 just absolutely rapes my system (phenom II x4 and radeon hd 5870). I can't even handly DX9 on ultra...
On June 28 2011 02:50 maartendq wrote: I just downloaded the DX11 and high-res textures patch. DX11 just absolutely rapes my system (phenom II x4 and radeon hd 5870). I can't even handly DX9 on ultra...
People asked for insane graphics, they got them..
That system should be able to play it fine on DX9 at least...
On June 28 2011 02:50 maartendq wrote: I just downloaded the DX11 and high-res textures patch. DX11 just absolutely rapes my system (phenom II x4 and radeon hd 5870). I can't even handly DX9 on ultra...
People asked for insane graphics, they got them..
That system should be able to play it fine on DX9 at least...
They added some stuff in DX9 mode too (like shaders, post-processing, better shadows, ssao etc etc).
It easily runs the game on dx9 extreme, now gonna test dx11 extreme.
what a great game. probably the best ive played so far this year. one crazy sequence after another. if you like shooters you owe it to yourself to check this out.
I am able to run on ultra settings no problem, with over 30 frame per second pretty much all the time. My GPU gets hot but nothing abnormal.
I just tried the game with DX11 and the new hi-res textures at the same time. I didn't have anything to measure the fps while I played but it did feel like I was dropping below 30 frames per second. What was the most scary is that my rig got dangerously hot when I played. I went back to ultra setting and kept the hi-res textures, and now I am able to play with a good framerate.
On July 05 2011 12:38 Fruscainte wrote: Wait, so this game came on Dx9 and had a Dx11 patch. I'm assuming the patch gives Dx10 as well, yes?
If they didn't specify it supports it, then I doubt it supports it.
As an example, Call of Duty 2 on PC had DX7 and DX9 modes, there was no in between.
EDIT: Upon looking it up (should do this first before I post), it seems that DX11 is backwards compatible with DX10 and 10.1, so I think that the features that exist in DX11 that are also in DX10 or 10.1 will still run if you have a 10 or 10.1 compliant video card. My mistake.
On July 05 2011 12:38 Fruscainte wrote: Wait, so this game came on Dx9 and had a Dx11 patch. I'm assuming the patch gives Dx10 as well, yes?
If they didn't specify it supports it, then I doubt it supports it.
As an example, Call of Duty 2 on PC had DX7 and DX9 modes, there was no in between.
EDIT: Upon looking it up (should do this first before I post), it seems that DX11 is backwards compatible with DX10 and 10.1, so I think that the features that exist in DX11 that are also in DX10 or 10.1 will still run if you have a 10 or 10.1 compliant video card. My mistake.
Just found out about this, since for some reason mycrysis didn't email me to let me know they finally fixed this travesty. Maybe I'll finally finish this game now.
I fully expect to have to turn Vsync off, but I also expect playable framerates. My computer is a tad beastly though.
On July 26 2012 23:46 Torte de Lini wrote: Crysis 2 worth playing? I actually liked Crysis 1.
Worth playing?
Yes.
Better than the first?
No.
What made the first incredible was it's pacing and atmospheric tension, you could feel the island was hiding something.. + Boss fights.
Man the boss fights were great.
Sadly none in Crysis 2 which seems to me like a huge tech demo rather than a continuation. The continued story is meh at best. Bit of a few twists but there was nothing to cap it off like in the original. No big baddie/s to kill just the same levels in a different layout. dissapointing really, Crysis 1 was amazing.
On July 26 2012 23:46 Torte de Lini wrote: Crysis 2 worth playing? I actually liked Crysis 1.
Worth playing?
Yes.
Better than the first?
No.
What made the first incredible was it's pacing and atmospheric tension, you could feel the island was hiding something.. + Boss fights.
Man the boss fights were great.
Sadly none in Crysis 2 which seems to me like a huge tech demo rather than a continuation. The continued story is meh at best. Bit of a few twists but there was nothing to cap it off like in the original. No big baddie/s to kill just the same levels in a different layout. dissapointing really, Crysis 1 was amazing.
On July 26 2012 23:46 Torte de Lini wrote: Crysis 2 worth playing? I actually liked Crysis 1.
Worth playing?
Yes.
Better than the first?
No.
What made the first incredible was it's pacing and atmospheric tension, you could feel the island was hiding something.. + Boss fights.
Man the boss fights were great.
Sadly none in Crysis 2 which seems to me like a huge tech demo rather than a continuation. The continued story is meh at best. Bit of a few twists but there was nothing to cap it off like in the original. No big baddie/s to kill just the same levels in a different layout. dissapointing really, Crysis 1 was amazing.
On July 26 2012 23:46 Torte de Lini wrote: Crysis 2 worth playing? I actually liked Crysis 1.
I really liked Crysis 1. Played it through in like a week-end and replayed it many times after. For Crysis 2, though, I had to force myself to finish it. It took me about a month to get through all the levels and I can't say I enjoyed it. It's not a bad game per se, but it was so different from the game I wanted it to be that it felt like a bad game to me.
Crysis 2 caters to a completely different audience than the first one. It's probably worth trying out, but don't expect a continuation of anything Crysis 1! Story, gameplay, nanosuit, protagonist, art style: everything has changed completely.
It's basically a new franchise which kept the old name and a voice actor. If you enjoy the newer Call of Duty games, you might like this game, too.
On July 26 2012 23:46 Torte de Lini wrote: Crysis 2 worth playing? I actually liked Crysis 1.
Worth playing?
Yes.
Better than the first?
No.
What made the first incredible was it's pacing and atmospheric tension, you could feel the island was hiding something.. + Boss fights.
Man the boss fights were great.
Sadly none in Crysis 2 which seems to me like a huge tech demo rather than a continuation. The continued story is meh at best. Bit of a few twists but there was nothing to cap it off like in the original. No big baddie/s to kill just the same levels in a different layout. dissapointing really, Crysis 1 was amazing.
On July 26 2012 23:46 Torte de Lini wrote: Crysis 2 worth playing? I actually liked Crysis 1.
I really liked Crysis 1. Played it through in like a week-end and replayed it many times after. For Crysis 2, though, I had to force myself to finish it. It took me about a month to get through all the levels and I can't say I enjoyed it. It's not a bad game per se, but it was so different from the game I wanted it to be that it felt like a bad game to me.
Crysis 2 caters to a completely different audience than the first one. It's probably worth trying out, but don't expect a continuation of anything Crysis 1! Story, gameplay, nanosuit, protagonist, art style: everything has changed completely.
It's basically a new franchise which kept the old name and a voice actor. If you enjoy the newer Call of Duty games, you might like this game, too.
On July 26 2012 23:46 Torte de Lini wrote: Crysis 2 worth playing? I actually liked Crysis 1.
Worth playing?
Yes.
Better than the first?
No.
What made the first incredible was it's pacing and atmospheric tension, you could feel the island was hiding something.. + Boss fights.
Man the boss fights were great.
Sadly none in Crysis 2 which seems to me like a huge tech demo rather than a continuation. The continued story is meh at best. Bit of a few twists but there was nothing to cap it off like in the original. No big baddie/s to kill just the same levels in a different layout. dissapointing really, Crysis 1 was amazing.
there were bosses in Crysis 2, lol.
wut. where.
The pinger, for example.
yea I thought that's what he meant. never thought of them as bosses though as they were repeatedly thrown in. I consider bosses a personable thing. Something that either comes once (you kill it) or it comes again after a first encounter. All in all it's an individual. Pinger's were just there to break pacing before cut scenes. Silly to consider them bosses I think. Also the finale battle where you face the invisible protoss snipers was just as horrible. Nothing compared to the first where you kill giant spider monkey feel safe then momma ship arrives. that's exhilirating. not the silly excuse for 'bosses' they have in cry2
On July 26 2012 23:46 Torte de Lini wrote: Crysis 2 worth playing? I actually liked Crysis 1.
No. While it may be nice-looking, the plot pretty much goes to hell from the first game.
Combine that with several confusing areas and the feel of constant "this is the deciding battle" stuff, it's not that good.
All that Crysis 1 achieved in cinematic videogame story and scenes, Crysis 2 squandered.
totally agree. crysis 1 left a perfect cliff hangar for the second but they thought scrap that. we're gonna show off our new tech in the city. we'll just alter the story line a little so it seems plausible.
I'm amused by all those people saying that their beastly PCs had better be able to run the game. I played it on a 2.2 Ghz single core CPU (AMD 3400+ I think), 2 GB DDR1 RAM, and a 1 GB DDR5 4890 HD. The game ran at 40 something FPS on the low graphics setting at 1440x900. Frankly, turning up the graphics didn't really change how the game looked by much. The only issues I had on that setup were that the game would occasionally crash, and loads took up to a minute.