CRYSIS 2 DX11 PATCH TOMORROW

[Redeemed]

Originally Posted by Logical

If i had 5 year old hardware pumping out visuals like the ones in Crysis 2 i too would be very happy and not whining. Instead i have 2 year old hardware that would run Crysis 2 near enough identical to the 5 year old console hardware....ofc im pissed. When dev's blog about how they are going to be making the most of todays PC hardware i expect them to fulfill there promises instead of this BS they have passed onto us.

OMG i cant believe im getting flamed in a PC gaming thread forum because i expect more from a PC game...Methinks you guys are getting too easily pleased by todays low quality PC games.

You completely missed my point- Crysis 1 was everything you just asked for here in this post. Yet most bitched about it's poor performance. Just what the hell do ya'll expect? Have ya'll developed some wierd believe that absolute cream-of-the-crop rigs should never, ever, under any circumstances, have low framerates? That "fully take advantage of my expensive hardware" means that it'll look life-like-amazing while running at 120fps with 8xAA and vsync?

The idiocy is in such beliefs. Rediculously insane good graphics come and the penalty of lower FPS. This is how it has always been. Go back to the times of SoF, SoF II, MoH:AA, CoD, HL2, and Doom3- those were games that pushed the envolope regarding graphics capabilities at thier respective times. Yet, surprisingly enough, top end rigs back then couldn't push them 100% maxed without taking a performance hit. Heck, it wasn't till the 6800 series we were able to properly play HL2 and FarCry, even then to use high resolutions with AA you needed SLi'd 6800's. I think Doom3 was the only one where we could max it out without issues upon release (save the the Ultra mode which visually brought no improvements).

It's just after those games we really didn't receive any games that were huge ground-breakers in regards to graphics untill Crysis. Sure there was FEAR but that wasn't that huge of a leap. So we had from what- 2004 till whenver Crysis came out... 2007 if I recall? Three years of games that would always run maxed with AA on our expensive rigs. Then crytek releases a game that is very much like the ground-breaking PC games of old and suddenly the pc gaming community turned into a bunch of wet-diaper-infants.

I'd put money down that if Crytek had released Crysis 2 as another graphical/physics behemoth like Crysis 1 was the same people bitching now would still be bitching that their expensive rigs couldn't run it maxed.

No matter what, the PC crowd always finds some petty reason to bitch is my point. They bitch about games not pushing their expensive rigs. The get a game that pushes their expensive rig. They bitch it's not optimized. They get a game that is optimized. They bitch it doesn't push their expensive rig. It's like, suddenly PC gamers turned into a bunch of... bitches!

Just shut up and develop some freaking consistency is all I ask. Want a game with bleeding edge graphics? Don't cry when those bleeding edge graphics makes your hardware bleed. Want a game that is omptimized? Stop bitching when you get one that is optimized.

Consistency. Something the PC community lacks in a very big way.

[Logical]

Originally Posted by LydianKnight

Yes, I'm going to buy it in the next... 6 months timeframe. So what? For me it's a good game or, to be more precise, looks like a good game. Not like Crysis 1 (but hey, it's MY opinion).

Like grey_1 and other people, I'm not going to pay $60 for a game. I'll get it when it's less pricey. But that doesn't make me going like 'they deserve for the game to be pirated' and crap like that...

If you don't like something, don't buy it or don't play it, but why talking about piracy? It's not only very incorrect, politically speaking, but also the perfect excuse developers are looking for to migrate to the console world or just deliver games with poor content or just not delivering the full experience for a given game (like, for example, the absence of many DLCs from AAA titles like Dead Space 2 or Bioshock 2 or many others, just to name a few).

So, like I said, yeah... keep up the good work

Your totally missing my point...Devs will blame PC piracy for poor sales and then use that excuse to release a crappy cut down game the next time round, thus each time the PC gets a release that less and less time is being spent on it to make it a quality PC game.

This has been going on for years now and people are forgetting the real reason that the game isn't being sold that well....and thats cos it sucks. (not just crysis 2 but other sloppy ports too). Now just say for instance that piracy didn't exsist! Would more people buy a poor game because they couldn't get it for free illegaly ? I don't think so...I personally think they wouldn't bother at all.

But nowadays DEVS can release a piss poor game, get bad sales and then turn around and say "hmmm this hasn't done as well as expected on the PC platform, but we can't go out in public and put our hands up and say hey this is a bad game on PC as we couldn't be arsed putting as much effort into it as the console versions, meh just blame it on piracy".

[Redeemed]

Originally Posted by slaWter

I can't really understand your point.

You're running old hardware and are complaining about Crysis 2's current visuals. A game that looks stunning overall, even though it's only a DX9 game without POM or awesome water effects. Still it runs great on your old hardware! I'm really pleased that I can play this game on my GTX 280 rig with no issues. If the game would provide better visuals, we wouldn't be able to play it with our old systems...

Like I said in the other thread, Crysis 1 was a visual revolution, Crysis 2 is a performance/optimization revolution. This can be a really, really good thing for upcoming PC version of CryEngine 3 games

This is the short version of my take on the matter. I'm looking forward to some amazing games on CE3.

[LydianKnight]

Originally Posted by Redeemed

The PC community needs to make up it's collective mind. First they criticize Crytek cause in truth Crysis was just too demanding for the hardware available at the time yet the gamers claimed it was just "unoptimized". Now Crytek makes Crysis 2 very optimise and the gamers scream "it's not the graphics and physics show case Crysis 1 was! WAAAAAH!"

So frikken annoying. The one thing I'm beginning to love about the console crowd is in general I notice a lot less bitching and whining.

I couldn't agree more with you. The PC community needs a fresh breeze of air in their minds.

I can understand a person spending lots of money (or maybe not that much but still...) in a high-performant high-definition-gaming-able machine will feel very frustrated when they see the quality standard starts from the console base with a slight touch of ramp-up.

But they perfectly know where are they heading when they do that purchase (the niche class, so they can't really demand anything because they're that... a niche class, hence... a minority without real rights over the rest) so what's the big deal about it?

Another endless topic in the PC community is PS vs Console. Ok, we already know PCs have more power than a console (although that gap is getting smaller and smaller by the second), so what? PC games (and gamers) and Console games (and gamers) aren't enemies or whatever, just that... games and gamers.

So, in the end, yeah... we need a _BIG_ change in mentality (because, anyway, PC & Console gaming is going dissapear (as in 'merge') in the next... 10 years or so), and... the sooner, the better.

[Logical]

Crysis 1 was ground breaking in visuals at its time...

Well kick me in the nuts for wanting Crytek to do the same again this time round but instead they chose to make the console version their primary concern. Now i dont blame them for this..who can, like any other job you go where the money is....However, when Cervat stands there in an interview and tell us the PC version will be just as ground breaking as the original Crysis and then they give us a console game, ofc im gonna question them. We were originally told that the PC version was lead platform and that it would make use of 'Todays' hardware...being DX11 gpu's.

At Christmas i got myself an X360...i hardly ever play it cept when i fancy a go of Forza 3 or Trials HD. I am coming upto my 3 year upgrade (i upgrade my PC to the latest hardware every 3 years and my GPU every year), so far the only excuse for me getting a DX11 GPU namely the GTX580 or its sucessor is BF3. If BF3 has DX10 and there aint much difference between them im not gonna be upgrading anytime soon. I used to upgrade my GPU every year, but this time i have seen no reason to and untill the next gen consoles are out i really dont think there is any justification in buying a DX11 GPU and i must see a lot more games in the pipeline that is gonna use DX11 before i do purchase a new GPU. Seeing as the consoles are getting more love these days i might be tempted to start doing a lot more gaming on them and maybe pass up on upgrading this year untill the next gen consoles are out.

I figure there will be a lot of people that use this analogy. What is the point in buying brand new hardware to play games that is based on older hardware with maybe 1 or 2 titles supporting new hardware at best ? Nvidia and AMD 'MUST' be losing sales due to the lack of support for PC games from dev's.

This post is way off topic and im sorry for that but can you people understand what multiformat devs are doing to the PC platform. If i want a console experience i will play my console, but it has been so long since i have had a real PC gaming experience, perhaps BF2 was the last...Not so long ago there was talk in another thread about the standardisation of an API in the PC platform. Another words every gaming PC would use the same GPU/API. Fact is folks is GPU's that costs £60 are able to play games near enough at the same quality of a GPU that cost £500 at hardly any performance hit ok maybe a little over exageration there, but you see my point the price to performance/visual ratio in todays GPU's for todays games just isn't worth it and if you dont believe me try having a look at Crysis 2 on lowest settings compared to how it is on highest settings.

As a gamer i cannot lose, i enjoy games on all platforms but have preferences on which type of games i play on each platform.. It is clear to me that dev's are taking short cuts and giving PC gamers the same as console gamers...maybe good news for when next gen consoles are out but terrible news as it is atm.

[agentkay]

http://twitter.com/CRYTEK_TIAGO/stat...34965503873024

[Logical]

Originally Posted by slaWter

I can't really understand your point.

You're running old hardware and are complaining about Crysis 2's current visuals. A game that looks stunning overall, even though it's only a DX9 game without POM or awesome water effects. Still it runs great on your old hardware! I'm really pleased that I can play this game on my GTX 280 rig with no issues. If the game would provide better visuals, we wouldn't be able to play it with our old systems...

Like I said in the other thread, Crysis 1 was a visual revolution, Crysis 2 is a performance/optimization revolution. This can be a really, really good thing for upcoming PC version of CryEngine 3 games

GTX285 is not old hardware, a PS3 and X360 is, you should be clear about the lifespan of GPU's as atm there isnt many games that are DX9 or 10 that i dont run full whack with at least 8xAA. The fact that im able to do that pisses me off as i want games that can be played in higher settings when i do decide to upgrade. DX11 is atm not worth the upgrade.

Redeemed you need to stop tarnishing all PC gamers with the same brush...because everyone has different opinions, i was happy with the performance and visual quality of Crysis 1 on its release and i as a PC gamer knew at the time that in 12 months i would get a new GPU and be able to play Crysis at higher settings...some didn't like that and some did. Unfortunately this is not possible with Crysis 2.

Eventually PC games will be just the same as console versions on every release. Good news for the console owners bad news for PC owners and the PC platform.

[Sean_W]

We all would have brought it if it was DX10/11 only full of settings, non ****ty menu system, editor, AA, full physics and do't say you wouldn't have.

For me it's the whole package, not just gameplay and Crysis 2 isn't the whole package(yet).

[Logical]

Originally Posted by slaWter

GTX 285 is old as well. Current console tech should only be displayed in tech museums as far as I'm concerned.

Anyway, if the game would provide more advanced visual settings, a GTX 285 wouldn't be enough. In my opinion, Crytek did a great job with their new engine. I get 35+ FPS at 1920x1200, 4x AA with my old GTX 280.

They screwed up the menu and modding part for the PC version though.

Yeah i can agree with that but my problem is that i dont want to be able to run Crysis 2 at full whack with my GPU, lol and not because my GPU can handle the visuals but because the visuals on Crysis 2 are not good enough to bring my 2 year old GPU down to its knees.

Damn i dont even have a reason to get a 2nd GTX285 for SLI nm a brand new DX11 GPU.

Originally Posted by agentkay

http://twitter.com/CRYTEK_TIAGO/stat...34965503873024

Nice, thanks agentkay. I like the sounds of that.

[Redeemed]

I don't get it- "..16ms or more to have fun with pc hardware..." What does he mean by "16ms"?

[agentkay]

Originally Posted by Redeemed

I don't get it- "..16ms or more to have fun with pc hardware..." What does he mean by "16ms"?

The performance budget that they have available for the DX11 effects.