Crysis 2 only DX9 - DX11 will be "later" with an update

[crash5s]

Crytek will realize they f'kd their franchise by screwing the PC gamers when Battlefield 3 sales blows it out of the water.

They realized they ed up the first time when nobody could run it and threw a fit thus screwing up their sales. Maybe this time they'll take the hint and not bather with a drama queen community.

[Musho]

They realized they ed up the first time when nobody could run it and threw a fit thus screwing up their sales. Maybe this time they'll take the hint and not bather with a drama queen community.

Dude, my laptop with a 5470 with a measly 80 shaders can run Crysis and Crysis warhead just fine. The engine scales down amazingly well.

What would you rather have?

A. Game that looks really good at medium settings and runs at current hardware, but looks better than anything presented so far at max settings, but needs next-gen hardware.

B. Game that looks really good at max settings and runs at current hardware, but there's no way to increase the graphics further.

Crysis 1 went with A, and I'm glad it went with that choice. It made sure new and faster hardware than available was needed. That's what's pushing PC-gaming graphics!

[Hornet331]

Dude, my laptop with a 5470 with a measly 80 shaders can run Crysis and Crysis warhead just fine. The engine scales down amazingly well.

What would you rather have?

A. Game that looks really good at medium settings and runs at current hardware, but looks better than anything presented so far at max settings, but needs next-gen hardware.

B. Game that looks really good at max settings and runs at current hardware, but there's no way to increase the graphics further.

Crysis 1 went with A, and I'm glad it went with that choice. It made sure new and faster hardware than available was needed. That's what's pushing PC-gaming graphics!

Indeed, was quite funney when everyone complained the could run it on very high (expect those with tripple sli) or custom extreme. Yet the game even had amazing effects on high.

[crash5s]

Dude, my laptop with a 5470 with a measly 80 shaders can run Crysis and Crysis warhead just fine. The engine scales down amazingly well.

What would you rather have?

A. Game that looks really good at medium settings and runs at current hardware, but looks better than anything presented so far at max settings, but needs next-gen hardware.

B. Game that looks really good at max settings and runs at current hardware, but there's no way to increase the graphics further.

Crysis 1 went with A, and I'm glad it went with that choice. It made sure new and faster hardware than available was needed. That's what's pushing PC-gaming graphics!

Crysis 1 was stupid because it went with A. It wasn't that good of a game unless it was cranked all the way up, and once you beat it there wasn't much of a point going back since you already knew what to do and had seen it all.

If you had an SLI 8800 configuration when it hit, Crysis 1 was a good game, if you didn't it was a bad game, this is entirely because it relied on visuals. So it was only worth a purchase for a minority of people, thus it didn't sell well and got pirated to hell and back, oh well, don't release games most people can't play properly.

Crysis 2 is a good game, and more people can run it.

The proper approach to PC gaming is companies like Valve. Don't release products that most people can't properly enjoy.

I'd rather see PC gaming grow and improve, and releasing games that the majority of people can't fully enjoy isn't the way to go about it. That's a sure way to keep decreasing the amount of people that can play and make it a substandard and obnoxious platform for people, and we've seen the results of that in people purchasing less games and moving to consoles.

[[XC] hipno650]

Crysis 1 was stupid because it went with A. It wasn't that good of a game unless it was cranked all the way up, and once you beat it there wasn't much of a point going back since you already knew what to do and had seen it all.

If you had an SLI 8800 configuration when it hit, Crysis 1 was a good game, if you didn't it was a bad game, this is entirely because it relied on visuals. So it was only worth a purchase for a minority of people, thus it didn't sell well and got pirated to hell and back, oh well, don't release games most people can't play properly.

Crysis 2 is a good game, and more people can run it.

The proper approach to PC gaming is companies like Valve. Don't release products that most people can't properly enjoy.

I'd rather see PC gaming grow and improve, and releasing games that the majority of people can't fully enjoy isn't the way to go about it. That's a sure way to keep decreasing the amount of people that can play and make it a substandard and obnoxious platform for people, and we've seen the results of that in people purchasing less games and moving to consoles.

Maybe it's just me but the first time I played through Crysis it was on a 1950XTX and it ran decent on all medium settings. I played it and loved it. I have many times gone back and played it over. I play it again almost every-time I upgrade my system and each time the experience gets better and better. One thing I loved about it was the sound design. Once I got off of onboard sound and into my X-FI with some decent headphones it was like a whole new game...

lots of people say otherwise but I think the open maps and the Nano Suit made Crysis one of the best shooters from a gameplay perspective. lots of people also rag hard on the AI in the game but I would really like to see a shooter with better AI... ya they tend to turn around from time to time. but I have yet to find another game where the AI will use the terrain effectively to hide and flank you... also the AI is much more Dynamic than you might think. I have played through Crysis and Warhead many times and in the same spot I offen get different AI responses to how I play. for example if I go all Rambo style into a champ I might be met with reinforcing troops rocking in a truck. other times it will be just guys on foot and sometimes nothing at all. the AI feels much more simulated compared to scripted.

I will be firing up Crysis 2 tonight in 3D Vision, after which I will be able to render my full impressions of the game form what I got out of the Demo however I'm not expecting to be impressed.

[Luka_Aveiro]

I am sorry brother, but all your post is belong to wrong.

I'll show you why.

Crysis 1 was stupid because it went with A. It wasn't that good of a game unless it was cranked all the way up, and once you beat it there wasn't much of a point going back since you already knew what to do and had seen it all.

In Crysis 1 you had an open world and a sandbox gameplay, where you could choose multiple aproaches on how to achieve a goal. Non linear gameplay, possibility to choose. Do you have that with Crysis 2? No.

If you had an SLI 8800 configuration when it hit, Crysis 1 was a good game, if you didn't it was a bad game, this is entirely because it relied on visuals.

This has got to be one of the most funny things I have heard in a good time. So, if a new road was built, it would only be a good road if I could afford to drive a Ferrari, just because I have a Ford Fiesta it's a bad road then. Very good.

So it was only worth a purchase for a minority of people, thus it didn't sell well and got pirated to hell and back, oh well, don't release games most people can't play properly.

Crysis sold so badly that Crytek had to open several studios worldwide. It was pirated back and forth because it was made using the above mentioned A method.

Crysis 2 is a good game, and more people can run it.

So a good game is a game that has decent visuals, linear gameplay and entertains. And all this time I thought lower expectations wouldn't make a game good...

The proper approach to PC gaming is companies like Valve. Don't release products that most people can't properly enjoy.

That's a way to go. Crytek did good with Crysis, but then they went multi-platform with Crysis 2 and delivered what most of people that played Crysis and Warhead would choose not to have: a god damned console port.

I'd rather see PC gaming grow and improve, and releasing games that the majority of people can't fully enjoy isn't the way to go about it. That's a sure way to keep decreasing the amount of people that can play and make it a substandard and obnoxious platform for people, and we've seen the results of that in people purchasing less games and moving to consoles.

I'm sorry to tell you this, but Crysis had perfect optimization levels, as lower end hardware could run the game with correspondent visual performance.
That's optimization, not having an 8800GT and wanting to run the game max settings 1920x1080 4xAA...