I wonder how the rest of you feel about this. I keep seeing people that say "the graphics look great STFU..." or something similar. Yes the graphics look good on all platforms, but my computer has 10 times the power of a console in the video card alone (not sure if that's really true, but prob close, 560 TI in SLI btw)... I think you get my point.

If this was just another shooter by EA I would put a good bet that people most people would say this is an amazing looking game. It is the fact that it is the sequel to Crysis that seems to have most people up in arms.

Also the advanced configuration does not let you go above Extreme settings it just lets you have more ability to tweak between the 3 different settings. Saying that the advance configuration utility makes the game look better than max is a placebo effect (unless you are tweaking bloom settings to your own personal preference).

vote for number 3. but i believe crytek could do alot better than what we currently have if they truly utilize ultra high-end pc hardware

the graphics svck and thats all i say about this game. I am not playing until they release high resolution texture pack and Direct X11 for this game

I think your just pissed because you still didnt get your DirectX 11 Patch and DX11 Tesselation... and than you come back crying because your computer doesnt have the power to run it anymore i bet

@TS: Graphics look great even in Full HD resolution, but yes they could have made it a lot better looking and harder to run for your PC if they fully optimized it for PC.

If yopu want a game that brings any PC to its limits than you slould look into the soon to be released IL-2 Sturmovik, Cliffs of Dover, they went a bit insaine with the level of detail on that one (took 6 years to make!!!)

Voted number 3.

No,the graphics are not good enough.Textures could be WAY more crisp.
The graphics are far away from being bad but it still could be ALOT better.Like Crysis + graphics mods.

the graphics svck and thats all i say about this game. I am not playing until they release high resolution texture pack and Direct X11 for this game

I think your just pissed because you still didnt get your DirectX 11 Patch and DX11 Tesselation... and than you come back crying because your computer doesnt have the power to run it anymore i bet

I don't think we will be getting DX11. Sad but we may have to just face it:
http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/22265-no-dx11-patch-on-tap-for-crysis-2

I will be returning for refund if this DX11 doesn't come in the next few weeks... Fun game but falsely advertised for PC.

I think they are great, after surmounting the various graphics problems like the fabled flicker and a few other bugs here and there.... i had a real good time... still having it sorry...

People get furious about Crysis 2 not being the next technological benchmark, but DirectX and pixel shaders aside, it is a very good looking game. Environments have great artistic design, and NYC architecture is instantly recognizable, though the textures are fairly low-res compared to Crysis. I particularly liked the particle effects, all the ember and papers floating around really add life to the scenes.

I didn't like the character design though. The new nanosuit looks like its made of cheap plastic, it's too shiny. Not digging the enemy design either. CELL have funny looking combat gear and ridiculous hexagon-shaped camo patterns on their uniforms. Marines don't look too believeable, compared to Modern Warfare 2 for example. And the Ceph, jeez. In the first game they really looked... alien. Now they seem like mechs with bunny ears, a real disappointment there.

Animation isn't that great, and the bloom can be overbearing but all in all the game does please my aesthetic senses, mostly due to the wonderful level design.

14 people havent played the firstone and probably call themselves pc gamers :) muhahahahaha ;..;

Remember the forums all over the internet when the development of Crysis 2 was first announced? The most common question that was asked was about whether the consoles will drag down the PC and make the PC version "worse" than Crysis 1. They tried to calm us down by assuring us that the graphics will not be a step backwards from Crysis 2. We now have a game that looks better in terms of overall art direction and the environment settings, in my opinion. But all of that does not excuse the low resolution textures on the PC compared the the higher textures we had before.

This is Crysis and not any other game. I expected compromises because of the consoles, and the game still looks overall relatively beautiful, but the individual low quality textures are unforgivable.

On top of that, Crytek are also hurting themselves from this. You see, Crysis 1 and Crysis Warhead gained notoriety due to their high PC spec requirements. That benefits Crytek in that they include MEDIUM settings for more "common" PC specs, but also, the reputation of the game's "cutting edge", "history-making" advanced maximum levels promotes the game further than any other PC game graphics-wise.

Look at how many PC gamers upgraded their PC just to play Crysis. Everyone has heard the term: "CAN IT PLAY CRYSIS". Look at how many graphics card benchmarks reviews all over the internet used Crysis 1 as an important benchmark. So, what PC moaners are complaining about is for Crytek's own good. If you have a PC game that just blends in graphically with all the other PC games, then it is essentially just another PC game. If, on the other hand, you do the same game, but include a graphical option for super high resolution textures that make the game look outstanding and will be written down in history books for its impact on the PC world, then you, Crytek, benefit.

Cevat Yerli on an interview with PC Play in April 2008 stated that he was disappointed to see Crysis 1 leading the charts in piracy. Yet, by May 2010, Crysis 1 had sold over 3 million units (and its standalone expansion about 1.5 million units) making it one of the best selling PC games of all time. Why did it sell so well. Do you really think people bought that game for its storyline? I don't think so. There was nothing special about its storyline. The reason it was such a popular PC game was mostly due to its graphical notoriety.

Of course, Crysis 2 will also sell well on the PC, especially as the Crysis series has an established PC fan base. However, it is a shame that Crytek with this new game, which is still a good game, has turned their backs on their own "cutting edge" high PC reputation which made them successful.

I spent $4000 on a god-like computer 9 months ago for - guess what? - Crysis 2.

My rig has more trouble running Call of Pripyat Complete than this game. In fact, I've been taking screenshots of CoP's textures lately for a comparison between textures which have largely been created by non-profit modders (Complete mod) and textures which were created by the company that was once known as one of the leaders of PC development.

Call of Pripyat. Notice the incredible detail in the ground at the Jupiter checkpoint during the rain. Looks pretty awesome, right?


Crysis 2. These are some wall textures from the multiplayer map, Lighthouse. Notice the distinct lack of POM and of any real detail.


I would've uploaded a Crysis 2 ground texture, but the only screenshots I have focus on wall textures and, really, it wouldn't matter in the long run.

In any case, that graphics that were largely created by nonprofit modders look better than the CryEngine 3 on such a basic detail - textures - is a clear sign that anything past the Nvidia 9 series mark and the Intel Core 2 Duo line (and anything comparable from AMD) is complete overkill for maxing out Crysis 2. I say these exact specs because that's the rig my friend has, and he runs it at 60 FPS on full detail.

No is ugly

vote for number 3. but i believe crytek could do alot better than what we currently have if they truly utilize ultra high-end pc hardware

So they can go bankrupt? What's the point of optimizing specifically for "ultra high-end PC hardware?" The game looks great, people are just complaining because it's multiplatform. It wouldn't matter what the game looked like complainers would still complain. Has anyone compared textures from the original Crysis (not modded) and Crysis 2?

Everyone keeps claiming "console port", but it's not. The engine itself is made to run great across all platforms. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpVDJvByiDo <---------- This looks like an improvement to the original to me. Yes, the setting is different but it's as good as it can get in the current setting. If it were set in the same place as the first one it would look just as good.

There are so many ignorant people on here it's sickening....

Most people are not angry b/c it looks bad, we are angry b/c it should look so much better. The fact that a singal core system with a crap video card can run this at playable FPS with "Very High" settings is what we are mad about. Why have a $2,000 rig if the latest game from Crytek won't take advantage of it...

So they can go bankrupt? What's the point of optimizing specifically for "ultra high-end PC hardware?" The game looks great, people are just complaining because it's multiplatform. It wouldn't matter what the game looked like complainers would still complain. Has anyone compared textures from the original Crysis (not modded) and Crysis 2?

Everyone keeps claiming "console port", but it's not. The engine itself is made to run great across all platforms. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpVDJvByiDo <---------- This looks like an improvement to the original to me. Yes, the setting is different but it's as good as it can get in the current setting. If it were set in the same place as the first one it would look just as good.

There are so many ignorant people on here it's sickening....

Your ignorance shows why developers get away with producing sub-par games. They promised this game would be a PC game first. It it's not, it is a blantent console port over. People are angery because they lied. They are also angery because the game is half of what the original is in gameplay and the story meshes like two magnents with the same polarity, we payed for $60 for a beta. A game we bought in good faith expecting something amazing (from our experiances with the first game) which was promised by Crytek.
They can make more money if they started with the PC first then reducing it so consoles can handle it. Hell I bet the PS3 folks would LOVE that.

You may enjoy being a doormat that produces money at any sub-par game placed in front of you. I on the other hand prefer to be a bit more scrutinizing about what I pay 60 bucks for. Get better quality that way. You are welcome to spend your money how you wish, but don't call people ignorant when they have legitament complaints and reasons to be angery.

vote for number 3. but i believe crytek could do alot better than what we currently have if they truly utilize ultra high-end pc hardware

So they can go bankrupt? What's the point of optimizing specifically for "ultra high-end PC hardware?" The game looks great, people are just complaining because it's multiplatform. It wouldn't matter what the game looked like complainers would still complain. Has anyone compared textures from the original Crysis (not modded) and Crysis 2?

Everyone keeps claiming "console port", but it's not. The engine itself is made to run great across all platforms. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpVDJvByiDo <---------- This looks like an improvement to the original to me. Yes, the setting is different but it's as good as it can get in the current setting. If it were set in the same place as the first one it would look just as good.

There are so many ignorant people on here it's sickening....

honestly i think it would be very nice if the game going to need at least 3 GTX580 on max setting just to have playable frame rates.

crytek just have to repeat what they did with the original crysis. back when the game was out there was no single game can match crysis graphically on high setting though it come with very big performance penalty. if setting the bar too high will make them bankrupt then crytek should already bankrupt as a company when they release the first crysis

So they can go bankrupt? What's the point of optimizing specifically for "ultra high-end PC hardware?"
Like how they went bankrupt with the first Crysis?

-1