I've seen alot of negativity on the forum regarding Crysis 2. I'm still experiencing some bugs and problems with multiplayer not tracking info and not registering my LE bonuses, so yeah, I have some complaints, but I don't understand where alot of the criticism of the graphics and gameplay is coming from. So what I would like to know, what shooters are you comparing to Crysis 2 when you say it doesn't look good and isn't a good game? Since Crysis and Crysis Warhead, some of the bigger shooters I've played have been modern warfare 1 and 2, Medal of Honor, Homefront, Metro 2033, Bad Company 2, and the god awful Black Ops, all titles with similar styles and play to Crysis 2, and Crysis 2 looks and plays better than these games. For reference I've played all these titles recently on a Phenom x4 965, 8 gb 1600 mhz ram, and a gtx 570. Yes, the 3 dx11 titles I mentioned do have better environmental shadows, but overall, Crysis 2 still has more environmental detail and a more impressive scale. I'll admit, I do miss the very open jungles of Crysis, but most of Crysis 2's firefights are still vastly more open than the other shooters I mentioned, and can be tackled in more ways.

So am I missing some amazing shooter that came out recently? What exactly are people comparing to Crysis 2 that prompts such a response?

Bump.... does no one have an answer because there isn't an answer?

I agree with you. Although I'm dissapointed with Crytek for taking a step backwards in some ways I still think the game looks and plays better than most. They set the bar so high with Crysis that they couldn't even best themselves though. That is the dissapointment.

Bump.... does no one have an answer because there isn't an answer?

We see techniques in DX11 sometimes well implemented but mostly badly implemented. On the occasions where it works well we see what is possible even from a cheaply produced FPS like Metro 2033. Sure some environments in Metro 2033 don't look that good but Crytek have more people and more money. And they have a "NEXTGENREADY" Engine to showcase

I agree, people are whining that this game isn't bringing their systems to their knees, but so what? You want a game no one can play multiplayer for? why?

Also tired of hearing everyone say this game is DX9, it isn't. This game is making use of DX10 and its features. DX11 wouldn't be changing much.

I purposely got this game after getting disappointed with Black Ops ( no offense to CoD: Black Ops fans but for me, it never got the magic that MW2 was able to deliver ).

With the technology that we have for gaming I was pretty sure Crytek would deliver the best experience for PC gamers. Yes! the game is amazing. Yes! the environment is amazing. Yes! the package itself is amazing. Sadly though it could have been... Better. I was really hoping that the game for PC version would support Dx11. I've played Lost Planet 2 and by far the Dx11 capability for the game is astounding and I was hoping Crysis 2 would give me the awe feeling more than what I felt with Lost Planet 2 but sadly it wasn't there.

@kindandroid
In my case I'm not the type of gamer that would be happy to see a game graphical setting to bring computers down to their knees. For me it's just that we have latest technologies in our grasp as well as for the game devs. Just wish they could have utilized it to give us a better experience.

But again, I am not condoning gamers who have their rigs running on just the normal graphical settings for Crysis 2. Whatever fits their taste is something that I would not dare interfere.

I've seen alot of negativity on the forum regarding Crysis 2. I'm still experiencing some bugs and problems with multiplayer not tracking info and not registering my LE bonuses, so yeah, I have some complaints, but I don't understand where alot of the criticism of the graphics and gameplay is coming from. So what I would like to know, what shooters are you comparing to Crysis 2 when you say it doesn't look good and isn't a good game? Since Crysis and Crysis Warhead, some of the bigger shooters I've played have been modern warfare 1 and 2, Medal of Honor, Homefront, Metro 2033, Bad Company 2, and the god awful Black Ops, all titles with similar styles and play to Crysis 2, and Crysis 2 looks and plays better than these games. For reference I've played all these titles recently on a Phenom x4 965, 8 gb 1600 mhz ram, and a gtx 570. Yes, the 3 dx11 titles I mentioned do have better environmental shadows, but overall, Crysis 2 still has more environmental detail and a more impressive scale. I'll admit, I do miss the very open jungles of Crysis, but most of Crysis 2's firefights are still vastly more open than the other shooters I mentioned, and can be tackled in more ways.

So am I missing some amazing shooter that came out recently? What exactly are people comparing to Crysis 2 that prompts such a response?
I also agree, partly though.
The Graphics and functionality of this game is good. I was actually surprised that I can play this game so well on my Laptop which only has a Core 2 Duo T5800 and a 9600M GPU.

Now the one main thing that I do not agree with is that you added in Bad Company 2 to the style of Game Play that this game and the others on the list have. That is not true in my opinion. The main reason I do not continue to play those other games you listed is because of the style of game play they have. Bad Company 2 is different from them. It may not feel like a true BF game in its game play, but it is different from the other games you listed.
You also said that Crysis 2 is vastly more open than the other shooters you listed. Sadly that is also not true when comparing it to Bad Company 2. Bad Company 2 has a more open environment. That is one of the main things that makes it have a different style of game play from the others.

I can not speak for the Metro 2033 game. I did not play that game.

I've seen alot of negativity on the forum regarding Crysis 2. I'm still experiencing some bugs and problems with multiplayer not tracking info and not registering my LE bonuses, so yeah, I have some complaints, but I don't understand where alot of the criticism of the graphics and gameplay is coming from. So what I would like to know, what shooters are you comparing to Crysis 2 when you say it doesn't look good and isn't a good game? Since Crysis and Crysis Warhead, some of the bigger shooters I've played have been modern warfare 1 and 2, Medal of Honor, Homefront, Metro 2033, Bad Company 2, and the god awful Black Ops, all titles with similar styles and play to Crysis 2, and Crysis 2 looks and plays better than these games. For reference I've played all these titles recently on a Phenom x4 965, 8 gb 1600 mhz ram, and a gtx 570. Yes, the 3 dx11 titles I mentioned do have better environmental shadows, but overall, Crysis 2 still has more environmental detail and a more impressive scale. I'll admit, I do miss the very open jungles of Crysis, but most of Crysis 2's firefights are still vastly more open than the other shooters I mentioned, and can be tackled in more ways.

So am I missing some amazing shooter that came out recently? What exactly are people comparing to Crysis 2 that prompts such a response?
I also agree, partly though.
The Graphics and functionality of this game is good. I was actually surprised that I can play this game so well on my Laptop which only has a Core 2 Duo T5800 and a 9600M GPU.

Now the one main thing that I do not agree with is that you added in Bad Company 2 to the style of Game Play that this game and the others on the list have. That is not true in my opinion. The main reason I do not continue to play those other games you listed is because of the style of game play they have. Bad Company 2 is different from them. It may not feel like a true BF game in its game play, but it is different from the other games you listed.
You also said that Crysis 2 is vastly more open than the other shooters you listed. Sadly that is also not true when comparing it to Bad Company 2. Bad Company 2 has a more open environment. That is one of the main things that makes it have a different style of game play from the others.

I can not speak for the Metro 2033 game. I did not play that game.

Metro 2033 is very inconsistent at times the visuals are absolutely amazing, but at other times the quality bar drops somehow.

Metro 2033 probably doesn't get much better than this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eg_RcB91x2o

We're comparing Crysis 2 to Crysis and Warhead. Comparing it to games of today is demeaning.

We're comparing Crysis 2 to Crysis and Warhead. Comparing it to games of today is demeaning.

+1 This^

@VectorRoll...I should have clarified because I was talking primarily about the games Campaigns. BC2 is still my current favorite multiplayer title, and yes, it is not a fair comparison to Crysis 2 and that style of play, and because of that the "open-ness" of the maps are drastically different. My apologies.

@nendogamer...Yes, I'm sure it could have been better, but we could say that about any game, and I do think the PC crowd may hold Crytek to a higher expectation than what is realistic. I am impressed with the optimization of the engine, but what I want to see most now is the release of an editor and Crytek allowing the modding community to get to work tweaking and improving the game.

Anywho, I am standing by my opinion that Crysis 2 is better than the other shooters I have seen in the last 4 or so years, especially in the campaign.

This.

http://www.gamesas.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=11732

Also the game does, in fact, look better than Crysis and Crysis Warhead (without mods). It also looks better than Metro 2033 and is better optimized (yes, Metro has some more detailed character modesl, but everything else in the game is nowhere near as detailed).

There is a type of graphical beauty that comes from a lush tropical island, sure, NYC just can't host that kind of look, but the detail in the city is excellent and quite a bit better.

Also the game does, in fact, look better than Crysis and Crysis Warhead (without mods).

Lol, what were you playing Crysis on? Extra LOW?

@Aervalis:
Like the others, I still believe Crysis 1 and Warhead is better in terms of graphics. Reason behind it is how the environment is alive ( I know we have different definitions as to how a game environment is alive though ). Before I went to work, I was playing the campaign in Crysis 2 and crouched behind a steel fabricated wall. When it was destroyed by gunfire and went to shambles, I was disappointed as to how it got destroyed...
You may say it was destroyed but it's just like corned beef in can here in our country with tons of large chunked parts. Kinda reminds me of Dx4 days.

Also the game does, in fact, look better than Crysis and Crysis Warhead (without mods). It also looks better than Metro 2033 and is better optimized (yes, Metro has some more detailed character modesl, but everything else in the game is nowhere near as detailed).

There is a type of graphical beauty that comes from a lush tropical island, sure, NYC just can't host that kind of look, but the detail in the city is excellent and quite a bit better.

Not trying to be an ass here, but seriously WTF settings were you playing on? There is, in no way shape or form that the game looks better than Crysis Warhead or Crysis... On their max settings. Not just the jungle vs concrete jungle comparison either, the textures from Crysis were of a higher resolution, there were also particle effects that are just completely absent in Crysis 2. Go back and play and play the Original campaign of Crysis on Very High settings, you'll see what I mean as you go through the game.

Another BIG step back is the lack of any sort of meaningful destructable enviornments. I was putting up just fine with the dx9 only ( YES DX 9 ONLY, there is NO dx 10 tech. being used, which is fine by me honestly, but don't go spreading crap just cuz you can) until I shot a tree. Nice sticker stuck to the tree. Looked kinda like a bullet hole, except it didn't sway along with the tree. Just kinda....stayed in place while the tree moved around behind it. Then i noticed how flat most of the 'grass' or 'vines' were. Compare that to the lush jungle. This isn't just the change in locations. They gimped it. It is simply less impressive graphically. It looks GREAT for an xbox game. But average for a pc game.