We need to fix the online issue.

Too many people with leaked game are able to play online

In addition to no anti-cheat system, i keep bumping into cheaters who spin 360 for headshots across the map and through buildings.

I'd love to play at 60fps, but that's a little difficult when the game requires me to disable one of two GPUs so I'm not staring at a 30" strobe-light. Or, alternatively, to play at lower than desired or non-native (2560x1600) resolutions.

I'm not sure where you're making a differentiation here. Do you not want the most incredible experience that your equipment can provide? Nobody is saying that unoptimized and slow (but resource-pegging none-the-less) is the preferred option to optimized and under-utilizing of resources.

What people want is something that really pushes the limits. That sets a standard of "this is why we play PC games". Ideally, that means optimized and therefore capable of achieving great results if you throw more power at it. Crysis 2 may provide amazing graphics, but it also provides ridiculous hurdles. You know, like disabling your entire second GPU to overcome major flickering problems, which therefore reduces overall performance. I don't think asking to be able to utilize your entire card to it's limit is asking for too much.


Flickering with SLI systems is a bug. A bug that will be addressed in the next patch. It has nothing to do with asking for DirectX 11. And it has nothing to do with people saying Crysis 2 is a dumbed down game. Crysis 2 already push my GTX 580 to the limit: it plays at 60 fps on a 1920x1200 monitor, it is the only game that consumes 380W while playing, it is the only game that has such graphics. None of my 50+ games (apart Crysis 1) can compare to this game, graphically. So the game implements now all the things you're asking.

No, the lack of DX10/DX11 isn't really relevant to whether or not Crysis 2 is pushing technical boundaries. They might be able to do some cool things utilizing them, but they're not necessary. I frankly don't understand the hangup people are having over "when will it support DX11?!". I'd like these people to name three important features that DX11 can provide that are necessary for Crysis 2. I doubt they can think of any.

Also, there are plenty of games out there that will push a modern card. Even at 1920x1200 (I play everything at 2560x1600 unless I absolutely need to lower it). If you crank everything up at 1920x1200, pretty much any modern game will fully use that card just to get you 45-60fps.

It kind of reminds me of when Vanguard: Saga of Heroes came out. It was supposed to support DX10, but it didn't. They said they'd eventually add it in (even though, as I recall, it was advertised as supporting it to begin with). Around a year later, they finally implemented it. But in the meantime, the game looked fantastic. People just biched about it not supporting DX10, because they knew that 10 is a bigger number than 9. *eyeroll*.

All you have to do is playing it instead of wasting time on useless complaints.

Well, personally, I'll be doing just that. As soon as they have fixed it so it can actually be played.

Personally, I think they've done a fine job on the ultimate potential product. My concern is not whether it supports DX10 or DX11, but with the significant release problems on a game that is supposed to really help the PC gaming experience shine above the rest (and for which they're charging console prices, for). I can only imagine what experiences like this have on gamers who are a little less dedicated to the PC. Just another little chink in the armor, so to speak (along with other chinks like Fallout 3 even long after release and Fallout: New Vegas even today).

I'd love to play at 60fps, but that's a little difficult when the game requires me to disable one of two GPUs so I'm not staring at a 30" strobe-light. Or, alternatively, to play at lower than desired or non-native (2560x1600) resolutions.

I'm not sure where you're making a differentiation here. Do you not want the most incredible experience that your equipment can provide? Nobody is saying that unoptimized and slow (but resource-pegging none-the-less) is the preferred option to optimized and under-utilizing of resources.

What people want is something that really pushes the limits. That sets a standard of "this is why we play PC games". Ideally, that means optimized and therefore capable of achieving great results if you throw more power at it. Crysis 2 may provide amazing graphics, but it also provides ridiculous hurdles. You know, like disabling your entire second GPU to overcome major flickering problems, which therefore reduces overall performance. I don't think asking to be able to utilize your entire card to it's limit is asking for too much.


Flickering with SLI systems is a bug. A bug that will be addressed in the next patch. It has nothing to do with asking for DirectX 11. And it has nothing to do with people saying Crysis 2 is a dumbed down game. Crysis 2 already push my GTX 580 to the limit: it plays at 60 fps on a 1920x1200 monitor, it is the only game that consumes 380W while playing, it is the only game that has such graphics. None of my 50+ games (apart Crysis 1) can compare to this game, graphically. So the game implements now all the things you're asking.

No, the lack of DX10/DX11 isn't really relevant to whether or not Crysis 2 is pushing technical boundaries. They might be able to do some cool things utilizing them, but they're not necessary. I frankly don't understand the hangup people are having over "when will it support DX11?!". I'd like these people to name three important features that DX11 can provide that are necessary for Crysis 2. I doubt they can think of any.

Also, there are plenty of games out there that will push a modern card. Even at 1920x1200 (I play everything at 2560x1600 unless I absolutely need to lower it). If you crank everything up at 1920x1200, pretty much any modern game will fully use that card just to get you 45-60fps.

It kind of reminds me of when Vanguard: Saga of Heroes came out. It was supposed to support DX10, but it didn't. They said they'd eventually add it in (even though, as I recall, it was advertised as supporting it to begin with). Around a year later, they finally implemented it. But in the meantime, the game looked fantastic. People just biched about it not supporting DX10, because they knew that 10 is a bigger number than 9. *eyeroll*.

All you have to do is playing it instead of wasting time on useless complaints.

Well, personally, I'll be doing just that. As soon as they have fixed it so it can actually be played.

Personally, I think they've done a fine job on the ultimate potential product. My concern is not whether it supports DX10 or DX11, but with the significant release problems on a game that is supposed to really help the PC gaming experience shine above the rest (and for which they're charging console prices, for). I can only imagine what experiences like this have on gamers who are a little less dedicated to the PC. Just another little chink in the armor, so to speak (along with other chinks like Fallout 3 even long after release and Fallout: New Vegas even today).

Ok, sorry then. I was thinking you were speaking about different things. Look at my post on PC history.

Why are you going to cry or laugh at such "stupidity"? What you've just described is how the PC gaming industry has been for almost thirty years. Software expands to increase the demands which are answered by an increase in hardware. It's what drives hardware sales. Not the other way around. This is nothing new. You can laugh or cry at it, but it is the historic behavior of the market for nearly my entire life.

I've been a PC gamer for about 16+ years (and still I am). Many years ago the PC gaming worked like this: you buy an high end card only to discover it's not high end at all. I was a "proud" owner of a Geforce TI 500. Top of the line card.
At that times, I bought that card, paying it something like the equivalent of todays 600$, to discover it can't play Doom 3 at the highest settings possible. In reality, that card struggled to play it at medium settings.
I don't want to change my hardware every 4 months to play old games, like before in the PC history. Ask to someone who have bought a modern (for the times) 486DX2 at 66Mhz to play the first Quake. Ask what he tought after he discovered that game needed a Pentium class processor, three months after his purchase.
This is the PC history I don't want to repeat. This is the PC history that killed PC gaming. And this the history that explains why people moved in mass to the console world.
I buy high end hardware to have high end performances.
This is not only my wish. It's the wish of the industry. When PC games are more "human", people have more money to buy games. That's why the industry has taken this road: because they noticed people buy more games if they make games that can run on the majority of hardware already installed on the planet. Asking to buy a new card (when you've bought yours last year) to play a game leads to nothing. People won't buy new cards and won't buy new games.

That isn't the wish of the industry at all. The wish of the industry is for the demand for more complex and more graphically beautiful experiences to drive the sales of hardware. Without people buying hardware, there isn't any industry. And without software giving people a need to upgrade hardware, nobody will buy it. Yes, I've been a PC gamer for over 20 years and I'm used to the practice of having to buy a new $600 card every year (or more likely, dropping another $2,000 every year to build a new rig to stay high-end) to keep running the newest games near (but rarely ever at) the highest possible settings.

Nobody is forcing you to play at the highest possible settings and there's nothing wrong with choosing lower settings. If developers only aim for games that just barely make use of the highest current limitations, nothing will evolve. There will be no progress. More importantly, without those early adopters who are willing to spend $600 on a new card to have the richest experience a game can provide for half a year or a year, the technology that does remain won't be priced down to a more affordable range for the rest of gamers. The early adopters drive those prices down, over time.

If the experience you want is to just buy a $200 card and still play everything with the highest resolution and all the available maxed-out eye-candy for two or five years at a time and only have PC hardware and software evolve at that pace, then you're going to cripple the one advantage it has over console games. And, frankly, if that's the experience you want, you should go buy a console and do all your gaming on there (not knocking it, I own all the consoles and enjoy them just fine). They're meant to stagnate for five (or in this cycle, I guess, ten) years at a time and have games developed only to utilize those aging resources.

Personally, I got tired of dropping that much cash on an annual basis to satisfy my lust for a top-performing-at-all-times system. Especially since the products the industry were putting out (game-wise) were on the decline in both focus and execution (console port afterthoughts, major glitches, issues that took forever to fix or never were, etc). So I moved to building a new machine less frequently and offloaded a lot of my time to the console.

If PC games stopped pushing hardware, it would be bad for the entire industry. And I thin it's clear by the (misguided) complaints about how the game doesn't utilize DX11 (meh) that users want the latest and greatest and fanciest and most impressive stuff the can get their hands on. Even if they maybe don't exactly understand what that is. To a degree, I think that's what separates the PC market from the rest of the gaming market. As evidenced by the repeated conversations I see in the gaming ether where I keep hearing "I don't see why we need new consoles, the games are just fine as they are and I hope they don't come out with a new console for at least another five years".

Can you imagine if we did that in PC gaming? That would kind of svck. games from 1998 would still be top of the line heading into 2004. Games from 2004 would still be the big shiny thing heading into 2009. And a game coming out today would still be more or less the limit of the current hardware's potential going into 2016+.

Just think how much of the market is driven by gamers who see Counter-Strike: Source coming out and say "damn, it's time to get myself a new machine just for that game!". Or . . . you know . . . some modern equivalent that I'm failing to come up with right now. (Skyrim. There you go. Skyrim is a great example.)

How can we play it when it flickers like a strobe light? I'm not turning off one of my graphics cards to play a game that should support 2 cards!!!!!!!!!!!!

Personally, I think they've done a fine job on the ultimate potential product. My concern is not whether it supports DX10 or DX11, but with the significant release problems on a game that is supposed to really help the PC gaming experience shine above the rest (and for which they're charging console prices, for). I can only imagine what experiences like this have on gamers who are a little less dedicated to the PC. Just another little chink in the armor, so to speak (along with other chinks like Fallout 3 even long after release and Fallout: New Vegas even today).

Ok, sorry then. I was thinking you were speaking about different things. Look at my post on PC history.

Oh, no. I definitely agree with your view on the whole DX11 thing. I mean, I completely get the "but DX11 is new! give us some funky DX11 eye candy!" thing. But I don't grok where people are coming from with the idea that a game not currently employing DX11 is somehow inferior or negligent. That's like saying that gamesas.com svcks for using IPv4 addressing for their webserver, because IPv6 currently exists and they're shortchanging our experience on their website by not using it.

If they announced a release to patch in DX11, that'd be sweet (though, again, if I've already finished the game at launch, releasing DX11 support down the road is kind of pointless for me). Their attention would be far better focused on actual existing problems, before dealing with that, though.

Anyway, idtech5 will eventually come out and we'll all **** ourselves. So . . .

How can we play it when it flickers like a strobe light? I'm not turning off one of my graphics cards to play a game that should support 2 cards!!!!!!!!!!!!

This appears to be the only way to solve the problem, currently. I have not seen any update from Crytek about the problem, since they linked to the discussions saying to disable SLI or Crossfire as the workaround. I can only presume that they are working on it, though an ETA would be nice. Even a "maybe in a week" . . . though I can see not wanting to paint yourself into a corner by making promises. Which, of course, is why they should have addressed a seeming show-stopper problem before release. (I simply don't believe that they didn't experience the problem fairly often in-house.)

With you all the way. Actually, bought game with that assumtion(DX11)) WTF. Origional was 10 at least. Called EA tech support last night. Asked whats happennig. Bimbo didn't have a clue. Must have been receptionist. I ask for DX11 and she told me to turn down resolution. Never really happy about the whole Crysis1 debacle. At least I could pump some scratch in and finally get some results. 2 good game. Using us all around!

Hi everyone

here is my problem (I have tried all day to fix it myself so Im pretty pissed) :

I used to have an account on the beta multiplayer. To access it I used a new email account. The account nickname is also my ea master id.

I tried to access it with the exact login I used back then but it didn′t work. Then I tried the email forgot my password button on the new email and managed to access my account on crytek, but my nickname is gone.

I can access the crysis account with my email, but without my nickname (which I cannot see nor modify on the crytek account) I cannot use the multiplayer.

any ideas?

thanx

I have steam! worry? never!

OMG Guys This game is so **** buggy that u can just make ur own key to play online i tried myself and it worked

Just make a new acc on game than change the game key to a key that u just invented and viola u play online. Thats It !!

WTF Crytek/EA ive never seen that a game can be hacked so easy before or ever. And now pirates all over the world playing it without to buy it im so pissed off now.

source: Watch google and u will find over 8 milion Topics on net that shows u how to do! OMG

I'll buy this game when it hits the 70% off deals that steam offers. Please don't advertise this game for the PC unless you can produce.

I hope this week patch will correct the nanovision and bring it back some of its power, it seriously make this game a boring invisible war game atm.

I hope this week patch will correct the nanovision and bring it back some of its power, it seriously make this game a boring invisible war game atm.
Its quite weird, because next to that i CANNOT see anybody who is cloaked, but as soon as i cloak everybody can see me. Its a bit anoying having an ability which doesnt even work properly.

Second of all, it's bloody anoying seeing everybody whine about dx11 while this game has serious issues, both graphical & the gameplay itself.
I would say first fix this game that it runs properly, make it more balanced and logical (for instance, i fire my main weapon till my mag is out, and when i want to switch to my side arm i have to wait AFTER the reload? it just doesnt make any sence, what good use is a fire arm then? give me another main weapon and TADAAAAA)
((oh and if you can, add a bloody punkbuster))and than 'maybe' add something later on for dx11.

I'm not displeased about this game, but i'm not happy with it either, i expected more from it ESPECIALLY comparing it to the previous crysis, i never tend to get anoyed when i play a shooter & get shot down fair and square, but when i empty a mag at somebody (and he does the same) and i get slow movement and he just rushes me and punches my face out... sorry... i just cant leave it alone to say '**** you!'

Thanks GOD I got this game as a present and didn't payed one cent for it.. otherwise I would be very angry because of the lack of DX11.
Anyway, what should I say about a game were not even saving the serial code is working.. or the lack of a REAL graphics preferences menu..
All this **** shows me Crysis2 is a console game, not a real PC game!

Shame on you Crytec.. Bi boktan baska birsey yapamadiniz!

To get rid of Crossfire Flicker, download latest AMD catalyst and drivers (11.3). JUST released and worked for me.

Hi again

now I fixed the account problem and the serial number thing.

I wanted to activate the bonus material of the limited edition and keep receiving failure reports first and "number of usage expired" reports later.

ideas ?

That isn't the wish of the industry at all. The wish of the industry is for the demand for more complex and more graphically beautiful experiences to drive the sales of hardware.

It is. Just look at the comments, back in 2007, of people who own a 8800GTX that can run Crysis 1 at only 15 fps at 1600x1200. Crytek, at that time, justified the fact with:"Very high is for future generations. You have to configure the game". All people were pissed off.
Oh, and users don't give a **** either on hardware sales, while software makers just care on their sales (games, not hardware). If they have moved on consoles, it means they earn more. Lower requirements = more sales.
So the conclusion is: this is your wish only. And you're a minority. People play games, they don't look at specs. They don't care which DirectX version is used. Certainly, I don't prefer a game just because uses DirectX 11 over a DirectX 9 one.

Thanks GOD I got this game as a present and didn't payed one cent for it.. otherwise I would be very angry because of the lack of DX11.

Why? What features of DX11 are you missing out on that are a deal breaker, here?

Thanks GOD I got this game as a present and didn't payed one cent for it.. otherwise I would be very angry because of the lack of DX11.

Why? What features of DX11 are you missing out on that are a deal breaker, here?

Don't ask, he can't answer.

I think the problem here is that Crysis 1 is an amazing game. Let's just all admit to it. But let's also remember that it got flamed by just about EVERYONE because one couldn't play it on high settings. It's just becoming NOW that a decent graphics card can play it on high settings with decent frame rates.

I want to believe in Crytek, because I don't want to be screwed over like I was with Black Ops. I agree that DirectX 11 should have been added in the release, but I guess it was too buggy at the time. And xbox gamers are more important in this case.

For such a great reputation to PC gamers, you sure know how to screw it up. It's not like we HATE console gamers, but PC gaming has always been known to be among the elitest of the elite, and we can usually do good without too many problems. It seems here that a larger test crowd with different specs should have been used before actual release. But I guess it's a "live and learn" experience, and I hope that they fix these issues soon, and not pull a Treyarc and keep releasing stability patches for the next 6 months only to have angry PC gamers the whole time...

I do enjoy the single player so far, but I was hoping for some orgismic graphics.

That isn't the wish of the industry at all. The wish of the industry is for the demand for more complex and more graphically beautiful experiences to drive the sales of hardware.

It is. Just look at the comments, back in 2007, of people who own a 8800GTX that can run Crysis 1 at only 15 fps at 1600x1200. Crytek, at that time, justified the fact with:"Very high is for future generations. You have to configure the game". All people were pissed off.
Oh, and users don't give a **** either on hardware sales, while software makers just care on their sales (games, not hardware). If they have moved on consoles, it means they earn more. Lower requirements = more sales.
So the conclusion is: this is your wish only. And you're a minority. People play games, doesn't look at specs. They don't care which DirectX version is used. Certainly, I don't prefer a game just because uses DirectX 11 over a DirectX 9 one.

This statement seems so divorced from the reality of PC gaming and the history of PC gaming tied to hardware advancement over the last 20-30 years that I don't really see any way to overcome this gap. I understand the point you're making. I just don't see it acted out in the real market. So far, at least.

PC gamers do not typically adopt the console gamer attitude, which you are describing. For those who don't care that much, they can just run at lower settings. It won't matter to them, because they don't care that much. The rest of the field advancing and making use of greater hardware capabilities doesn't impact their ability to enjoy their games at a lower fidelity, except for the outliers after a couple or so years have passed and they start falling behind the pack.

You can decry my comments as somehow applicable only to myself, but I think that if your statements were accurate, then it wouldn't be an issue, because nobody would be buying new hardware and the hardware market would cease while the software market focused solely on lower end products. Technology continues to advance and the adoption of it advances, only because the user base supports it and wants it.

Anyway, the whole point of PC gaming is variety and choice for everyone from lower tier minimal equipment with minimal demands to hard-core nutjobs that need every last ounce of power, even if it means water-cooling their CD-ROM. That's why we love PC gaming, am I right?

So when do me and my clan members get to have VIP slots? That is my big issue because we pay for the server but 90% of the time we can't get onto our own server! What is up with that? This should be in the top 2 issues otherwise nobody is going to pay for servers which will make people quit because they can't get on one.

Great game but serious issues. Typical of an EA game though. We all pay $60 to beta test for 6-10 months then they put out an add-on and want us to pay more

Thanks GOD I got this game as a present and didn't payed one cent for it.. otherwise I would be very angry because of the lack of DX11.

Why? What features of DX11 are you missing out on that are a deal breaker, here?

Don't ask, he can't answer.

If someone could describe what features of DX11 they are expecting to be applied to the game that would drastically improve the inherent experience of it, I could actually start to take it seriously. I mean, I don't see anything that would improve the experience. It could make certain aspects look better, but it's not like DX10 (which I don't think Crysis 2 uses, but I may be wrong?) or even DX9 are somehow limiting anything. So acting like it's a show-stopper is crazy.

I mean, really, someone just tell me that tessellation is that vitally important to you. Or that new anything but the latest shader model implementation makes you want to cut yourself or something. Anything. Of all the things to gripe about, I don't see "no DX11!" as being one of them. (And I'm someone that loves new eye-candy.)

Or are these guys all just Spinal Tap fans?

I have noticed a problwm that occurs after i finished the hargreaves building level.
The Sound of my jumps and the sound that my feet should make have disappeared.

Im now 2 levels beyond that particular one... still no soundeffects.