phjoshi


It really doesn't. It just really doesn't. The water is perhaps better in C1, but in every other area it's consistently beaten - the DX10 effects in Crysis were mostly gimmicks that didn't change the visuals in any serious way, so lack of DX11 just means it doesn't look as good as it could, rather than looking worse than the original. However the game itself simply looks better, supports newer technologies, and can actually run much harder than the ingame settings would trick you into believing. If you go grab the third party config tool and turn everything to "high", you'll have your game that nobody can max for a few generations.

Certainly, the game plays worse - I played crysis 1 for the gameplay, but I played crysis 2 for the graphics - but technically, and visually? It's a bloody masterpiece.

technically you are wrong, in crysis 1 all of the texture resolutions are twice the size as the ones in crysis 2 thats #1. #2 the bigest thing dx10 allows for more polygons to be rendered on screen than on dx9 which allows for more stuff to happen on screen and still have smooth gameplay #3 they removed the prone position WTF #4 the biggest gripe is the fact they advertized it to have improved graphics, started all the hype with their cryengine demo showing alot of features that was supposed to be in crysis 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Kvl31g77Z8) that video is showcasing what crysis 2 should have looked like on pc on the release date!!! **** CRYTEK and its last game i will buy from them.

So do i and i disagree i think it looks pretty much the same but runs worse i have a lot more stuttering on the PS3 version,but those are my opinions not fact and neither is your statement nothing more nothing less.

Well, actually
Most textures in C1 were 512x512 unaltered photos - this is hardly ideal. Crysis 1 did have higher resolution textures sometimes, but the average of C2's is significantly higher, as well as them actually being processed. The performance gains of DX10 certainly don't outweigh optimisation, as well as C2's generally smaller areas allowing less to be drawn anyway. 3 don't got nothing to do with graphics, and 4 is mostly about the engine features - which CE3 does indeed support. No lies there.

Technically, CE3 is far more impressive than CE2 was, and that's not something you can argue with. Whether C2 is visually superior is down to opinion, but technically it beats C1 hands down. It runs faster because it's potentially one of the best optimized engines ever built, not because it's doing less. If you really, really want a game that you can't run, go find the third party config tool and set everything to high, then come back to me and say that CE2 was superior.

That's weird. I get more stuttering on my 360 version. I've seen a lot of people say the same.

They are supporting it, they released the second patch yesterday... fixes like 30 issues and they released the first one weeks ago. Never had any problems anyhow, no crashes, no lag in multiplayer or in single player. Can't hook my PC up to my TV but I might be able to when I get my Asus G73 gaming laptop, a 52 inch screen and 1920X1080 would look pretty cool, not that the PS3 does a bad job at all, like I said it looks fantastic!

To those who are saying that Crysis 2 mustn't be as good because you still can't get Crysis 1 to run properly because it is so demanding. that is ridiculous... have you heard of the term optimization? Look it up, Crysis 2 uses a NEW engine Cryengine 3 and it is optimized beyond belief, you only have to look at the PS3 version on a big screen to see that. If you want slow I can program a game for you if you like, it might have pac-man graphics but it will be optimized so badly that your I7 and GTX580 won't be able to run it

I've seen it myself, Oblivion does indeed look and run better on PS3. I think installing it on the 360's hard drive improves it a lot but it does not look as great. I've noticed it takes longer to load on 360 than it does on PS3, also distant textures look better on PS3. Everything else looks the same. I played both on the same TV on 720p resolution.

Not to burst your bubble, but I was talking about patches for Skyrim on the PS3, not the extremely overhyped-cuz-its-pretty FPS known as Crysis.

And all PC gamers are fat nerds who play WoW all day and buy a new $3000 computer every year. See I can generalize too.

This ^^

Huh? Thanks for not assuming anything! It's really appreciated!
/sarcasm

Seriously though, I like the game and I fully support multiplat games. What I don't like is when developers don't give each platform their due/don't take full advantage of each platform's features. PC version of Crysis 2 could do more than it already does.

Btw, not a PC-exclusive gamer. I play consoles just as much as PC.

And it *can*, the highest settings are nowhere near everything enabled. I assume that as hardware improves they're going to release patches that add higher quality settings, but for now you can enable them via ini tweaks or third party tools. To call Crysis 2 a port is correct, it's clearly a console-centric game - but to call it a bad port? Well, I do have to wonder what your definition of a good port is, if something that runs and looks better than crysis is a bad port!

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Crytek do that exact same thing with Crysis 1? I mean they released a patch that enabled the Ultra-high settings to be used (or you could edit the ini and enable it manually like I did) ?

If it is a port then Crysis 2 is a damn good one, it looks better than Crysis 1 and runs better, whether it is a better game overall well that depends on what you want out of a game! Yes it is more linear and less open although Crytek have tried their best to distract you from that with 1. Damn pretty graphics and lighting effects. 2. Multiple ways to attack each level by giving you alternate routes through your linear level!

I wish they could redo Crysis 1 using the Cryengine 3 and then release it again on the consoles, would be interesting

I don't recall so, but I didn't really follow the launch. Maybe. Ultra-High settings were certainly restricted to DX10 systems, sometimes nonsensically (Want ultra-high physics? You're gonna need a DX10 capable card for that! Waitwhat)
Crysis still couldn't run on console, simply due to the RAM requirements of the more open levels - but Crysis 2 still looks and runs very, very well on PC. No idea about console, but I imagine that runs pretty okay too.

IF people want a good game, or an higher than the [censored] average FPS like crysis 2, the only one i see is STALKER 2012. The rest is only mindless corridors that quake 1 put to shame in level design.
Some game developers should be shot in the head, gaming world don t need them.
I doubt STALKER 2012 will be as beautifull as cry2(day) but it will sulrely be way more interesting.

For now i stay with arma2 and Skalker Call of Prypiat complete, the rest is absolute [censored], and rest MP is mindless assinine FFA.
As for console bragging about better system than PC, well, mainstreamed weapon behavior, auto correct aim, magnet bullets, is what console FPS are about.
COnsole are good for 1 thing only Guitar hero and the like.

Hardware now is more than capable of running higher settings than Crysis 2's highest. And I don't see why Crytek would choose to start waiting for hardware to improve before enabling higher settings when they let Crysis destroy gaming rigs right away.

Looks aren't everything, lol. And Crysis 2 doesn't look better than Crysis all-around. It beats it in some aspects and falls short in others. And, part of the reason for Crysis 2 running better (aside from a ridiculously well optimized engine): more linear maps.

Never said Crysis 2 was a bad port. If you were referring to my first post, that was because of all the bugs (although most games have them at launch), terrible anti-cheat (c'mon, if you're going to release a game with multiplayer, at least make an effort to block out cheaters and pirates), total lack of an advanced graphics menu... shouldn't need 3rd party software for that, and the fact that the game originally said "Press Start to begin." The last is kind of amusing when Crytek http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/108709-Crysis-2-Is-a-PC-Game-First-Console-Game-Second-Claims-Crytek Crysis 2 is a PC-first game.

@Thorn2002: I think the pre-release Crysis demo supported DX10. If that's the case, I'd assume Crysis had DX10 at launch.

Oh, absolutely, everything other than the game itself says that the game is an awful port. I absolutely cannot comprehend why they didn't put the 5 minutes of time in to change the wording on some menu elements, for example. But the game itself is a technical masterpiece, even if it's not very good, I can respect what they've done. And, as you say, we have more than enough power to run it on its highest available settings, the closed off, linear nature of the maps is part of the game design - there are a great many elements to the game design I disagree with. So, I still stand by "This is a port; A bloody good port". It's clearly a console game in PC clothing, but it's the best clothing you're going to find. Pretty much everything about it svcks, except the engine it runs on, which is incredibly super amazing.

I don't really care who you are saying Crysis 2 was a success compared to previous Crytek games is a total lie in all ways saying you want any game to be similar to it in any way is :shocking: ... even Farcry 2 was better sadly and Ubisoft $*&(^ that up. It brought nothing new to gaming at all its a combo of COD and Halo at the most. I am a lover of Crysis i was a admin on Crysis 1 and wars for over 2 years but Crysis 2 was horrid no where in that game had any kind of Roots speak of as if it was a spin off completely. If that game gives you hope then you really have low standards because i can say 10 other multiplatform games better in all ways then Crysis 2...
1. BC2
2. Portal 2
3. AC series
4. upcoming BF3 (the real example how multiplatform games should be handled so far)
5. CoD4 gave PC mod tools and yet still made it fun for all platforms
6. The sims...
7. Oblivion
8. MOH
9. Fallout 3
10. L4D series


Crysis 2 is like running Crysis 1 on medium settings I still have hope for Crytek using the multiplatform revenue to make a Crysis 2 Wars for PC exclusively remaking Cryengine 2 and upgrading the graphics, mod tools, Destruction, MP, etc.
But with that said, any Exclusive title game either it be PC, PS3 or 360 will always have a 90% chance of being better then if the game was Multiplatform due to the fact knowing what you need to make it on.

I haven't played Crysis 2, just watched a lot of videos. What was bad about it? What was good about it? Instead of just saying it svcked, maybe you can say what svcked?

The gameplay.

What part of the gameplay? I've heard the gameplay of Crysis is really good for an FPS. Being able to nicely swap from different playing modes and feel like this really powerful person. That's what I've heard from reviews.

Where do you want me to start?
SP ok It does not continue Crysis 1 story. We don't get to see what Nomad did on the island when he left the after it from the sinking ship other then that SP is good not worth $60 but its good

MP is the real downfall
Additions such as
-Class System, Crysis/wars had a great system and customization of any kind of class you can be very balanced surprisingly
-Kill streaks, If you LOVE COD then I feel sorry for you last decent one was 4.. even though you need to collect tags to get them killstreaks will always be a cheap mechanic in any game today does not give you any type of motivation of Team play just lone wolfing..
-Game modes.. TDM and a bad copy of Rush from BC wooooo..

Take outs
- Power struggle I loved 2hour matches on that it was a blast you could play for 30 minutes and have the same amount of fun it IS the best mode Crytek made where is it??
- Graphics see video.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WJG14uLA3k
- Destruction you would think they would improve it enough to notice since they downgraded the graphics right??
- Map size, now again if you love COD you love the maps sadly I don't I want Mesa size maps plox not Shipment
- Vehicles since its only TDM now that somewhat explains why they left vehicles.. now there KS without PS I don't think they could make vehicles work anyways..


I could go on but the only thing that Crytek did somewhat ok in Crysis 2 was the SP and thats saying something because previous Crysis titles wasn't top notch..

This sums it up quite nicely.

I have deleted several posts that are about platform choices. Some of them bashing one another. That isn't acceptable here. Please get back on topic and leave the console/platform flame fest out of it.

Agreed here. All it takes is practice I believe. I find that playing Black Ops with my non-PC literate friends on the PS3 doesn't give me the sense of control as I have when playing any other FPS on my PC. I can just do things better on the PC, and because I've disabled to auto-aim, because the hitboxes make sense, and because there's no magnetic aim, I know I'm in control, and I'm proud of it. I'm not the best player, but I've had my fair share of good runs (got kicked from a TF2 server for getting to the top too quickly with the Sniper on 2Fort), and I think anyone who has time to play on other platforms, can dedicate their time to trying to get things working their way for them on the PC.

As for the 3k PC thing, it's blown waaaaaaaaaaaaaay out of proportion. My PC costs 1300 SGD (around 1031 USD), I built it up myself around a year and a half ago, and it can run all the current games on the market smoothly (framerates 30+ always), on highest or high settings (certain games are getting tougher, Just Cause 2 is one of them haha).

Not to bash console players (I own the three current gen ones myself), I'm glad that Crysis 2 has made and TES V will be making it's way to the consoles. I'm glad that everyone gets to play the great games. But what I'll never be happy about is if a developer has to do cutbacks due to the limitations of a console compared to a PC.

One of the greatest things about the PC is that it's ever-evolving, and we're constantly seeing new developments in technologically, both graphically and performance wise. Take that away from us, and you're breaking the spirit of PC Gaming.

Precisely. The PC I ran back in 2006 was infintely worse than the one I have now, and it ran Oblivion better than my 360. The X-Box 360 and PlayStation 3 I still have remain the same, and it's the same hardware that will run both Oblivon and Skyrim. I expect this gap beetween my previous computer and the current one to translate to better graphics, obviously. Skyrim on 360 has higher res textures, bigger draw distances and better effects than it had on the same platform with Oblivion. My PC is accounted, nowadays as a WAY better platform than it was back when I played Oblivion on it, and I can only expect those improvements that can be seen on consoles will be properly represented on the PC experience, with the due proportion, given how variable PC setups can be.

Considering the 360 and PS3 versions are running on the same hardware, I fully expect my Skyrim graphical experience to be exponentially better than the one I had on Oblivion, for that is what my hardware allows me to. Today all the rage is about console optimization, and that's awesome, standard setups for everyone. On PCs you can pretty much get away not optmizing anything. The horsepower is there for having most things simply dumped in it. I obviously expect Bethesda to optimize PC experience, given the company's pedigree, but I'd prefer if Howard's saying of "equal experience across the board" is a marketing reassurance for console gamers, not representative of an obvious, though admittedly cost-effective mayhaps, ignorance of how much PC hardware has evolved while console hardware remains exactly the same.