Think of it differently. Crysis 2 has no repeating textures due to blend layering. So it has a lot more textures to fit onto one disc and has to lose quality.


You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. Features such as this are specifically only available in the DX10 API. Crysis 2 doesn't support blend layering, due to lack of DX10 support. And there's no such thing as "blend layering." The closest thing to what you're describing is Volumetric Texture mapping which once again is only prevalent in DX10 and is for the most part only used in complicated 3D renderings for scientific research purposes because it requires so much horsepower.

Crysis 2 does not support Volumetric Texture mapping due to the DX9 API. And if it did support it, even TriSLI GTX 580's would be pulling only maybe 10fps at max.

Huh? I could be wrong in what you both are trying to explain but blending of texture layers is NOT a DX 10 exclusive. In fact that method is used for the terrain in UDK which uses DX 9. Unless you all are referring to a different type of texture layer blending then ignore my comment.

He wasn't talking about blending texture layers. Blending texture layers is commonly done, but still requires loads of repeating textures. He specifically said Crysis 2 has NO repeating textures. He's talking about having no repeating textures in a game all based off either a huge texture database which is absurd, or all rendered off of a single (or a few textures) which have been altered with algorithms using the geometry of the surface the textures are supposed to be mapped to. That is a DX10 feature only.

In all, his post was full of contradictions when trying to talk about technical details which shows nothing but a very basic understanding (if any understanding at all) of how graphics are employed in a game.

O my. lol. All taxtures in games look bad if you get close enough, or just stear into a wall. game graphics isnt about close up of a cut out is it ? it is the visual gaming experience as a total isnt it ?.

we are not comparing it to other games. the textures are bad for a CRYTEK game.

Its bad IF Crysis had absolutely NO LOW RES TEXTURES. But unfortunately it did. So your point is null.

well for one that would not make my point null. never did i say crysis 1 had NO low res textures. all games do. but as stated earlier there are more low res textures in cyrsis 2 than one. if crysis 2 had the same amount of low res textures crysis 1 did people would not be complaining about it as often. Now that makes your point null.

He wasn't talking about blending texture layers. Blending texture layers is commonly done, but still requires loads of repeating textures. He's talking about having no repeating textures in a game all based off either a huge texture database which is absurd, or all rendered off of a single (or a few textures) which have been altered with algorithms using the geometry of the surface the textures are supposed to be mapped to. That is a DX10 feature only.

Oh ok. However I can see that being possible using a procedural and bitmap texture to achieve the same results. Which is doable in DX 9. I am not saying that Crysis 2 has this feature but it is possible by combing a procedural and a bitmap.

well for one that would not make my point null. never did i say crysis 1 had NO low res textures. all games do. but as stated earlier there are more low res textures in cyrsis 2 than one. if crysis 2 had the same amount of low res textures crysis 1 did people would not be complaining about it as often. Now that makes your point null.

The textures in Crysis 2 is of medium resolution and consistently medium. Crysis had huge variations in texture quality moving from very high to disturbingly low. Pretending that the majority of the textures in Crysis were high is misleading and very incorrect. You comment clearly implied that the Crysis lacked low res and its absurd for a Crytek game to have low res textures. Unlike Crysis and as far back as Far Cry, Crysis 2 has the most consistent quality of textures and not because a texture is not high does not automatically makes it low res.

Tons of people here really don't seem to see the difference of Dx9 and Dx10. I'll just go and continue to chow my popcorn and see how this show will reach the climix.

You don't have POM on, and most of those still look better than C2 anyways.

POM makes textures look even worse since it disables Anisotropic filtering where POM is effecting.

POM on

POM off

So you're saying that crysis 2 didn't suffer at all from being console-focused in it's design?

Crysis 1 might not have had ideal textures either, but it pushed the boundaries of PC tech and made things move forward. If you tried to port c1 to the consoles they would explode, yet 4 years later suddenly the same consoles have enough horsepower for a crysis game? lol.

They should have called this "Crysis Lite" instead of 2.


This is by far the best response I've seen EVAR!!!
Kudos to you my good man/woman.
Only to add to the "lite" would be in brackets,(perfect for the console kiddies)

This thread is needed, the OP is right. Okay for the most part, yes, Crysis 1 has BETTER textures than Crysis 2, BUT, it's not as beautiful as people make it out to be. Seriously, people are comparing a MODDED Crysis 1 MAXED OUT to a regular Crysis 2. They only focus on Crysis 1's beauty then compare it to Crysis 2's ugly. They never focus on Crysis 1's ugly.

They also start to go on about how Crysis 1 was one of the best fps games ever and had AMAZING INNOVATIVE GAMEPLAY, when really, when you rewind back to 2007 at the release of Crysis 1, you read about tons of complaints that the gameplay svcks and the AI is stupid >_<"

Next thing you know, Crysis 2 is going to become THIS SUPER AMAZING GAME to these haters once Crysis 3 is released......damn hypocrits.

how is that not a fair comparison? are you retarded?

2007 game modded vs 2011 game?

pretty fair comparison you **** dumbass.

You're forgetting one thing stupid: That 2007 game called Crysis 1 still brings high end rigs to their knees TODAY. It's just bad optimization.

And another thing: The time frame from 2006-Right now is a specific generation of graphics. You can find games in 2008 looking better than games in 2011. JUST BECAUSE it's a later year DOES NOT mean there's going to be a ridiculous amount of improvement....not until the next generation of graphics (which have yet to come).

And just because I can: Have you seen a modded Oblvion? It's an OLD ASS game but damn.....when you mod the graphics IT LOOKS FREAKIN' AMAZING. And that's an OLD game. Your theory/logic is flawed, fix yourself.

This thread is needed, the OP is right. Okay for the most part, yes, Crysis 1 has BETTER textures than Crysis 2, BUT, it's not as beautiful as people make it out to be. Seriously, people are comparing a MODDED Crysis 1 MAXED OUT to a regular Crysis 2. They only focus on Crysis 1's beauty then compare it to Crysis 2's ugly. They never focus on Crysis 1's ugly.

They also start to go on about how Crysis 1 was one of the best fps games ever and had AMAZING INNOVATIVE GAMEPLAY, when really, when you rewind back to 2007 at the release of Crysis 1, you read about tons of complaints that the gameplay svcks and the AI is stupid >_<"

Next thing you know, Crysis 2 is going to become THIS SUPER AMAZING GAME to these haters once Crysis 3 is released......damn hypocrits.

Hey! stop that.

Trying to make sense out of this nonsense. How dare you bring logic into this forum. Are trying to sabotage the whiners need to complain?

Lmao +1 to you man, this gave me a good laugh XD

So you're saying that crysis 2 didn't suffer at all from being console-focused in it's design?

Crysis 1 might not have had ideal textures either, but it pushed the boundaries of PC tech and made things move forward. If you tried to port c1 to the consoles they would explode, yet 4 years later suddenly the same consoles have enough horsepower for a crysis game? lol.

They should have called this "Crysis Lite" instead of 2.



Yeah, it pushed the boundaries because it was BADLY optimized Oh yeah, looks GREAT! But when you got a crossfire 6990 only being able to pull of about 50-60 frames in Crysis Warhead during one of the more intense sequences, something is wrong......the frames should be 100+ not 50-60 lmao.

This thread is needed, the OP is right. Okay for the most part, yes, Crysis 1 has BETTER textures than Crysis 2, BUT, it's not as beautiful as people make it out to be. Seriously, people are comparing a MODDED Crysis 1 MAXED OUT to a regular Crysis 2. They only focus on Crysis 1's beauty then compare it to Crysis 2's ugly. They never focus on Crysis 1's ugly.

They also start to go on about how Crysis 1 was one of the best fps games ever and had AMAZING INNOVATIVE GAMEPLAY, when really, when you rewind back to 2007 at the release of Crysis 1, you read about tons of complaints that the gameplay svcks and the AI is stupid >_<"

Next thing you know, Crysis 2 is going to become THIS SUPER AMAZING GAME to these haters once Crysis 3 is released......damn hypocrits.

how is that not a fair comparison? are you retarded?

2007 game modded vs 2011 game?

pretty fair comparison you **** dumbass.

You're forgetting one thing stupid: That 2007 game called Crysis 1 still brings high end rigs to their knees TODAY. It's just bad optimization.

And another thing: The time frame from 2006-Right now is a specific generation of graphics. You can find games in 2008 looking better than games in 2011. JUST BECAUSE it's a later year DOES NOT mean there's going to be a ridiculous amount of improvement....not until the next generation of graphics (which have yet to come).

And just because I can: Have you seen a modded Oblvion? It's an OLD ASS game but damn.....when you mod the graphics IT LOOKS FREAKIN' AMAZING. And that's an OLD game. Your theory/logic is flawed, fix yourself.

your logic is flawed. Crysis 2 was supposed to be next gen, not THIS gen. The only reason why games these days are 'current gen' is because developers use old engines because its all consoles can handle. cry2 wa supposed to be nextgen, they build a BRAND NEW engine that was supposed to be the greatest thing since sliced bread. BUT, in FOUR YEARS crytek could not improve upon their first game's visuals with cry2.

What the **** is the point of cryengine 3 if it looks worse than 2 with some console tweaks and community made textures? Oh wait, i know, consoles. We got shafted because of consoles plain and simple. Doesnt take a rocket scientist to notice.

crysis 1 brings high end pcs to their knees because its more demanding BECAUSE of the higher quality textures, graphics and destruction. Slap on a few mods and you have an almost photorealistic game.

Know why cry2 runs so well? Because it looks and plays like ****.

No idea why you keep defending this pile of **** game/developer.

how is that not a fair comparison? are you retarded?

2007 game modded vs 2011 game?

pretty fair comparison you **** dumbass.

You're forgetting one thing stupid: That 2007 game called Crysis 1 still brings high end rigs to their knees TODAY. It's just bad optimization.

And another thing: The time frame from 2006-Right now is a specific generation of graphics. You can find games in 2008 looking better than games in 2011. JUST BECAUSE it's a later year DOES NOT mean there's going to be a ridiculous amount of improvement....not until the next generation of graphics (which have yet to come).

And just because I can: Have you seen a modded Oblvion? It's an OLD ASS game but damn.....when you mod the graphics IT LOOKS FREAKIN' AMAZING. And that's an OLD game. Your theory/logic is flawed, fix yourself.

your logic is flawed. Crysis 2 was supposed to be next gen, not THIS gen. The only reason why games these days are 'current gen' is because developers use old engines because its all consoles can handle. cry2 wa supposed to be nextgen, they build a BRAND NEW engine that was supposed to be the greatest thing since sliced bread. BUT, in FOUR YEARS crytek could not improve upon their first game's visuals with cry2.

What the **** is the point of cryengine 3 if it looks worse than 2 with some console tweaks and community made textures? Oh wait, i know, consoles. We got shafted because of consoles plain and simple. Doesnt take a rocket scientist to notice.

crysis 1 brings high end pcs to their knees because its more demanding BECAUSE of the higher quality textures, graphics and destruction. Slap on a few mods and you have an almost photorealistic game.

Know why cry2 runs so well? Because it looks and plays like ****.

No idea why you keep defending this pile of **** game/developer.

No no and no. Crytek never said Crysis 2 was going to be next gen. They kept saying they were going to take the most out of current generation consoles. They said CryEngine 3 was Next Gen Ready, and showed breattaking demos of it to get licensees for their engine so more games would use it. No one ever said Crysis 2 was going to push your rig to the limit, you just took it for granted because it was made by Crytek. I mean seriously...what did you expect...was any of their advertising about PC. Nope besides deferred lighting it was all about console console console.

Now I agree that the graphics in Crysis 2 aren't up to the expectations of a PC gamer, but it neither looks like or plays like ****. It is either the best or second best looking game on the market right now, and the gameplay and story are awesome. Crysis 1 had such an empty story. It told you absolutely nothing. After beating it all you could do was ask your self: Where the **** did these random aliens come from? What are the Koreans doing here? What the hell is going on? Who are these people? What the **** happened to Prophet?...etc. Not to mention gameplay in Crysis 1 was rather slow paced and boring. Warhead was a HUGE improvement and was a lot of fun, but ti was like 2 hours long. Multiplayer was a load of **** in both games. Crysis 2 has one of the most intsnse and enjoyable singleplayer campaigns I have seen in years (rivaled only by Mass Effect 2 and Half Life 2 IMO) and the multiplayer is also fun. And the story actually makes sense and is epic.

I commend Crytek because they actually made an amazing game...instead of a cool tech demo with half assed gameplay.