A lot of PC gamers are very disappointed with the graphics of Crysis 2 that some people even flame or call Crytek devs names. So my question is: for PC gamers, the graphics are much more important than gameplay ? Just because Crysis doesn't live up to your high expectation about the graphic, then you hate it ?

I really dont understand this.

is cos of the original crysis, they will get over their hissy fit, don't worry

In crysis 1, gameplay was okay not just graphics.

the problem is with the way in which DX11 was used to market this game and that those with PC's have hardware that makes a playstation 3 weep at how crap it is compared with a decent gaming PC, and PS3 is the best of the consoles(flame away, as u now I’m right).

DX11 was mentioned several times during the marketing of Crysis 2, this lead to an expectation that PC gamers would get a DX11 version of the game. The original crysis was in both DX9 & DX10, a lot of us PC gamers feel not releasing a DX11 or even DX10 version is a huge step backwards and also giving us loyal fans the finger at the same time. The only reason DX9 was used was because consoles use it, and for this reason we feel Crytek has sold out it's original fanbase, the PC gamer.

While on the subject of graphics and visuals, the areas in crysis 2 are notable smaller, crysis 1 was vast open areas. i have a feeling that this was also due to the consulisation of crysis.

Point two; Crysis was used as a benchmark program, it took a beast of a rig to play it on max setting, something I only recently managed when I upgraded my graphics card to a GTX580. I play the original crysis and warhead every couple of months and still find the graphics blow me away. There are very few games that manage to look and play well and crysis managed this wonderfully. The PC gamer expected that Crysis 2 would follow the original game but improving on the visuals and add more options with the suit and other aspects of the game play that could be improved.

What we did not expect was a CoD/Halo lookalike, the multiplayer is so like CoD and the campaign was just like playing halo right down to the foes looking so much like them I kept having to check which game I was playing.

While I can respect the hardware/software frustrations from PC gamers I think they also need to wake up a little and release that console gaming is a much bigger market. While I dont think that means that PC gamers should have to suffer, to expect developers to cater ONLY for the so-called master-race is old fashioned. Gaming has changed a lot over the last few years.

Well,

I would naturally assume the game should look better than the first, so when I played it and it was obviously a console port I was not only pissed that the game looked like ****, but more upset that I was ignored as a consumer. (I did not buy the game, played it at a friends house)

Also this game svcks as far as story/gameplay compared to the first 2.

To sum up my point. PC gamers are not upset because we value graphics over anything else. We are pissed, and rightfully so because Crytek ignored us, put out a mediocre product at best and lied that it was a PC game ported to consoles.

Crysis 2 feels like a solid shooter unlike Crysis 1. I'd take solid shooter gameplay and a very slight graphic downgrade over Crysis 1 any day

What he said^

If the attachment size was larger I would show side by sides, but it isnt. so.
I can just say that I have solid proof that C2 is the same as C1, if not better

People argue that the engine is weaker in many ways, but even if that were true, would it matter?
Graphics are about how it looks, not how it secretly functions in non-noticable ways. (like people argue)

Also, I think that the great thing about crysis is how the graphics are always the absolute best quality there is, AND the gameplay is sophistocated and fun and not just chip choppy and shooty.

If DX11 was something that Crytek was using as a selling point, then I can understand the frustration. I don't know if they did because I wasn't paying too much attention to the advertising, but if that was the case, I say they should be mad. Companies always exaggerate how good their products are, but that is just an outright lie.

However, there are PC gamers who actually prefer the gameplay in Crysis 1. If that is there preference, that's fine. But they state their opinions as if they are undeniable facts with such ferver ad nauseum that it just really gets annoying. Also, some PC gamers on these forums seem to love hyperbole. They say that Crysis 1 was open world and Crysis 2 is a corridor shooter. While there is not as much space in Crysis 2, it is far from a corridor shooter and while Crysis 1 levels had more room, it was just as linear.

They also overstate the destruction in Crysis 1. Yes, you could destroy a couple more things in Crysis 1, but they didn't make much of a difference. You could destroy trees(whoopdy-do) and the wooden or corrugated metal portions of shacks(but not the concrete parts, i.e. the shack in the middle of the rice field near the helicopter base), but what about actual buildings? Get to the harbor level in Crysis 1 and unload rockets at one of the buildings. No destruction what-so-ever.

And finally, any gameplay mechanic tweak that makes the game less complicated is immediately hated by a good portion of them because they interpret that as consolization, even if it is an improvement, like being able to combine suit powers.

People argue that the engine is weaker in many ways, but even if that were true, would it matter? Graphics are about how it looks, not how it secretly functions in non-noticable ways. (like people argue).

The people saying that are basing the claims on the texture resolutions in the game, which is not the same thing as engine power. You can put **** textures in an Unreal Engine 3 game too (Singularity, Enslaved, etc.), but that doesn't mean the engine is not powerful. It's just means that the development team chose to not put high res textures in. It does not necessarily reflect the engine's power.

In most ways, it clearly lives up to my expectation. There are certain things that I laugh about (like when I end up beneath the surface of the lab and can't get back unless quit and re-login), but not in a mocking way. I've had a lot of fun playing this game. Beeing more of a rpg-player, I haven't that much insight of FPS-games as a genre. Crysis/Crysis 2 is, along with Medal of Honor, the only FPS I've enjoyed a great deal. I keep playing single player over and over, it's a lot of fun.

I'm not gonna be able to develop a more advanced and graphically superior game - therefore, I will not complain. It's my opinion that it was worth the wait, the money and the time I've put into gaming my ass off - so, I will not complain as a customer either. Although, I truly enjoy the whole concept of a nanosuit, and the technology spinning within. Plus, it looks great.

While I can respect the hardware/software frustrations from PC gamers I think they also need to wake up a little and release that console gaming is a much bigger market. While I dont think that means that PC gamers should have to suffer, to expect developers to cater ONLY for the so-called master-race is old fashioned. Gaming has changed a lot over the last few years.

Yes but gaming is not advancing as it should have. Why consoles hardware are so far behind is puzzling, noting its stronger market.

Yes but gaming is not advancing as it should have. Why consoles hardware are so far behind is puzzling, noting its stronger market.

It's because they were pretty advanced when they were thought up, which is a couple of years before it is put on sale. And then, once a console is out, gamers and developers want it to last awhile. Gamers for financial reasons, developers because they don't want to have to learn a new architecture every 3 years.

I think one of the main reasons that the PC gamers are so pissed off is because, for the most part, Crysis 2 has no tie in to the original Crysis other than 1 character for all of a minute and a couple of flashbacks. That along with the fact that Camarillo promised that the PC version would not cut corners just because it was being made for consoles as well. This is a promise many PC gamers feel was not kept. I personally enjoy the game, but i don't know that I'd truly call it Crysis 2. I think once some of the issues get ironed out things will turn around, but with a lot of people still not being able to play MP due to server problems and hackers, I can see why people are upset.

I think one of the main reasons that the PC gamers are so pissed off is because, for the most part, Crysis 2 has no tie in to the original Crysis other than 1 character for all of a minute and a couple of flashbacks. That along with the fact that Camarillo promised that the PC version would not cut corners just because it was being made for consoles as well. This is a promise many PC gamers feel was not kept. I personally enjoy the game, but i don't know that I'd truly call it Crysis 2. I think once some of the issues get ironed out things will turn around, but with a lot of people still not being able to play MP due to server problems and hackers, I can see why people are upset.

Why would Crytek changing the story only piss off PC gamers? There are people who played Crysis 2 on console that played the original Crysis. I hate it when people just have to group people into a certain category. I played the original Crysis and Crysis 2 on PS3 and hated the story change. I can understand people not liking the decision, but it's not like people were lied to about what the story was gonna be like.

Corners being cut on PC and Crytek using DX11 as a selling point and then not having it is something I can sympathize with the PC people on. If you are not sure if you can make something happen, don't let your mouth write a check your company can't cash.

I have found a good anology for what Pc gamers expected of Crysis 2.

So if youre a fan of Operation Flashpoint or ARMA then youve been probably disappointed by Operation Flashpoint 2 Dragon rising.
Not because its a bad game... its just so far away from the original that you dont recognize anything what the predecessor was famous about.
Crysis 1 had such a free and strategic gameplay.. giving the player a universe of options to complete a mission.
It sometimes almost came near a military simulation. The physics and the whole surrounding with the incredible physics just made each attempt unique and by playing Crysis about 12 times now... i still find new ways to complete the missions.

Crysis 2 is all Crytek could do to bring it on consoles and simplify it to make things easy for more casual style gamers.
And thats a progress that PC gamers hate... killing the complexity in games.. because Pcs can handle complex games like simulations while consoles dont. ( Best example is what has become of Operation Flashpoint)

Crysis 1 was amazing. It completely blew away other games in graphic quality when it came out. Crysis 2 looks amazing as well, and could arguably be the best in graphic quality today. Why do we complain?

Think of how amazing Crysis 2 looks. Now think of how much BETTER it could look with the full complement of DX11? Thousands of people were looking forward to a game that could truly put their computer to the test, to have to STRUGGLE to achieve high settings. The fact that the original Crysis was used as a BENCHMARK was proof of this. Crysis 2 was expected to replace it in that aspect.

For some of us PC-ers, its just a little disappointing. I do not care about the console port. I think expanding the market is a financially logical business decision. If they made sure the PC version met the expectations that the original became famous for, it would not have been a problem.

The story was captivating, the changes made to the Nanosuit were fun and in most ways advantageous, the AI was acceptable and challenging, and it kept me entertained for over 9 hours. The new graphics engine appears very well polished and solid, it just has so much more potential that we all wanted to see.

And of course, some DX11 promises were made and not kept. But, I think the above kind of explains why many (myself included) were disappointed with the finished product.

A lot of PC gamers are very disappointed with the graphics of Crysis 2 that some people even flame or call Crytek devs names. So my question is: for PC gamers, the graphics are much more important than gameplay ? Just because Crysis doesn't live up to your high expectation about the graphic, then you hate it ?

I really dont understand this.
I've never really complained about the graphics, I was disapointed about the dx11 thingy, but the gameplay svcks aswell, maximum cloak

I have found a good anology for what Pc gamers expected of Crysis 2.

Crysis 1 had such a free and strategic gameplay.. giving the player a universe of options to complete a mission.
It sometimes almost came near a military simulation. The physics and the whole surrounding with the incredible physics just made each attempt unique and by playing Crysis about 12 times now... i still find new ways to complete the missions.

Crysis 2 is all Crytek could do to bring it on consoles and simplify it to make things easy for more casual style gamers.
And thats a progress that PC gamers hate... killing the complexity in games.. because Pcs can handle complex games like simulations while consoles dont. ( Best example is what has become of Operation Flashpoint)

I take serious issue with this. I have played Crysis 1 more times than I can count and for each objective there were only 3-4 strategic options for how the player can approach them. Each section of Crysis 2 had about the same number. As far as physics that are missing from Crysis 2, it isn't as much as most people think. Yeah, you can't break trees (pointless) and there are no shacks to destroy (and you could only destroy wooden or sheet metal portions of them, anything concrete was not deformed), but aside from that there isn't that much difference. You could never damage actual buildings in Crysis 1, or shipping containers, or large ships, or rip up railway lines, or make craters in the ground, etc. The physics in Crysis 1 are overstated.

You can still pick up objects and people in Crysis 2 and throw them with strength mode to kill other enemies or knock them down.

Additionally, the only suit power missing in single player is speed mode. Other than that, all previous suit abilities are there. And on top of that, you can now use more than one suit power at the same time.

So making the suit more powerful by allowing you to use multiple suit powers at once is a bad thing? Being able to use more than one of your suit powers at a time is a bad thing because it is easier to be a badass than in Crysis 1? I am sure you will counter by telling us that that is not what you said, but that is what I am getting from what you wrote.

So anything that was done to make the suit more accessible was obviously done so it would work on consoles and for no other reason? It couldn't have been possible that maybe Crytek felt that only being able to use one power at a time was holding the game back?

To me, more often than not I see posts from the hardcoe PC guys and it basically boils down to that because Crysis 2 can also work on a console, they hate it. I say that because alot of the things they list as being great about Crysis 1 are either still in Crysis 2 or it is a subjective issue such as the maps being bigger. If you like those that's fine, but it's a matter of opinion, and they state it as a fact. A large amount of those large campaign maps were fat. Space filled with boredom and speed mode so I could hurry up and finally get to do something other than walking through the jungle. I did not miss that stuff one bit. Crysis 2 is missing free use of vehicles and vehicle variety, that is true and sad that they are gone I must admit.

Oh, and the games are comparable lengths too. If you go through both games just rushing to complete objectives you complete both in about the same time. But if you take your time it can be much longer. And in both games the increase in hours comes from being creative and finding fun ways to mess with your enemies. Again, not much difference there.

A lot of PC gamers are very disappointed with the graphics of Crysis 2 that some people even flame or call Crytek devs names. So my question is: for PC gamers, the graphics are much more important than gameplay ? Just because Crysis doesn't live up to your high expectation about the graphic, then you hate it ?

I really dont understand this.

You think graphics is the only thing **** up here? Please, do your homework! It's obvious you haven't even played C1 if you think the new CoD style is better. F*ING LOL!

A lot of PC gamers are very disappointed with the graphics of Crysis 2 that some people even flame or call Crytek devs names. So my question is: for PC gamers, the graphics are much more important than gameplay ? Just because Crysis doesn't live up to your high expectation about the graphic, then you hate it ?

I really dont understand this.

The reason IMO is that if you get console graphics on PC you know it's because the developer decided to hold back on PC. If a game plays like crap it just means they tried to make a good game but something went wrong. Nobody sets out to make a game that plays like crap but they do set out to make console games for the PC.

The lack of PC level graphics in PC Games is also a trend and PC Gamers have just had enough of it over time.

Besides if you complain about gameplay what does it achieve? Developers will always make the game play to the best of their ability telling them to make it better is redundant.

We need to let devs know if the graphics aren't PC standard they won't sell well on PC. They already know if it plays like a POS it won't sell very well. We don't need to tell them that.

maybe this might be an eyeopener for console gamers http://www.maximumpc.com/article/12_ways_consoles_are_hurting_pc_gaming

seriously the level of ignorance in console gamers is appalling

1. Console = grabbing little dog tags and statuettes for silly rewards (PC games as a rule dont have this)
2. Console = Save Points
3. **** graphics compared to a older Crysis, why go backwards with technology?
4. Console = No open game play

I dont like console game play period, that is why i choose the pc as a platform but lately things have been digressing. IF you dont get it by now then you will never understand.

Why drive a beetle when a Pagani Zonda is far better?


A lot of PC gamers are very disappointed with the graphics of Crysis 2 that some people even flame or call Crytek devs names. So my question is: for PC gamers, the graphics are much more important than gameplay ? Just because Crysis doesn't live up to your high expectation about the graphic, then you hate it ?

I really dont understand this.

A lot of PC gamers are very disappointed with the graphics of Crysis 2 that some people even flame or call Crytek devs names. So my question is: for PC gamers, the graphics are much more important than gameplay ? Just because Crysis doesn't live up to your high expectation about the graphic, then you hate it ?

I really dont understand this.

The reason IMO is that if you get console graphics on PC you know it's because the developer decided to hold back on PC. If a game plays like crap it just means they tried to make a good game but something went wrong. Nobody sets out to make a game that plays like crap but they do set out to make console games for the PC.

The lack of PC level graphics in PC Games is also a trend and PC Gamers have just had enough of it over time.

Besides if you complain about gameplay what does it achieve? Developers will always make the game play to the best of their ability telling them to make it better is redundant.

We need to let devs know if the graphics aren't PC standard they won't sell well on PC. They already know if it plays like a POS it won't sell very well. We don't need to tell them that.
So, you PC gamers don't buy games just because their graphics aren't PC standard ?
Your post just confirmed that for many PC gamers, the most important aspect in games are graphics. Even if the gameplay, story are great but the graphics are not as good as Crysis then they get pissed off.
It's like once you ate caviar, then you get mad because you get steak instaed of caviar.