If you look at the textures, it looks like they were originally high res but they reduced the resolution intentionally. Maybe this was to make the game fit on one disc? One of the features of CryEngine 3 is blend layering and no repeating textures. And there is a lot to render...so many parts of NY, stpres, etc. Crysis 1, although it has more polyongs, etc. had a lot of trees and foliage. Chances are in C1 they took a few basic textures for foliage and repeated them many times in the game...leaving a lot of space for things like roads and buildings. It's not as easy in Crysis 2.

I mean in all honesty, the lighting and other visual aspects of the game are terrififc. The only annoying thing is the textures. The majority of oconsole ports have enhanced textures on PC...so why wouldn't Crysis 2. I'm sure Crytek had a very good reason for this and gives me hope for a texture pack. If they couldn't fit all the data onto one disc, they could provide it via patches.

Yes they could have a double disc installation, but that's just annoying. How many games these days have 2 discs?

CONSOLE

I believe one of the consuls has inferior texture capabilities.

I believe consoles are inferior, period.

Funny thing, I just played the original leaked beta (I also own a legit copy) in 64bit mode, and not only are the textures vastly superior to the final game's, it also runs better. I can run the leak at 1680x1050 at medium settings at a constant 62.5 FPS. If I try to run the final version at those settings, it will never go over 50 FPS. The beta is 9.22GB, the final is 9.75GB and doesn't even include the editor, so I'm assuming it's just a matter turning on higher quality filtering.

It's now becoming more and more clear to me that the game was rushed out the door before they could optimize it well enough for the PC. It smells like EA's filthy meddling hands of greed. Or maybe it's something else. Console sales endangered by PC supremacy? Anyway that's just speculation.

Hopefully Crytek are working hard now to correct the error and we'll end up with something much more amazing.

[leaked beta] not only are the textures vastly superior to the final game's

Obligatory pics or it didn't happen

Funny thing, I just played the original leaked beta (I also own a legit copy) in 64bit mode, and not only are the textures vastly superior to the final game's, it also runs better. I can run the leak at 1680x1050 at medium settings at a constant 62.5 FPS. If I try to run the final version at those settings, it will never go over 50 FPS. The beta is 9.22GB, the final is 9.75GB and doesn't even include the editor, so I'm assuming it's just a matter turning on higher quality filtering.

It's now becoming more and more clear to me that the game was rushed out the door before they could optimize it well enough for the PC. It smells like EA's filthy meddling hands of greed. Or maybe it's something else. Console sales endangered by PC supremacy? Anyway that's just speculation.

Hopefully Crytek are working hard now to correct the error and we'll end up with something much more amazing.

The leaked beta had 64-bit integration?

[leaked beta] not only are the textures vastly superior to the final game's

Obligatory pics or it didn't happen

I didn't notice a difference. The textures were equally bad IMO.

And yes it had 64-bit integaration but was extremely buggy.

I really have no idea what you guys are talking about. I've been playing the original Crysis for the past year on a 37" TV. I've recently been playing Crysis 2 and comparing texture for texture with the original game's, and have found both of them to be basically the same quality overall. I found that in both games certain objects had more defined textures than others, which is normal in any game.

And to anyone who says that this game looks the same or worse than any other game out there today seriously needs to have their eyes checked. CryEngine 3 is definitely an improvement over CryEngine 2. With more realistic lighting, destructible environments and several other tech upgrades. I've seen that the new Frostbite Engine 2 (which BF3 will be running on) will be utilizing some of same features.

If you do a comparison from a technical standpoint, Crysis 1 has C2 beat. Crysis 2 uses almost 512x512 exclusively, with some character being 2048x2048. Meanwhile Crysis 1 used 1024x1024 for most things, including the ground. As well, Crysis 1 had specular maps and diffuse maps of the SAME resolution as the color map (i.e. a color map of 1024x1024 had a diffuse map of 1024x1024). However, in Crysis 2 we have color maps of 512x512 with diffuse maps as low as 256x256. I've even seen a few color maps in Crysis 2 of 1024x1024 stuck together with diffuse / specular maps of 256x256. For reference, that means the diffuse map is being stretched to 16x its original scale - i.e. it svcks.

No just no...

Textures made for 360.

Im intrigued, ill dl that beta just for kicks

You are the one who needs to get his eyes checked if you haven't seen this and are trying to tell otherwise: http://cloud.steampowered.com/ugc/540637749849897274/0CE71F83648874EB2BC47DD592C14503B12B9D42/

And where do you see destructible evironments? If you try to shoot a tree, it won't break, neither does it's leaves shake when you shoot at them. You can also try to throw granades at the crates or anything like that but nothing happens.

Did you ever notice how in the original game, not every object would break? They gave certain objects destructibility and others little to none at all. That's exactly what they did with this game, they just changed up which objects would be destructible. And while it is true that most trees aren't breakable, some are. I've been able to break the smallest trees into pieces just like the original game. Most of the new breakables are actually cement medians and wall columns along with glass and some others. It also has metallic warping of objects when you shoot them.

Concerning the textures, the game is most likely using fewer hi-rez to compensate for just how many textures are in the new york environment.

I clicked on that link you posted, and I can tell you for a fact that I haven't come across any texture that looked that bad. Did you take that screenshot? If so, where's the location in the game where you took it. I'm running the game in 1080p with the highest settings. And just how often do you get that up close for a screenshot anyway?

I clicked on that link you posted, and I can tell you for a fact that I haven't come across any texture that looked that bad. Did you take that screenshot? If so, where's the location in the game where you took it. I'm running the game in 1080p with the highest settings. And just how often do you get that up close for a screenshot anyway?
I know that place, it's from one of the earliest levels - Second Chance. After nano-suit teach you how to use invisibility mode inside circular building (Castle Clinton, I guess) you kill three CELL soldiers and jump over the roof of that building. This is that place. Screenshot has map image, so I'm pretty sure you won't miss this texture. It's really that bad.

But I don't care, I like Crysis 2 and think that it's much more beautiful than Crysis and Crysis Warhead because of lighting and art design. But I never label Crysis games as graphics benchmarks, and I like all three games because of gameplay.

Why speculate? It's clear as daylight.

XBOX hardware limitations are the reason. You really think that since the engine now allows for simultaneous development on all 3 platforms that they would bother to go back over the PC version later and Upgrade things like AI and texture res? That costs money, they just saved a bunch by co-developing all 3 versions at once, but why waste it on us PC gamers... after all we're all just dirty pirates.

I'd like to just point out that despite all the bad press before this game was released, that I was still looking forward to what looked to be an epic shooter.

I'm going to keep this as short and sweet as I possibly can, because it's already been said by most of the community (and I'm not just talking about the PC community)

I've been long awaiting this game and it's looked to be brilliant from start - almost to finish.

I rarely moan about these things, I'm aware of the effort involved in making the final product what it is, but I feel it has to be said.

Crysis 2 is a MASSIVE let down. Whatever angle you care to look at it, it is no-where near the game it should be. The shear amount of time and effort it must have taken Crytek to get this game to look as good as it does - and for it to work on the 360 limited memory capabilities boggles the mind. Because no-matter how good the content looks, it's extremely apparent this game has been 'boxed in' to accommodate the limited technology (helped by the new largely static urban landscape)

Lack of DX11 support aside (although also big let down), the textures even when set to the 'extreme' setting are very dull, even when AF is set to 16. It really does show.

Edit: Forgot to mention the extremely flat half arsed 3D support also, it's barely worth using. I disabled it half way through the game as it was more a distraction.

It is not internet gossip, Crytek have simply sold out the PC community to achieve maximum buck (no pun intended, maybe)

This although productive for release, is counter productive in the long term. People still acknowledge Crysis today for it's achievements in both gameplay and graphical advancements in PC gaming. Crysis 2 on the other hand goes backwards in all directions. Crytek are of course fairly new to the scene by all means, but even more so the console scene. I would put money and possibly my left nut on the fact that they will not be remembered for this game. It is for lack of a better suited phrase - massive disappointment.

I saw a tree break yesterday, it snapped in half so I hid behind a bus stop

Bus stop didn't break

People still acknowledge Crysis today for it's achievements in both gameplay and graphical advancements in PC gaming.
Don't know what you're talking about. A lot of gamers still think that Crysis is just a benchmark with the dullest gameplay ever. And Crysis Warhead is an awful add-on with pointless storyline and the easiest way to earn money from gamers.

I saw a tree break yesterday, it snapped in half so I hid behind a bus stop

Bus stop didn't break

I knew it! I was starting to think I'd gone insane. I've seen trees break from gunfire or rocket fire, but every time I mention it 3 or 4 people call me a liar. But the truth is, there are probably only like 15 destructible trees in the game, and they're randomly scattered throughout the entire campaign, and probably randomly generated with each load so I can never find the same one twice to prove it exists ._.

Why speculate? It's clear as daylight.

XBOX hardware limitations are the reason. You really think that since the engine now allows for simultaneous development on all 3 platforms that they would bother to go back over the PC version later and Upgrade things like AI and texture res? That costs money, they just saved a bunch by co-developing all 3 versions at once, but why waste it on us PC gamers... after all we're all just dirty pirates.

If they "upgraded" the PC version using that method you described, then, of course, it would a cost them a lot of time and money.

The thing is, super high texture resolutions for the PC version should have been "planned" from the very start of the development of Cryengine3. That would have been far more efficient than updating each individual texture pack later on.

What you should do is, for every texture image you create, you make for each folder a LOW quality image (for XBOX and PC's High Setting) and a SUPER HIGH. Or, you start off with the SUPER HIGH TEXTURE and then from that you can make a lower quality which is "downscaled".

Remember the forums all over the internet when the development of Crysis 2 was first announced? The most common question that was asked was about whether the consoles will drag down the PC and make the PC version "worse" than Crysis 1. They tried to calm us down by assuring us that the graphics will not be a step backwards from Crysis 2. We now have a game that looks better in terms of overall art direction and the environment settings, in my opinion. But all of that does not excuse the low resolution textures on the PC compared the the higher textures we had before.

This is Crysis and not any other game. I expected compromises because of the consoles, and the game still looks overall relatively beautiful, but the individual low quality textures are unforgivable.

On top of that, Crytek are also hurting themselves from this. You see, Crysis 1 and Crysis Warhead gained notoriety due to their high PC spec requirements. That benefits Crytek in that they include MEDIUM settings for more "common" PC specs, but also, the reputation of the game's "cutting edge", "history-making" advanced maximum levels promotes the game further than any other PC game graphics-wise.

Look at how many PC gamers upgraded their PC just to play Crysis. Everyone has heard the term: "CAN IT PLAY CRYSIS". Look at how many graphics card benchmarks reviews all over the internet used Crysis 1 as an important benchmark. So, what PC moaners are complaining about is for Crytek's own good. If you have a PC game that just blends in graphically with all the other PC games, then it is essentially just another PC game. If, on the other hand, you do the same game, but include a graphical option for super high resolution textures that make the game look outstanding and will be written down in history books for its impact on the PC world, then you, Crytek, benefit.

Cevat Yerli on an interview with PC Play in April 2008 stated that he was disappointed to see Crysis 1 leading the charts in piracy. Yet, by May 2010, Crysis 1 had sold over 3 million units (and its standalone expansion about 1.5 million units) making it one of the best selling PC games of all time. Why did it sell so well. Do you really think people bought that game for its storyline? I don't think so. There was nothing special about its storyline. The reason it was such a popular PC game was mostly due to its graphical notoriety.

Of course, Crysis 2 will also sell well on the PC, especially as the Crysis series has an established PC fan base. However, it is a shame that Crytek with this new game, which is still a good game, has turned their backs on their own "cutting edge" high PC reputation which made them successful.

People still acknowledge Crysis today for it's achievements in both gameplay and graphical advancements in PC gaming.
Don't know what you're talking about. A lot of gamers still think that Crysis is just a benchmark with the dullest gameplay ever. And Crysis Warhead is an awful add-on with pointless storyline and the easiest way to earn money from gamers.

Correction: /v/ thinks that Crysis " is just a benchmark with the dullest gameplay ever".