Graphics is the foundation on which fascination turns into fun!

This game is not complete before Dx11 is FULLY implemented.

Am I alone with this opinion?

Apparently I am YOU BASTERDS

yeah where the hell is our dx11? not even dx 10 available..

although i must say i am very impressed with the games looks and am quite suprised how well they have made it look with only dx9 features

Agreed game seems incomplete without better visuals on PC. It just isn't right that it looks basically the same on the old generation consoles as on a high spec PC.

Do any of you even know what could be improved if they added DX11 support? just adding support for DX11 doesn't change the graphics, they would have to write new shaders to take advantage of it, and probably remake half the game to take advantage of tessellation. Just going DX11 doesn't improve anything, it just makes it possible to use better quality/more elaborate shaders, and compute shaders (which 99% of people don't have a system that could handle any worthwhile ones). The only real thing they could improve on for me is adding some "detail textures" (extra textures used when close up to an object to fake detail) cause some of the textures are lacking compared to Crysis 1 and look blurry close up, and those are possible in DX9 mode. Remember Crysis 1's DX10 mode? The same one that people figured out how to get those same effects in DX9 cause the were artificially held back to help push the so called possibilities of DX10.... Just adding a DX11 mode doesn't make it a better looking game. Its like putting an engine in a new car frame and expecting to get more power from the same, unchanged engine.

Please don't get pulled into marketing hype from NVidia and ATI to sell more hardware that no software really takes advantage of yet cause only 1 percent of the market has hardware new and powerful enough to run it. We will see more DX11 support in the next couple years, especially when the next console generation starts being advertised and hyped, and more people have PC's capable of running titles that really use the features worth making shaders that elaborate for them. Tessellation is the only real feature worth having, and even then its a monster hit to performance for the couple games that use it so far. Even the cool liquid simulation demo's require a monster GPU to run half decent without AI and detailed worlds for the water to be in. Add that kind of water simulation into a game already taxing the GPU and you have a recipe for 0.01% of PC gamers to be able to run it at a playable framerate, and it just costs too much money to develop for such a small audience.

although i must say i am very impressed with the games looks and am quite suprised how well they have made it look with only dx9 features

Agreed, but still. Crysis 2 has not been fully release until Dx11 is FULLY implemented in the game nomatter if it comes from a patch of they mail us another disc containing dx11

Do any of you even know what could be improved if they added DX11 support? just adding support for DX11 doesn't change the graphics, they would have to write new shaders to take advantage of it, and probably remake half the game to take advantage of tessellation. Just going DX11 doesn't improve anything, it just makes it possible to use better quality/more elaborate shaders, and compute shaders (which 99% of people don't have a system that could handle any worthwhile ones). The only real thing they could improve on for me is adding some "detail textures" (extra textures used when close up to an object to fake detail) cause some of the textures are lacking compared to Crysis 1 and look blurry close up, and those are possible in DX9 mode. Remember Crysis 1's DX10 mode? The same one that people figured out how to get those same effects in DX9 cause the were artificially held back to help push the so called possibilities of DX10.... Just adding a DX11 mode doesn't make it a better looking game. Its like putting an engine in a new car frame and expecting to get more power from the same, unchanged engine.

Please don't get pulled into marketing hype from NVidia and ATI to sell more hardware that no software really takes advantage of yet cause only 1 percent of the market has hardware new and powerful enough to run it. We will see more DX11 support in the next couple years, especially when the next console generation starts being advertised and hyped, and more people have PC's capable of running titles that really use the features worth making shaders that elaborate for them. Tessellation is the only real feature worth having, and even then its a monster hit to performance for the couple games that use it so far. Even the cool liquid simulation demo's require a monster GPU to run half decent without AI and detailed worlds for the water to be in. Add that kind of water simulation into a game already taxing the GPU and you have a recipe for 0.01% of PC gamers to be able to run it at a playable framerate, and it just costs too much money to develop for such a small audience.

Playable framerates must be 60 and up and I agree but 0.01%? come on. You are overdoing it. The magic of Dx11 is that you can have more detail at less cost on performance. I basically got a intel core 2 duo @ 2x 3,16 and 4 gigs of dd2 gaming ram and a sapphire 5870. Im sure theyre must be thousands of people with better specs than mine but few of them as hyped up by the last years dx11 glorification as me. Socalled "cool liquid simulations" is just a marketing scheme provided by nvidia to show off something that they've worked on and to get in pockets of succers

Dx11 is more than tessalation man, and Metro 2033 was a maximum failure optimization-wise. I cant name all of the specific names of different effects but I know for a fact that its MUCH more than just tessalation thats worth having with dx11. You sound like you dont want graphics to evolve.

Performance is mostly developers responsibility with optimization and clever solutions, people generally doesnt have to pay with blood to be able to play the newest game although that may be the case sadly some times.

Hope developers drops the money issue and focuses on whats really important.

And yes, doesnt help to switch the game into dx11 mode if there isnt any dx11 effects, but i cant help believing that they have something up theyre sleeve. My guess is that they simply released a consoled version on all platforms and theyre waiting to sales drop and then maybe they will show us what they've REALLY been working on. Atleast I hope so.

Do any of you even know what could be improved if they added DX11 support? just adding support for DX11 doesn't change the graphics, they would have to write new shaders to take advantage of it, and probably remake half the game .....

Blah, blah, blah. If they couldn't do it they shouldn't have promised us DX11. FACT!

Graphics is the foundation on which fascination turns into fun!

This game is not complete before Dx11 is FULLY implemented.

Am I alone with this opinion?

Untrue, fun is derived from the entire experience, of which graphics is a small portion of. I do agree, the game should have DX11 implemented from the start, however it would not make a huge difference in the experience. Many critically and fan acclaimed games do not have mind bending graphics, running the gamut from Braid, to Portal, to Red Orchestra... the foundation of these games is the gameplay, that is what is fascinating about them, and that is what translates into fun.

No one should be happy about being mislead on the features which the game would have at launch, but the game is better than most any other similar shooter. Besides, shouldn't people be more upset about the lack of an editor instead of dx11?

Graphics is the foundation on which fascination turns into fun!

This game is not complete before Dx11 is FULLY implemented.

Am I alone with this opinion?

Untrue, fun is derived from the entire experience, of which graphics is a small portion of. I do agree, the game should have DX11 implemented from the start, however it would not make a huge difference in the experience. Many critically and fan acclaimed games do not have mind bending graphics, running the gamut from Braid, to Portal, to Red Orchestra... the foundation of these games is the gameplay, that is what is fascinating about them, and that is what translates into fun.

No one should be happy about being mislead on the features which the game would have at launch, but the game is better than most any other similar shooter. Besides, shouldn't people be more upset about the lack of an editor instead of dx11?

The more annoying part of that long-winded post (I almost TL:DR'd you) is the ignorance of it. Which is why I almost stopped reading it. I'm what you'd call a "hardware enthusiast" when it comes to my PC. I overclock it, I liquid cool with custom parts on the parts of the computer that will benefit from it (CPU and GPU) and I do know what my hardware is capable of. *I* do know what DX11 will change, your "talking down" to us is extremely vexing.

We're **** PC users NOT console people! A lot of us do actually know a thing or two about computers and software, and that's why they are pissed about the lack of DX11. A lot of us thought this game would take full advantage of our hardware, and we waited for it to see what our rigs could really do with it, and to see what our computers were really capable of when pushed to the extreme.

Final bit being, again your ignorance; The game's files already have DX11 in them, they don't need to remake them all like you suggest, maybe some here and there. For the most part they're just optimizing would be my guess as to why the DX11 part of the game hasn't been enabled yet. I'm tired of this argument, even if I am technically on your side, you're essentially spreading misinformation which I am against. Do your homework, know your audience before speaking to them, and enjoy the game. Despite the lack of DX11, I sure as hell know I am!

What? Playable frame rate is only 60? Anything above 25 is very playable.

What? Playable frame rate is only 60? Anything above 25 is very playable.

60 is desirable because it's where the human eye can longer perceive a "noticeable" difference in frame spikes or drops, essentially everything above 60 looks very much the same and natural to your eyes.