I, like many other PC gamers, are quite disappoint in the fact that the PC version of Crysis 2 does not support DX11 and has a ton of dumb glitches that, quite frankly, should not have made it in to a "completed" product that sells for $59.99 USD.

With that being said, I have also noticed a ridiculous amount of Crytek bashing on these forums. And now I will ask the question: Do you feel that EA is more at fault here, forcing Crytek to rush the game to the market? EA has been hurting financially for quite some time now. I do have hopes that a series of patches for Crysis 2 will come out, updating the PC version, but again, remind yourself that EA is not paying Crytek to make patches. So basically if Crytek puts people on patch making it looks like theyre doing non-profit work to EA, which is ultimately a bad allocation of resources. Chances are, any "enhancements" to Crysis 2 will be some sort of DLC or something, and "enhancements" in the game's functionality should be done in a way that can secure more profit (which I am absolutely not defending, I think that's complete crap, but that's the way business works). Also, from what I've seen in the past, Crytek has never been good at dealing with criticism or complaints from the community. Remember how Crytek blamed the mediocre sales of the original Crysis on piracy and biched a lot to people who actually bought the game legitimately?

Also, we PC gamers pretty much always expect higher quality products than consoles (and this, again, is not a bad thing. We pay high dollar for hardware compared to consoles). When it was announced way back when that C2 was going to be multiplatform, we should have seen this coming, no matter what "promises" about the PC version were made.

I feel that EA is more at fault here than Crytek.

Thoughts?

My intent with this post was absolutely not to troll or start a flame war.

Bleh you're probably right. Which is what scares me about BF3. I know it's supposed to be PC as the main platform of development, but with EA involved it will no doubt be rushed to market in the same way.

It's not about the games anymore, it's about the Business. Same thing happened to movies and music when the suits get involved. Just like in movies and music, we'll have to look to the independent studios to provide anything beyond the typical mass-produced drivel they serve to the unwashed fools who buy it.

If EA was at fault, then Crysis 1 would have turned out the same way - which it obviously didn't.

EA probably played a role, but in my humble opinion based on my observations nearly all of the blame rests on Crytek's shoulders.

Exactly. And the business factor will go through the roof when a company is financially in distress. I do possess a copy of Crysis 2, sitting on my desk above my PC right now as I type, but I am not playing it until May. I am going to wait a few months to let more updates come out. I feel that Crytek does have the best intentions with developing games ( and especially PC games) and they were merely forced to cross-platform this game in order to save EA's ass.

To the other post, Crysis one did intially turn out the same way. Sales in the first few months were terrible. And it had numerous glitches and bugs. Oh, and absolutely horrendous performance. EA could also be the cause for this, causing the game to be rushed to the market before all the glitches and stuff were ironed out by Crytek.

If EA was at fault, then Crysis 1 would have turned out the same way - which it obviously didn't.

EA probably played a role, but in my humble opinion based on my observations nearly all of the blame rests on Crytek's shoulders.


Crysis 1 was from the end of a different age, when PC gaming and exclusive to PC titles was still seen as a viable source of revenue to the publishers.

^ Exactly.

To the other post, Crysis one did intially turn out the same way. Sales in the first few months were terrible. And it had numerous glitches and bugs. Oh, and absolutely horrendous performance. EA could also be the cause for this, causing the game to be rushed to the market before all the glitches and stuff were ironed out by Crytek.

I remember the release of Crysis 1. It wasn't the most beautiful thing in the world, but compared to Crysis2's it was a diamond.

Crytek was responsive, patched the game very quickly, kept up with support issues, and overall treated their customers like they cared about them and the game. None of that has happened with this release.

EA can only do so much to ruin a game. Perhaps that's what happened here. But let's get these 2 things straight.

1) Had this been a PC game only, (which was entirely Crytek's decision) nearly all of these issues would be gone. Improper Multigpu support? C'mon! That's a vital basic. Even blatant direct ports from other companies feature WORKING multigpu support! (And no it's not a driver issue. ATI released a new CAP which said should fix the problem and it didn't. Additionally, if you roll back the Crysis 2 1.1 patch, your Multigpu issues are solved! - but then you only have half a game with online being disabled.)

2) Crytek, not EA, is fully responsible for the nearly complete blackout of news addressing people's concerns with the game, the multitudes of problems with the game that render it unplayable in many, many cases, and what if anything they are trying to do to fix it. Instead of being kept in the dark, I'd love to hear an official, "No, we're not working on DX11, no we're not working on fixing Multigpu, no we're not working on fixing the numerous other ingame bugs, etc, etc, etc." All we got was that they don't like cheaters and are trying to fix that! That addressed 0.5% of the major problems people are having. This is not EA's doing. EA doesn't run Crytek's PR.

they both need to apologise to us and die kthxbai

Im not a fan of EA, but im not sure they carry much of the blame here.A lot of the things that disappointed the PC gamers seem like developers choices. BF3 will be multiplatform aswell, but it will be DX10/11 only, large maps, 64 players, everything you would expect of a new PC game. Same publisher, different developers. Perhaps EA didnt give Crytek enough time to make a good game, but thats just speculation. If im not mistaken C2 development started in 2007, should have beeen more then enough time to deliver something better.

Whoever is to blame, I wish them painful boils on their nether-regions. Boils so big they need to be lanced.

I am actually going to say that both crytek and EA or at fault but I believe the lionshare of the blame is on crytek thou.

If you remember last year after E3 crysis 2 was originally slated for a fall launch. it was going to be launched in september or october but then got delayed til March of 2011. This means crytek told EA they could not get this out the door on time and EA made some adjustments to there release schedule to accomodate Crytek.

Now understand EA is a publicly held company which means ownership is in the hands of shareholders and the perception of how well or how bad the company is doing is usually perceived by perception. For example poor reviews of Medal of Honor, caused the stock price of EA to drop dramatically because of the poor reviews. Although I could understand why they released Medal of Honor when they did and in the state that it was in was because the market for that game was rapidly closing. There is no way that a polished medal of honor could have even began to compete with BF3 and EA knew what it had with BF3. That's why that game got released in october in the state that its currently in. You also have to take into account that the big wigs at EA are under pressure from the market and shareholders in regards to competing with activision.

My belief is that originally crysis 2 was not going to be a dx11 game at all and it was just going to get released last fall. But then Nvidia steps in with 2 million dollars with a deal regarding this game and I believe this was the real reason for the delay in the first place. EA/Crytek took Nvidia's 2 mil and said we can implement dx11 on the pc side and also optimize the game for FXAA. EA then asked crytek when could you get this done and they said in the spring. EA said can u do it before the end of the 2nd quarter and Crytek said yes. EA said good cause we need this out by then to please our shareholders and the market.

Now here is where the problem starts. Cryengine 3 does not support direct x11 currently. So if you are going to build a game with dx11 your going to have to have a tool that can implement those features. So that means they have to build a dx11 capable version of cryengine 3 before they could implement dx11 features in crysis 2.

So crytek made them a dx11 version of cryengine 3 but by the time they got it working or at least got it functional enough that they could begin converting crysis 2 console version to dx11 pc version, time was rapidly running out .(note: if you look on crytek's mycryengine website you will find no where on that site that says cryengine 3 supports dx11. )

Crytek knew they would not have a dx11 version in time so they said it would be patched in later. But once you have an engine that would enable those features your going to have to have assets to place in the game to take advantage of those features. And I am willing to bet that's what they are doing now or they could have the assets but lack the tool to take advantage of them and that would probably explain Tiago Sousa's tweet the other day.

So I place a lot of the blame on crytek because they built a game around dx9, but told Nvidia that they could deliver on dx11 on release date which was false.

This also explains why there is no sandbox editor because the dx11 one can only be found with crytek and it would not make since to release a dx11 tool with a game that was built in dx9. Nor would it make since to release a dx9 tool for a game that suppose to be dx11.

The whole point of the secrecy probably has to do more with cryengine 3 then anything else. Cryengine 3's selling point has been that you could build all your versions of the game simultaenously , but from what is taking place here , makes that selling point questionable

Now here is where the problem starts. Cryengine 3 does not support direct x11 currently. So if you are going to build a game with dx11 your going to have to have a tool that can implement those features. So that means they have to build a dx11 capable version of cryengine 3 before they could implement dx11 features in crysis 2.

So crytek made them a dx11 version of cryengine 3 but by the time they got it working or at least got it functional enough that they could begin converting crysis 2 console version to dx11 pc version, time was rapidly running out .(note: if you look on crytek's mycryengine website you will find no where on that site that says cryengine 3 supports dx11. )


I've been arguing exactly this since the game launched. Good to find another person who see's it like I do.

Definitely Crytek.

I know one thing for sure: Crysis 2 is an insult and a betrayal of PC community by Crytek.
What it did is hurt Crytek more than EA. I have very little desire to go out and buy another Crytek engine based game unless it is on sale... CHEAP.

Then again, nobody at EA or Crytek will care about few costumers who are dissatisfied with their product, because we are in "minority". Crysis 2 sold well, despite the issues, that what matter to them. The only way to deliver a clear message is to boycott their next game. But that would be just cruel.

This isnt about Crysis 2, this is about Crytek trying to save face or join the history like so many other developer studious under EA did.
Nobody likes you, nobody will buy your product, even if its made of pure win.

Guess like many others, they would rather prefer to make games for consoles instead of PC. Its easier and cheaper to develop because of consoles static hardware, it is rather convenient. If Crytek goes for consoles only, it wont be much of a loss for PC community.
But if DICE goes console, I think I will cry...


Regards from a fresh, unhappy Crysis 2 owner
zing

I, like many other PC gamers, are quite disappoint in the fact that the PC version of Crysis 2 does not support DX11 and has a ton of dumb glitches that, quite frankly, should not have made it in to a "completed" product that sells for $59.99 USD.

With that being said, I have also noticed a ridiculous amount of Crytek bashing on these forums. And now I will ask the question: Do you feel that EA is more at fault here, forcing Crytek to rush the game to the market? EA has been hurting financially for quite some time now. I do have hopes that a series of patches for Crysis 2 will come out, updating the PC version, but again, remind yourself that EA is not paying Crytek to make patches. So basically if Crytek puts people on patch making it looks like theyre doing non-profit work to EA, which is ultimately a bad allocation of resources. Chances are, any "enhancements" to Crysis 2 will be some sort of DLC or something, and "enhancements" in the game's functionality should be done in a way that can secure more profit (which I am absolutely not defending, I think that's complete crap, but that's the way business works). Also, from what I've seen in the past, Crytek has never been good at dealing with criticism or complaints from the community. Remember how Crytek blamed the mediocre sales of the original Crysis on piracy and biched a lot to people who actually bought the game legitimately?

Also, we PC gamers pretty much always expect higher quality products than consoles (and this, again, is not a bad thing. We pay high dollar for hardware compared to consoles). When it was announced way back when that C2 was going to be multiplatform, we should have seen this coming, no matter what "promises" about the PC version were made.

I feel that EA is more at fault here than Crytek.

Thoughts?

My intent with this post was absolutely not to troll or start a flame war.


Doesn't matter who it was that took the final decision.. (but im betting ea cuz Crytec is in my eyes now their bich)... because we got ripped the hell of. IMO <3 I'm gonna lower my views on both EA and Crytec, because their both money svcking bastards. IMO

If EA was at fault, then Crysis 1 would have turned out the same way - which it obviously didn't.

EA probably played a role, but in my humble opinion based on my observations nearly all of the blame rests on Crytek's shoulders.

Wrong. Crysis 1 to EA was just something new. They let Crytek do whatever they want and then published it when ready. Crysis 2 is a "blockbuster" title and EA WANTS to make sure it gets published at a specific business strategic plan (being March 2011). They gave Crytek more time when they postponed it in 2010. BUT, Crytek had added MORE stuff and worked with MORE ms (milliseconds....graphical development ****, it's hard to explain but, more milliseconds means more graphics to put in), yet they couldn't polish all the new stuff in time. What happens when Crytek asks EA for a delay? EA responds in a big fat "NO!" because Crysis 2 is going to bring sales for early 2011. EA has plans for other games to get them money throughout the year.

All in all, it's EA's fault. If Crytek was given more time, at least a month or two, then the game would be complete. I for one have not that many problems except a bit of the nano catalyst problem, that's it. Multiplayer and single player work just fine and i have yet to see a hacker (but i know they exist according to people on the forums).