I noticed that Crysis 2 have very flat look and feel, like pre DOOM3 and and pre Far Cry games of 2002 year.

Just look at rocks, grass, and any surface of Crysis 2 - does its look like something bumpy and 3d? No! Looks like flat texture!

Where is proper bump, normal, paralax and displacement mapping? Even if game uses only DX9, it should not be so flat! Many other games have DX9 bump and displacement effects much better than Crysis 2, even Crysis 1.

Here some screenshots of Crysis 1:



Crysis 2 looks exactly like righ half without bump mapping

here another one


Seen anything like this in Crysis 2?

Oh thats my favourite


These bumpy rocks in fact plain flat texture "displaced" by POM (parallax occlusion mapping) in Crysis 2.
Never seen anything like this in Crysis 2.

Here is example of simple normal mapping in crysis 1


Now try to remember anything like this from Crysis 2)

Everything, from trees, to road and rock textures, i repeat, EVERYTHING, completely FLAT in Crysis 2!

here the example of some rocks on floor


look at the bricks












[I also will add soon rock textures.]

flat, isnt it?

I wonder, what prevented Crytek to add some normal and displacement textures even with DX9?

Should i show many game that usix pretty fine bump and paralax in DX9 or OpenGL? Just look at any Unreal Engine 3 powered game, or look at rusty Doom 3 - it still looks better than Crysis volumetric texture - wise.

And i am not said yet about how flat and unrealistic Character faces looks like in Crysis 2 comparing to 1:

Just a quick example:




Very "nice" floating textures everywhere)
and that how bumpy same texture looked in Crysis 1

Almost photo realistic face of Prophet from C1 of 2007 year, and cartoony face of Lockhart from C2 in 2011 year, thats real shame!

Despite low rez texture, low poly models, removed advanced physics, and screwed ai and gameplay, lack of proper bump and paralax mapping makes Crysis 2 one of the biggest disappointments of last 4 years, and thats also proves that all Crytek said about Crysis 2 for PC was LIE.

Sometime Crysis 2 looks completely like mediocre shooter from playstation 2




But i have one simple question for Crytek? Can you fix this with patch? Should i wait for patch (i dont mean DX11 patch, i mean DX9 patch), or should i take refund for being victim of false advertising and clear fraud?
Can Add 1 gb of high res texture, enhanced models, new bump and paralax shaders, fix deaf and blind AI?

Do you think anyone of us, who trusted you Crytek, and was betrayed and cheated, will buy Crysis 3 or any of your games if you will not fix these problems?

Try changing your settings on your xbox 360. Maybe you didn't turn the graphics to extreme???

I noticed this too... Thank consoles, their memory probably can't handle POM while still achieving smooth framerates. This game was optimized for consoles, what we got on PC is what's on consoles.

Who even cares about Bump or Parallax mapping? We want Tesselation, or at least Occlusion Mapping!

The whole point of Crysis 2 is to give the illusion of good graphics which is the point of features such as HDR. Whereas really the graphics are ****. So if you're sitting 5 meters away from your screen on the sofa on xbox, you won't be able to tell how awful the graphics are.

reason?....the game was never actually finished. they took the beta and added a single player mode and put it in a box as is. simple as that.

Crytek I was very disappointed: (The next game for sure not buy it, you have deceived.
where are the promises of better graphics.

Sorry for bad english.

The whole point of Crysis 2 is to give the illusion of good graphics which is the point of features such as HDR. Whereas really the graphics are ****. So if you're sitting 5 meters away from your screen on the sofa on xbox, you won't be able to tell how awful the graphics are.

This is truth. The game was designed to be played in a lazy-boy, with a controller, 10 feet away from your screen. At that distance, you can't tell that the rocks are flat and the leaves are jagged.

edit - the facial comparison pic is Jester, not Prophet. Racist.

Well, here is another example of what other games offer with DX9:

Stalker Paralax
[url]http://www.thg.ru/game/3d_graphic_game_evolution/images/steep_parallax_mapping.jpg[/ur] use this link if you see only half of image.



See how volumetric brick looks?

Now lets take a look at "advanced" Crysis 2 super technological "best-ever" graphics:


Same flat as Half-life 2 - and that achieved by CryEngine 3!)) How Crytek going to sell CryEngine 3 with such a bad graphically tech demo like Crysis 2?

Stalker and Metro 2033 by our Ukrainian brothers looks much better than Crysis 2((

P.S. - to guy who said about tessellation and occlusion mapping - ts is dx11 only feature, so i dont care, as about occlusion mapping, you actyally have it crysis 2, please dont mess SSAO (aka occlusion mapping) with POM (parallax occlusion mapping which is simply one of the parallax aka displacement mapping methods) they both have occlusion inside, but that totally different thing, to put it simple - occlusion mean sort of soft depth-dependant shading, its not what thread thread about.

Little fix for previous post (am i only one here who dont have "edit" button?)

Screenshot of Stalker's parallax and bump:
http://media.bestofmicro.com/I/L/161373/original/Steep%20Parallax%20Mapping.jpg

Yes stalker looks better then ce3

Nice factual post ! , really shows hoe much crysis2 has regressed due to consolisation ..

The whole point of Crysis 2 is to give the illusion of good graphics which is the point of features such as HDR. Whereas really the graphics are ****. So if you're sitting 5 meters away from your screen on the sofa on xbox, you won't be able to tell how awful the graphics are.

Graphics my friend is ALL, let me re-iterate ALL about illusion.

Its funny that the OP mentions bump mapping when such a feature is rarely used in games. POM has limited application and there are only a few instances in Crysis 2 where it could have legitimately be used.

Its funny that the OP mentions bump mapping when such a feature is rarely used in games. POM has limited application and there are only a few instances in Crysis 2 where it could have legitimately be used.

Yeah, I mean you could only use it on bricks, walls, pavement, rubble...there wasn't too much of that in Crysis 2...

Damn, it, Crytek really needs to fix forums as well as game! Everything is just horrible beta!

Fix n2 (SCROLL THIS POST TILL THE END, TO CATCH HOR SCROLLBAR AND SCROLL SCREENSHOTS to RIGHT)
Thats stalker in DX9 mode

pretty fine bump and parallax

Thats Metro 2033

pretty fine volumetric textures too

Crysis 1 again:


And that another old Ukrainian game Timishift, that looks better than Crysis 2:


and btw this game was same in DX9\10 and and was released also for 360 and PS3 (just like Metro 2033, it also was cross-platform) but thats not prevented Ukrainian developers to add high res textures and advanced paralax mapping into PC version.

and thats Crysis 2

Very flat, isnt it? What is Crytek's excuse for not including high res textures and paralax mapping in PC version like other developers of cross-platform shooters did? Laziness or lack of respect to customers?

Check details about this here http://wiki.polycount.com/ParallaxMap, it have few good examples too

Good thread, more hard evidence of the fail that is crysis 2.

BTW that's not Prophet.

Its funny that the OP mentions bump mapping when such a feature is rarely used in games. POM has limited application and there are only a few instances in Crysis 2 where it could have legitimately be used.

That is fine if it were true, it still deviates from the OP's point and that is Crysis 1 that was developed as a PC game took advantage of the technology and produced some amazing graphics that had Crytek on top for many years and set the bar of expectations of this Crysis 2 release. The point the OP is making is that 3 years later Crytek used reduced resolutions, terrible use of technology to dumb down the visuals for consoles. He makes a very good comparison to the two versions, so even if he isn't getting the terminology or naming correct, his point is still very much valid - this game did not put Crytek in the same space Crysis 1 did - they fell from grace with the enthusiast market for delivering console graphics to a hungry enthusiast market who expected the 2011 equivalent of 1997 Crysis. An eye popping, detailed, cinema grade photorealistic graphical experience. That is what we were expecting, something like you see in some of their Crytek3 Engine examples that were NOT present in this game. The details are terrible when you actually start looking and realizing we got shafted because of the consoles.

Now this is a mute point if the update they put out renders this null and void by providing a high resolution pack along with tessellation and DX11 effects and so on, but that would be a HUGE update patch to get us from what we have now to what we expected visually. I hope for Crytek's sake they pull it off and make our enthusiast level PC's cry while producing this generations level of eye candy that we should have gotten to begin with.

The original crysis took several years for the hardware to catch up with the details and the level of visuals that it delivered because it used a ton of the tech from that era and was built for then and future hardware. As hardware got more powerful, Crysis just kept looking better and better. When I played it on dual 9800GX2's it was great, but I could not get the details out that I got when I ran it on four GTX 285's with full 16xQAA. Now that I play it on three GTX 580's, with everything to its fullest, I still see things I swear were not present in the four GTX 285 views.

The point is that Crysis 2 is NOT Crysis 1 in relation to tech and details used. Currently this is NOT a game that will get better looking over time as Crysis 1 has done unless Crytek comes out with an update that shuts up the enthusiast market by providing all the level of detail this OP stated and many other threads have discussed on how Crysis 2 is sub-par even to 1997 standards. Crytek has a monumental task ahead to regain their place as an elite game development company for PC's. I for one cannot wait to see their answer to this challenge they face.

Its one thing to reduce the controls and mapping options its is another to reduce the quality of a game that set the bar 3 years ago and then release a game 3 years later with worse graphics than the game you made your name with. That is what has the majority of enthusiasts upset and rightfully so. HAd they at least done the same level of graphics they did in Crysis 1, there would have been much less gumbling going on IMO on this topic.

I have to agree with the OP - it seems Crytek didn't bother adding in pretty basic features that Crysis had for it's sequel. Now Crysis 2 is a good looking game, one of the best in awhile but just think what could have been achieved with a little extra polish. Some POM or displacement mapping, soft particles for smoke. All these things the CryEngine 3 must be capable off, it's advertised as next-gen ready and even the early footage of Crysis 2 appears to show these techniques.

Hopefully these things can be added in a post release patch but I'm not going to hold my breath.

Well because the poster has not figured out that you need to post thumbnails and NOT large ass images in their postings, I have no way to edit my post. Being an old fart, I missed my dates by 10 years, I meant to say 2007 not 1997 but I cannot get to an edit button to change it.

Very flat, isnt it? What is Crytek's excuse for not including high res textures and paralax mapping in PC version like other developers of cross-platform shooters did? Laziness or lack of respect to customers?

Check details about this here http://wiki.polycount.com/ParallaxMap, it have few good examples too

So a game with good graphics is dependent on how close you can zoom in on a texture and after zooming into the texture check off how many effects its using and from that we can determine which game looks better. So, the way the game looks when you look at it is of little consequence because everyone who plays games play with 200+% zoom and at a specific angle to notice whether or not something looks flat or not.

I don't play games that way and the MAJORITY of the gaming population does not play games in that manner. Why you may ask? Because its just stupid. And just in case you and your other followers haven't realise, parrallax mapping is a texture illusion just like normal and bump. At times it can also cause texture stretching at certain angles.

That is fine if it were true, it still deviates from the OP's point and that is Crysis 1 that was developed as a PC game took advantage of the technology and produced some amazing graphics that had Crytek on top for many years and set the bar of expectations of this Crysis 2 release. The point the OP is making is that 3 years later Crytek used reduced resolutions, terrible use of technology to dumb down the visuals for consoles. He makes a very good comparison to the two versions, so even if he isn't getting the terminology or naming correct, his point is still very much valid - this game did not put Crytek in the same space Crysis 1 did - they fell from grace with the enthusiast market for delivering console graphics to a hungry enthusiast market who expected the 2011 equivalent of 1997 Crysis. An eye popping, detailed, cinema grade photorealistic graphical experience. That is what we were expecting, something like you see in some of their Crytek3 Engine examples that were NOT present in this game. The details are terrible when you actually start looking and realizing we got shafted because of the consoles.

Now this is a mute point if the update they put out renders this null and void by providing a high resolution pack along with tessellation and DX11 effects and so on, but that would be a HUGE update patch to get us from what we have now to what we expected visually. I hope for Crytek's sake they pull it off and make our enthusiast level PC's cry while producing this generations level of eye candy that we should have gotten to begin with.

The original crysis took several years for the hardware to catch up with the details and the level of visuals that it delivered because it used a ton of the tech from that era and was built for then and future hardware. As hardware got more powerful, Crysis just kept looking better and better. When I played it on dual 9800GX2's it was great, but I could not get the details out that I got when I ran it on four GTX 285's with full 16xQAA. Now that I play it on three GTX 580's, with everything to its fullest, I still see things I swear were not present in the four GTX 285 views.

The point is that Crysis 2 is NOT Crysis 1 in relation to tech and details used. Currently this is NOT a game that will get better looking over time as Crysis 1 has done unless Crytek comes out with an update that shuts up the enthusiast market by providing all the level of detail this OP stated and many other threads have discussed on how Crysis 2 is sub-par even to 1997 standards. Crytek has a monumental task ahead to regain their place as an elite game development company for PC's. I for one cannot wait to see their answer to this challenge they face.

Its one thing to reduce the controls and mapping options its is another to reduce the quality of a game that set the bar 3 years ago and then release a game 3 years later with worse graphics than the game you made your name with. That is what has the majority of enthusiasts upset and rightfully so. HAd they at least done the same level of graphics they did in Crysis 1, there would have been much less gumbling going on IMO on this topic.

One technical feature that is sadly overlooked and is pretty revolutionary that is found in the PC version of Crysis 2 is real time global illumination. No other game on the market has that feature. There is no other game on the market that is schedule to include that feature. This feature allows for the bouncing of light atleast once.

Going beyond that is Crytek being more concern with making a game than a tech demo. In which they succeeded outside of the bugs while not entirely game breaking but very annoying. There is little to no benefit in creating a game that cannot be played until 3 to 4 years later. That does not make any financial sense and Crytek like every other company is in the business of making money and satisfying the majority of their customers. Enthusiasts are the minority and unfortunately they are the most capable when it comes to acquiring the game for free So catering for the minority that also sabotages your bottom line does not make any sense whatsoever.

Are you blind or something? What kind of zoom you talking about? Its a standart cl_fov 55 , no freaking zoom and on most of screenshots distance to the objects is about 1 meter or even more, and if you dont play on at blury 720p its very notticable from distance.

Another spectacular example of how VOLUMETRIC and BUMPY Crysis 1 was (click on thumb to see full picture):


And how flat and ugly Crysis 2 became





Global illumination? You mean this global illimination http://www.mefeedia.com/watch/29378052 that was shown by Crytek in CE3 demos, as well as paralax and high res textures, but which never make it to the final release of game?))
Lol at you did, when you will find any place in Crysis 2 where you can see global illumination, let me know)) I tried hard, and havent yet noticed it anywhere) That was another false advertising from Crytek, maybe feature exist in engine, but it was not enabled in Crysis 2, just as proper normal an parallax mapping with good physics that you will not see in the game, but was able to see in earlier tech demos.

these images represent what Crytek promised us and what they actually gave us, also object at left could be considered as Crysis 1 and object at right as Crysis 2:


P.S. - Also learn the facts dude, i know for sure that Splinter Cell Conviction have real time global illumination on pc, and perhaps on xbox (but not sure about it), its noticeable and thats was one of the reason SCC never appeared on PS3 - they said they would have difficulties to port their global illumination technique to PS3. And please dont start flame about SCC here.
And some ambient color of nearby object is really not that important as paralax mapping and high res textures, you know.

But C2 is the cutting edge technology and the best looking game out there!

Who's in denial?