This topic is locked from further discussion.
I ask my fellow PC gamers that brought the game. Is the game stuck at only 3-4 settings kind of like in the demo and UNLIKE Crysis 1 which has multiple different graphical settings. Defenders of the game were saying, "wait till the final version, you will be able to adjust more settings just like in Crysis 1" and it will "LOOK" better than the demo.
So, is the "console dumbfication" of Crysis 2 finally complete?
No. There are now 'high, very high and extreme'. DX11 support should be coming in the coming week(s). IGN insists we add cvars to the shortcuts, and w/e we can. Here, maybe this'll answer more questions: http://pc.ign.com/articles/115/1156893p1.htmlI ask my fellow PC gamers that brought the game. Is the game stuck at only 3-4 settings kind of like in the demo and UNLIKE Crysis 1 which has multiple different graphical settings. Defenders of the game were saying, "wait till the final version, you will be able to adjust more settings just like in Crysis 1" and it will "LOOK" better than the demo.
So, is the "console dumbfication" of Crysis 2 finally complete?
Xtasy26
Maximum consolisation.
Its not consoles that are holding back pc games....
Its pc game developers... Their isn't near the profit in pc gaming as there is in console gaming...
So theirfor this is once again a monetary issue... Not that Console gaming is holding back pc gaming...
It is literally like out-sourcing jobs from the U.S. to China.... and dumb people in this country say... Damn Chinese taking all our jobs... Really because its the U.S. taking the jobs over there, giving them to China, to cut corners in cost, and maximize profit....
Developers focusing on consoles instead of equally on PCs, is not the problem, it is only a symptom to a much larger problem.....
[QUOTE="GeneralShowzer"]MAXIMUM consolisation. TruedUpIm on the fence. I got 4 hours before I go home and pass a gamestop on the way home. I want to buy it, I want to like it, but the demo was just.... bad. It's the truth, though some users here plug their ears and go lalalala at concrete evidence.. It has a lenghty SP campaign if you didn't enjoy the MP though.
Crysis - 3 million units, one of the best selling PC shooters ever, no reason to give us a **** console port. Try again.Its not consoles that are holding back pc games....
Its pc game developers... Their isn't near the profit in pc gaming as there is in console gaming...
So theirfor this is once again a monetary issue... Not that Console gaming is holding back pc gaming...
It is literally like out-sourcing jobs from the U.S. to China.... and dumb people in this country say... Damn Chinese taking all our jobs... Really because its the U.S. taking the jobs over there, giving them to China, to cut corners in cost, and maximize profit....
Developers focusing on consoles instead of equally on PCs, is not the problem, it is only a symptom to a much larger problem.....
Lach0121
[QUOTE="Xtasy26"]No. There are now 'high, very high and extreme'. DX11 support should be coming in the coming week(s). IGN insists we add cvars to the shortcuts, and w/e we can. Here, maybe this'll answer more questions: http://pc.ign.com/articles/115/1156893p1.htmlI ask my fellow PC gamers that brought the game. Is the game stuck at only 3-4 settings kind of like in the demo and UNLIKE Crysis 1 which has multiple different graphical settings. Defenders of the game were saying, "wait till the final version, you will be able to adjust more settings just like in Crysis 1" and it will "LOOK" better than the demo.
So, is the "console dumbfication" of Crysis 2 finally complete?
ATLReppa770
Wait a minute there's no where near the graphical settings that one could adjust like shaders, and what not just like Crysis 1 which had like 6-10 different graphical settings? So you could only adjust 3-4 settings? MAXIMUM FAIL.
As my friend GeneralShowerz stated, it looks MAXIMUM CONSOLIZATION has been confirmed.
AND BTW what makes you think that going from Very High to Extreme will actually make it look better? From the demo going to I believe the second to the third highest settings made little difference.
And also what about the CFG files that you could modify in Crysis 1 is the CFG still encrypted still in retail Crysis 2? This game wreaks of CONSOLE DUMBFICATION.
[QUOTE="Lach0121"]Crysis - 3 million units, one of the best selling PC shooters ever, no reason to give us a **** console port. Try again.Its not consoles that are holding back pc games....
Its pc game developers... Their isn't near the profit in pc gaming as there is in console gaming...
So theirfor this is once again a monetary issue... Not that Console gaming is holding back pc gaming...
It is literally like out-sourcing jobs from the U.S. to China.... and dumb people in this country say... Damn Chinese taking all our jobs... Really because its the U.S. taking the jobs over there, giving them to China, to cut corners in cost, and maximize profit....
Developers focusing on consoles instead of equally on PCs, is not the problem, it is only a symptom to a much larger problem.....
GeneralShowzer
no need, big picture... It is abundantly obvious. It would cost them more money to make it more optimized for pc... corporations care more about money than passion of the product... This has become SOP.
think outside the isolation box.
[QUOTE="Lach0121"]Crysis - 3 million units, one of the best selling PC shooters ever, no reason to give us a **** console port. Try again.Its not consoles that are holding back pc games....
Its pc game developers... Their isn't near the profit in pc gaming as there is in console gaming...
So theirfor this is once again a monetary issue... Not that Console gaming is holding back pc gaming...
It is literally like out-sourcing jobs from the U.S. to China.... and dumb people in this country say... Damn Chinese taking all our jobs... Really because its the U.S. taking the jobs over there, giving them to China, to cut corners in cost, and maximize profit....
Developers focusing on consoles instead of equally on PCs, is not the problem, it is only a symptom to a much larger problem.....
GeneralShowzer
Correct. I am sure if Killzone 3 went multiplat,***surprise**surpise** it would sell more. Looked like Crytek sacrificed quality for quantity. And there's no gurantee that Crysis 2 will sell more than Crysis 1.
correction, there is more money going multiplat then staying exclusive. period.Its not consoles that are holding back pc games....
Its pc game developers... Their isn't near the profit in pc gaming as there is in console gaming...
So theirfor this is once again a monetary issue... Not that Console gaming is holding back pc gaming...
It is literally like out-sourcing jobs from the U.S. to China.... and dumb people in this country say... Damn Chinese taking all our jobs... Really because its the U.S. taking the jobs over there, giving them to China, to cut corners in cost, and maximize profit....
Developers focusing on consoles instead of equally on PCs, is not the problem, it is only a symptom to a much larger problem.....
Lach0121
Crysis - 3 million units, one of the best selling PC shooters ever, no reason to give us a **** console port. Try again.[QUOTE="GeneralShowzer"][QUOTE="Lach0121"]
Its not consoles that are holding back pc games....
Its pc game developers... Their isn't near the profit in pc gaming as there is in console gaming...
So theirfor this is once again a monetary issue... Not that Console gaming is holding back pc gaming...
It is literally like out-sourcing jobs from the U.S. to China.... and dumb people in this country say... Damn Chinese taking all our jobs... Really because its the U.S. taking the jobs over there, giving them to China, to cut corners in cost, and maximize profit....
Developers focusing on consoles instead of equally on PCs, is not the problem, it is only a symptom to a much larger problem.....
Xtasy26
Correct. I am sure if Killzone 3 went multiplat,***surprise**surpise** it would sell more. Looked like Crytek sacrificed quality for quantity. And there's no gurantee that Crysis 2 will sell more than Crysis 1.
Profit per Sale will be higher though. And thats what counts." This game may look and play best on PC, but the cross-platform development has definitely had an impact. Specifically, it's disappointing to see that Crysis 2 makes some absolutely baffling technical omissions. The graphics settings menu offers just four areas to adjust: resolution, v-sync, HUD bobbing, and one of three pre-defined quality settings. Why can't I pick what level of anti-aliasing or shadow quality I want in PC gaming's most beautiful game? Quick-saving, too, is replaced by checkpoint autosaves; a developer console was also nowhere to be found." ----PC GamerShadowDeathX
So, it's not even 4 settings. And here was defenders saying, "wait till the retail version you will be able to adjust MANY MORE settings just like Crysis 1"...blah blah...blah.
Hell even Far Cry had more options? LOL. So, console dumbfication is confirmed then from someone who actually played the retail copy. That's pretty sad that a company like Crytek that gave us Far Cry and Crysis stooped this low.
"Console has been confirmed working, which means we can create our own Configs. No need for full settings if that is the case. "
This comes from one of the best modders on Crysis1, he did some amazing configs/mods for that game, does not seem to worried anymore about the graphics menu settings. Will be interesting to see what the mod community comes up with.
Crysis - 3 million units, one of the best selling PC shooters ever, no reason to give us a **** console port. Try again.[QUOTE="GeneralShowzer"][QUOTE="Lach0121"]
Its not consoles that are holding back pc games....
Its pc game developers... Their isn't near the profit in pc gaming as there is in console gaming...
So theirfor this is once again a monetary issue... Not that Console gaming is holding back pc gaming...
It is literally like out-sourcing jobs from the U.S. to China.... and dumb people in this country say... Damn Chinese taking all our jobs... Really because its the U.S. taking the jobs over there, giving them to China, to cut corners in cost, and maximize profit....
Developers focusing on consoles instead of equally on PCs, is not the problem, it is only a symptom to a much larger problem.....
Lach0121
no need, big picture... It is abundantly obvious. It would cost them more money to make it more optimized for pc... corporations care more about money than passion of the product... This has become SOP.
think outside the isolation box.
Yep..something tells me that even if it sold 4 million it would still be the same. But here is where Crytek failed, it wont sell on consoles. Not nearly what they expect. And they've managed to alienate PC gamers... Dice could have done the same with BF3..but they aren't, PC is the lead platform, they know PC gamers have been buying BF since god knows when, BC2 did the best on PC, loyalty to your customers will repay itself :)[QUOTE="Xtasy26"][QUOTE="GeneralShowzer"] Crysis - 3 million units, one of the best selling PC shooters ever, no reason to give us a **** console port. Try again.ShadowDeathX
Correct. I am sure if Killzone 3 went multiplat,***surprise**surpise** it would sell more. Looked like Crytek sacrificed quality for quantity. And there's no gurantee that Crysis 2 will sell more than Crysis 1.
Profit per Sale will be higher though. And thats what counts.Well they are charging $60 so obviously it will be higher. There are even $60 for this console dumbified nonsense on the PC too.
[QUOTE="Lach0121"]correction, there is more money going multiplat then staying exclusive. period.Its not consoles that are holding back pc games....
Its pc game developers... Their isn't near the profit in pc gaming as there is in console gaming...
So theirfor this is once again a monetary issue... Not that Console gaming is holding back pc gaming...
It is literally like out-sourcing jobs from the U.S. to China.... and dumb people in this country say... Damn Chinese taking all our jobs... Really because its the U.S. taking the jobs over there, giving them to China, to cut corners in cost, and maximize profit....
Developers focusing on consoles instead of equally on PCs, is not the problem, it is only a symptom to a much larger problem.....
TerrorRizzing
That is my point... they go where the money is.....
IF it would of stayed exclusive on pc, they could of put the extra time, and money, into more optimization on the PC... But they went where they would make considerably more money.... trading passion of the art for profit... I am glad console gamers get to play the game,, I just wish the company put more money and time into the pc version....
These fallacies people have about console gaming killing pc gaming is literally quite shallow sighted.. IT is profit that is doing it... The industry itself.. Not consoles.
[QUOTE="Lach0121"][QUOTE="GeneralShowzer"] Crysis - 3 million units, one of the best selling PC shooters ever, no reason to give us a **** console port. Try again.GeneralShowzer
no need, big picture... It is abundantly obvious. It would cost them more money to make it more optimized for pc... corporations care more about money than passion of the product... This has become SOP.
think outside the isolation box.
Yep..something tells me that even if it sold 4 million it would still be the same. But here is where Crytek failed, it wont sell on consoles. Not nearly what they expect. And they've managed to alienate PC gamers... Dice could have done the same with BF3..but they aren't, PC is the lead platform, they know PC gamers have been buying BF since god knows when, BC2 did the best on PC, loyalty to your customers will repay itself :) Crysis one had no franchise... Crysis 2 has a already well known franchise. This fact alone, already shows considerably more potential in sales than the original Crysis... Mix that with it going multi-platform... yeah Crysis 2 will make more money... Take Halo as example, Halo 1 no franchise... But halo 2 was the biggest selling game period at that time... Because a franchise has been made before.[QUOTE="GeneralShowzer"][QUOTE="Lach0121"]Yep..something tells me that even if it sold 4 million it would still be the same. But here is where Crytek failed, it wont sell on consoles. Not nearly what they expect. And they've managed to alienate PC gamers... Dice could have done the same with BF3..but they aren't, PC is the lead platform, they know PC gamers have been buying BF since god knows when, BC2 did the best on PC, loyalty to your customers will repay itself :) Crysis one had no franchise... Crysis 2 has a already well known franchise. This fact alone, already shows considerably more potential in sales than the original Crysis... Mix that with it going multi-platform... yeah Crysis 2 will make more money... Take Halo as example, Halo 1 no franchise... But halo 2 was the biggest selling game period at that time... Because a franchise has been made before. Crysis has no franchise on consoles. This is their entry point. It wont sell nearly what they expect. I can't wait to see who they will blame.no need, big picture... It is abundantly obvious. It would cost them more money to make it more optimized for pc... corporations care more about money than passion of the product... This has become SOP.
think outside the isolation box.
Lach0121
Profit per Sale will be higher though. And thats what counts.[QUOTE="ShadowDeathX"][QUOTE="Xtasy26"]
Correct. I am sure if Killzone 3 went multiplat,***surprise**surpise** it would sell more. Looked like Crytek sacrificed quality for quantity. And there's no gurantee that Crysis 2 will sell more than Crysis 1.
Xtasy26
Well they are charging $60 so obviously it will be higher. There are even $60 for this console dumbified nonsense on the PC too.
Also the requirements aren't as high (time/hardware) wise compared to Crysis 1. More people will be able to play the game. I'm pretty sure most of Crysis 1's sales were way after launch.Crysis one had no franchise... Crysis 2 has a already well known franchise. This fact alone, already shows considerably more potential in sales than the original Crysis... Mix that with it going multi-platform... yeah Crysis 2 will make more money... Take Halo as example, Halo 1 no franchise... But halo 2 was the biggest selling game period at that time... Because a franchise has been made before. Crysis has no franchise on consoles. This is their entry point. It wont sell nearly what they expect. I can't wait to see who they will blame.[QUOTE="Lach0121"][QUOTE="GeneralShowzer"] Yep..something tells me that even if it sold 4 million it would still be the same. But here is where Crytek failed, it wont sell on consoles. Not nearly what they expect. And they've managed to alienate PC gamers... Dice could have done the same with BF3..but they aren't, PC is the lead platform, they know PC gamers have been buying BF since god knows when, BC2 did the best on PC, loyalty to your customers will repay itself :)GeneralShowzer
I am waiting to see what their response would be too. The blamed piracy on the PC for low initial sales but the quitely stopped talking about piracy on the PC when over the long run the game actually sold 3 million copies. Heck even Crysis Warhead sold 1.5 million copies. Which means despite it's low initial sales it sold quite well.
[QUOTE="Xtasy26"][QUOTE="ShadowDeathX"] Profit per Sale will be higher though. And thats what counts.ShadowDeathX
Well they are charging $60 so obviously it will be higher. There are even $60 for this console dumbified nonsense on the PC too.
Also the requirements aren't as high (time/hardware) wise compared to Crysis 1. More people will be able to play the game. I'm pretty sure most of Crysis 1's sales were way after launch.I agree with your first point. But that's no excuse to actually take advantage of the technological progress we had over the past four years. They didn't even bother to implement DX 10/DX 11 right off the bat, no tesselation and things of that nature right off the bat. That's pretty PATHETIC for a company that gave us graphical wonders of Far Cry and Crysis. Such a shame.
Also the requirements aren't as high (time/hardware) wise compared to Crysis 1. More people will be able to play the game. I'm pretty sure most of Crysis 1's sales were way after launch.[QUOTE="ShadowDeathX"][QUOTE="Xtasy26"]
Well they are charging $60 so obviously it will be higher. There are even $60 for this console dumbified nonsense on the PC too.
Xtasy26
I agree with your first point. But that's no excuse to actually take advantage of the technological progress we had over the past four years. They didn't even bother to implement DX 10/DX 11 right off the bat, no tesselation and things of that nature right off the bat. That's pretty PATHETIC for a company that gave us graphical wonders of Far Cry and Crysis. Such a shame.
and I agreed, I'm not defending Crytek lol[QUOTE="TruedUp"][QUOTE="GeneralShowzer"]MAXIMUM consolisation. GeneralShowzerIm on the fence. I got 4 hours before I go home and pass a gamestop on the way home. I want to buy it, I want to like it, but the demo was just.... bad. It's the truth, though some users here plug their ears and go lalalala at concrete evidence.. It has a lenghty SP campaign if you didn't enjoy the MP though. Well this is whats keeping me interested. I did rather enjoy the SP in the first game, and really, it was the only reason to buy the game before Warhead. The urban setting does look cool and the reviews about the SP have been great. Infact if I did not play the MP demo, I would have bought it by now and probably just have played the SP anyway. Ill be keeping an eye on all the user reviews.
Also the requirements aren't as high (time/hardware) wise compared to Crysis 1. More people will be able to play the game. I'm pretty sure most of Crysis 1's sales were way after launch.[QUOTE="ShadowDeathX"][QUOTE="Xtasy26"]
Well they are charging $60 so obviously it will be higher. There are even $60 for this console dumbified nonsense on the PC too.
Xtasy26
I agree with your first point. But that's no excuse to actually take advantage of the technological progress we had over the past four years. They didn't even bother to implement DX 10/DX 11 right off the bat, no tesselation and things of that nature right off the bat. That's pretty PATHETIC for a company that gave us graphical wonders of Far Cry and Crysis. Such a shame.
I agree too, but entry on consoles or not.. fact remains Crysis is a franchise console or not...
Console gamers know what crysis is, and partly what to expect from it Even if it hasn't been on their system yet.... So it is no where near the same as "entry lvl franchise" Big picture...
The fact remains this is a profit induced decision... NOT THE CONSOLES KILLING PC GAMING... It is literally the developers and publishers choice...
Also the requirements aren't as high (time/hardware) wise compared to Crysis 1. More people will be able to play the game. I'm pretty sure most of Crysis 1's sales were way after launch.[QUOTE="ShadowDeathX"][QUOTE="Xtasy26"]
Well they are charging $60 so obviously it will be higher. There are even $60 for this console dumbified nonsense on the PC too.
Xtasy26
I agree with your first point. But that's no excuse to actually take advantage of the technological progress we had over the past four years. They didn't even bother to implement DX 10/DX 11 right off the bat, no tesselation and things of that nature right off the bat. That's pretty PATHETIC for a company that gave us graphical wonders of Far Cry and Crysis. Such a shame.
Lets keep things in perspective Unreal which is one of the most popular game engine has only recently added support for Directx 11. So I don't see whats the big deal. the reality is that the majority of games and gamers are still running directx 9 and because of this is just makes more financial sense to focus on the majority platform.I didn't like the demo. I would like to try the single player but I'm not paying full price for something I'm not a 100% interested in. I'll get it eventually when it hits £20 or something.
[QUOTE="Xtasy26"][QUOTE="ShadowDeathX"] Also the requirements aren't as high (time/hardware) wise compared to Crysis 1. More people will be able to play the game. I'm pretty sure most of Crysis 1's sales were way after launch.Pedro
I agree with your first point. But that's no excuse to actually take advantage of the technological progress we had over the past four years. They didn't even bother to implement DX 10/DX 11 right off the bat, no tesselation and things of that nature right off the bat. That's pretty PATHETIC for a company that gave us graphical wonders of Far Cry and Crysis. Such a shame.
Lets keep things in perspective Unreal which is one of the most popular game engine has only recently added support for Directx 11. So I don't see whats the big deal. the reality is that the majority of games and gamers are still running directx 9 and because of this is just makes more financial sense to focus on the majority platform.But no Unreal engine game suppporting DX 11 has been launched. So that point is moot. Secondly, AMD sold millions of DX 11 GPU's so I don't know what's wrong with implementing new technological progress over the past four years. And that's just AMD selling millions of DX 11 GPU's that doesn't even include nVidia's DX 11 GPU's. They could have easily implemented DX 10/11, tesselation right off the bat but they chose to dumb it down for the consoles.
Wow my point is mute because the most popular game engine has yet to launch a game with Dx11 but a game engine that has only been used on two games; as far as i know, is dumb for not implementing it. Hmmmmm, I guess that doesn't prove my point at all....Pedro
Uh no. We are living in 2011 where for a company like Crytek one would expect DX 10/11 be supported right off the bat. That's a fail for a company that gave us Far Cry and Crysis. It's called having standards. Your popular argument is FAIL because by that analogy Justin Beiber makes the best music because he is the most popular artists right now. LOL. Popular doesn't = better.
[QUOTE="Pedro"]Wow my point is mute because the most popular game engine has yet to launch a game with Dx11 but a game engine that has only been used on two games; as far as i know, is dumb for not implementing it. Hmmmmm, I guess that doesn't prove my point at all....Xtasy26
Uh no. We are living in 2011 where for a company like Crytek one would expect DX 10/11 be supported right off the bat. That's a fail for a company that game us Far Cry and Crysis. It's called having standards. Your popular argument is FAIL because by that analogy Justin Beiber makes the best music because he is the most popular artists right now. LOL. Popular doesn't = better.
You have certain expectations from a particle company, in this case its Crytek. They created games that have set a new standard for gaming graphics. So you anticipate the same for the next game. However, Crytek is not obligated to meet these expectations. It also does not equate to the company failing especially when it is not the goal of the company. The implementation of DirectX 11 would be awesome, especially if you have a card that supports the feature. But it is not necessary for a game to be successful nor is it necessary for the advancement in graphic technology; it aids but not absolutely necessary.
One feature that apparently is overlooked with Crysis 2 is real-time global illumination. This feature is a software implemented feature that is independent of DirectX 11 but it offers lighting that is more realistic than direct dynamic lighting. It also feature indirect lighting of particle effects. This feature offers more than tessellation especially when tessellation can be so easily faked with current technologies.
My point with Unreal is not that is just popular is that is it successful as a gaming engine and this success was independent on the reliance of DirectX 10 and 11, so Crytek can succeed without implementing the most update features if Epic games can. It is quite possible this is how the company viewed their next engine iteration.
[QUOTE="Xtasy26"]
[QUOTE="Pedro"]Wow my point is mute because the most popular game engine has yet to launch a game with Dx11 but a game engine that has only been used on two games; as far as i know, is dumb for not implementing it. Hmmmmm, I guess that doesn't prove my point at all....Pedro
Uh no. We are living in 2011 where for a company like Crytek one would expect DX 10/11 be supported right off the bat. That's a fail for a company that game us Far Cry and Crysis. It's called having standards. Your popular argument is FAIL because by that analogy Justin Beiber makes the best music because he is the most popular artists right now. LOL. Popular doesn't = better.
You have certain expectations from a particle company, in this case its Crytek. They created games that have set a new standard for gaming graphics. So you anticipate the same for the next game. However, Crytek is not obligated to meet these expectations. It also does not equate to the company failing especially when it is not the goal of the company. The implementation of DirectX 11 would be awesome, especially if you have a card that supports the feature. But it is not necessary for a game to be successful nor is it necessary for the advancement in graphic technology; it aids but not absolutely necessary.
One feature that apparently is overlooked with Crysis 2 is real-time global illumination. This feature is a software implemented feature that is independent of DirectX 11 but it offers lighting that is more realistic than direct dynamic lighting. It also feature indirect lighting of particle effects. This feature offers more than tessellation especially when tessellation can be so easily faked with current technologies.
My point with Unreal is not that is just popular is that is it successful as a gaming engine and this success was independent on the reliance of DirectX 10 and 11, so Crytek can succeed without implementing the most update features if Epic games can. It is quite possible this is how the company viewed their next engine iteration.
You are correct Crytek is not obliged to meet those expectations. In fact they are not obliged to meet any expectations. It doesn't change the fact that PC gamers had certain expectations coming from the company given it's track record, at the very LEAST it has to meet that bar and go over it. Crysis 2 is being judged based on it's predecessors kind of like a sequal to a movie is judged based on it's predecessors, if the first movie meet certain expectations people expect to meet that expectation if not go over it. That's why it makes it better. Crysis 2 has failed on many fronts hence the criticism from PC gamers about it's console dumbfications.
You don't have to support DX 10/11 to be successful, but that is beside the point, the point is by not setting the bar higher and supporting DX 10/11 to make the game look better they have failed in the expectations people had over the game. For 2011 people expected DX 10/11 support right off the bat with all the new tech implemented in the PC version. I am not sure why is that a wrong expectation to have.
You are correct Crytek is not obliged to meet those expectations. In fact they are not obliged to meet any expectations. It doesn't change the fact that PC gamers had certain expectations coming from the company given it's track record, at the very LEAST it has to meet that bar and go over it. Crysis 2 is being judged based on it's predecessors kind of like a sequal to a movie is judged based on it's predecessors, if the first movie meet certain expectations people expect to meet that expectation if not go over it. That's why it makes it better. Crysis 2 has failed on many fronts hence the criticism from PC gamers about it's console dumbfications.
You don't have to support DX 10/11 to be successful, but that is beside the point, the point is by not setting the bar higher and supporting DX 10/11 to make the game look better they have failed in the expectations people had over the game. For 2011 people expected DX 10/11 support right off the bat with all the new tech implemented in the PC version. I am not sure why is that a wrong expectation to have.
Xtasy26
Nothing is wrong with having expectations. My initial post was simply pointing out that their move could have been more of a financial move and eyeing the success of Epic Games.
[QUOTE="Xtasy26"]
You are correct Crytek is not obliged to meet those expectations. In fact they are not obliged to meet any expectations. It doesn't change the fact that PC gamers had certain expectations coming from the company given it's track record, at the very LEAST it has to meet that bar and go over it. Crysis 2 is being judged based on it's predecessors kind of like a sequal to a movie is judged based on it's predecessors, if the first movie meet certain expectations people expect to meet that expectation if not go over it. That's why it makes it better. Crysis 2 has failed on many fronts hence the criticism from PC gamers about it's console dumbfications.
You don't have to support DX 10/11 to be successful, but that is beside the point, the point is by not setting the bar higher and supporting DX 10/11 to make the game look better they have failed in the expectations people had over the game. For 2011 people expected DX 10/11 support right off the bat with all the new tech implemented in the PC version. I am not sure why is that a wrong expectation to have.
Pedro
Nothing is wrong with having expectations. My initial post was simply pointing out that their move could have been more of a financial move and eyeing the success of Epic Games.
I don't disagree. But let's see how well it does, wonder if it will hit the 5 million mark like Crysis and Crysis Warhead did on the PC. I have my doubts.
The game arrived today at my home. I won't be able to give my first impressions until probably 10pm PST. I'd like to see a PC review score soon.Elann2008
Let us know how it is, and try to be unbaised as much as possible while doing this. lol
I know human... Unbiased.. difficult combo, but I am sure a hybrid could be achieved lol.
This too, right now consoles take most of the development focus. What crysis 2 has come to is really really sad since its crytek we talk about, a company that never made a console game before and made 3 millions, yet they are so confident for console sales and that they will do it right that they crap up on us. Its a sad message for what is about to come from the future. Stalker 2 multiplatform anyone? Its possible.Its not consoles that are holding back pc games....
Its pc game developers... Their isn't near the profit in pc gaming as there is in console gaming...
So theirfor this is once again a monetary issue... Not that Console gaming is holding back pc gaming...
It is literally like out-sourcing jobs from the U.S. to China.... and dumb people in this country say... Damn Chinese taking all our jobs... Really because its the U.S. taking the jobs over there, giving them to China, to cut corners in cost, and maximize profit....
Developers focusing on consoles instead of equally on PCs, is not the problem, it is only a symptom to a much larger problem.....
Lach0121
I would like to know how is this game dummified because of its co sole counterparts? I would also like to know how it is not optimised for the PC when the demo ran perfectly fine on my measily GTX 260 ?Pedroonly the lack on graphic innovation was caused by console. Cod style gameplay would have become popular with or without console.
Lets keep things in perspective Unreal which is one of the most popular game engine has only recently added support for Directx 11. So I don't see whats the big deal. the reality is that the majority of games and gamers are still running directx 9 and because of this is just makes more financial sense to focus on the majority platform.[QUOTE="Pedro"][QUOTE="Xtasy26"]
I agree with your first point. But that's no excuse to actually take advantage of the technological progress we had over the past four years. They didn't even bother to implement DX 10/DX 11 right off the bat, no tesselation and things of that nature right off the bat. That's pretty PATHETIC for a company that gave us graphical wonders of Far Cry and Crysis. Such a shame.
Xtasy26
But no Unreal engine game suppporting DX 11 has been launched. So that point is moot. Secondly, AMD sold millions of DX 11 GPU's so I don't know what's wrong with implementing new technological progress over the past four years. And that's just AMD selling millions of DX 11 GPU's that doesn't even include nVidia's DX 11 GPU's. They could have easily implemented DX 10/11, tesselation right off the bat but they chose to dumb it down for the consoles.
I think you (and several others) are missing the goal of Crytek here. Selling a ton of copies of Crysis 2 is not the real goal. While I'm sure they hope that they'll sell lots of copies across all platforms, what really matter here is the engine. Cryteks target market is not the Console or PC FPS players, but the Unreal3 engine developers. My guess is that the primary goal of Crysis 2 is to show the games industry that Crytek is now selling a third party engine that can be used to develop games access each of the three big platforms seamlessly, and prove that the engine can deliver top tier graphics on each of those platforms.
Assuming that's the case, patching DX11 support in later is not a problem. The Cry-Engine doesn't need to prove its worth on the PC Platform, it's done that already. The challenge is to try to prove that it can do what Unreal3 does on both PC and consoles and that it can do it better than Unreal 3.
Crysis and Crysis 2 were just as much technical show pieces with the long term goal of getting a piece of the third part engine market from Epic as they were games meant to sell in their own right. Crysis 1 and engine did ok on the PC but were seriously limited due to its lack of cross platform support. That is the big news for Crysis 2 and engine. Not if it looks better, not if it supports DX11, not if it looks better than Crysis 1, but that it would allow a developer to develop one game and sell it on three platforms at once.
Guys.. let's keep this in perspective. Crysis and Warhead came out in 2007 and 2008. They had DX10 support right off the bat. Crysis 2 comes out in 2011 and it's straight DirectX9? To me it looks blurry, fuzzy, and washed-out. Consolized game mechanics, consolized graphics, consolized menus.. Yeah.. I'm very disappointed.
When a company like Crytek makes a game, they are expected to push the technology envelope. They did it with both Far Cry and Crysis, and both games were quite successful. You are always measured against both the current market and your own body of work. Crytek was a bastion of hope for PC gaming enthusiasts, and now that may be ruined by them selling out to go multi-platform.
They made a game that has inferior scope and graphics in comparison to the first game and a half in the series that came out a long time ago. How is that not a fail?
Beacause graphics is only a small part of what makes a game. Who cares if the game is consolized? As long as it is fun, it won't be a fail.Guys.. let's keep this in perspective. Crysis and Warhead came out in 2007 and 2008. They had DX10 support right off the bat. Crysis 2 comes out in 2011 and it's straight DirectX9? To me it looks blurry, fuzzy, and washed-out. Consolized game mechanics, consolized graphics, consolized menus.. Yeah.. I'm very disappointed.
When a company like Crytek makes a game, they are expected to push the technology envelope. They did it with both Far Cry and Crysis, and both games were quite successful. You are always measured against both the current market and your own body of work. Crytek was a bastion of hope for PC gaming enthusiasts, and now that may be ruined by them selling out to go multi-platform.
They made a game that has inferior scope and graphics in comparison to the first game and a half in the series that came out a long time ago. How is that not a fail?
hartsickdiscipl
only the lack on graphic innovation was caused by console. Cod style gameplay would have become popular with or without console. Real time global illumination. For people who are so hooked on graphical innovations I find it funny that they missed this feature.[QUOTE="Pedro"]I would like to know how is this game dummified because of its co sole counterparts? I would also like to know how it is not optimised for the PC when the demo ran perfectly fine on my measily GTX 260 ?Cranler
Guys.. let's keep this in perspective. Crysis and Warhead came out in 2007 and 2008. They had DX10 support right off the bat. Crysis 2 comes out in 2011 and it's straight DirectX9? To me it looks blurry, fuzzy, and washed-out. Consolized game mechanics, consolized graphics, consolized menus.. Yeah.. I'm very disappointed.
When a company like Crytek makes a game, they are expected to push the technology envelope. They did it with both Far Cry and Crysis, and both games were quite successful. You are always measured against both the current market and your own body of work. Crytek was a bastion of hope for PC gaming enthusiasts, and now that may be ruined by them selling out to go multi-platform.
They made a game that has inferior scope and graphics in comparison to the first game and a half in the series that came out a long time ago. How is that not a fail?
hartsickdiscipl
Its not a fail because the CryEngine was not multiplatform. Its that simple. A game engine is very limited it the hardware requirements are very stringent. However, the new engine is now multiplatform allowing the game engine to be more accessible to developers.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment