Have to admit it does look disappointing. Nothing like that to see in those shots :thumbsdown:
Am i the only one who can care less about DX9 benchmarks?
I got in on a good pre-order deal for Crysis 2 for I think ~$30 months ago, I don't feel disappointed. It does seem like the game is "consolized," which is a step in the wrong direction, but it could still be a great game. This is only a glimpse and it's too early to judge. Also, I want to see DX 11 benchmarks as well.
Yeah, EA had some pricing errors when they first entered the game in the system last April. I ordered Crysis 2 and Dead Space 2 for ~$30 each - wasn't sure if I'd ever get them or just a "Sorry, here's your refund" email. However, I already got Dead Space 2 so I think this one might go through as well. Either way, I'll support Crytek :thumbsup:.$30 ? Nice deal. I've been waiting for it to show up on Steam for pre-order and plan to buy it then.
edit: http://store.steampowered.com/app/99830/
Became available yesterday. Ouch to $60, ordering anyways.
Either way, I'll support Crytek :thumbsup:.
Even though the game might turn out to be a letdown, I still have faith they will up the bar from Crysis with DX11 and further effects not shown in this leak.
And I'll continue to buy their games as long as they continue to release for the PC and be the developer that above all others pushes the best visuals in PC gaming.
Even if the game is a turd, I'd like to support them if they will show what is possible on the PC when no one else will. :thumbsup:
This is rather baffling stance to take.
We should be supporting developers that put out good games regardless of the platform rather than developers who put out good-looking games on the PC.
I appreciate good games, but one of the benefits of the PC platform is that it is on the cutting edge of what is possible in gaming.
And there are a small handful of game developers who make full use of the resources that the PC has to offer gaming. I want games with good gameplay and amazing graphics. There are more developers putting out good games than there are putting out games with cutting edge technology.
I prefer to support both camps, and I've only seen a few developers that manage to do both; Crytek, 4A Games, GSC. I enjoyed Crysis and Far Cry, they looked amazing for their time and the gameplay was great.
It's four years later. Crysis is still the best looking game on the PC or any other platform, there is no reason for that to be the case... four.. years... later.
I agree with your stance. Would you put id on either of your lists (A: company that pushes PC technology) (B: company pushes visuals and great gameplay)?
It seems like they are forgotten, and granted they havent had a meaninful release developed internally for about 7-8 years, but Carmack has really never let me down and Im excited for Rage/Doom 4. I know some people didn't like Doom 3 but there are many who thought Crysis gameplay sucked as well (I liked it and Doom 3 as well) Epic has totally abandoned high end PC development with their UE3 console whoreout fest, and even though id has to take console seriously now too, I think Rage will be amazing visually. Not to mention some Open GL action! thoughts?
I thought Doom 3 was awesome, looking at the time and gameplay. I bought a 6800GT for Doom 3 and HL2.
Looking at Rage, I have a feeling it will fall in into your column B, but that is only going on the early screenshots and gameplay and the fact it is coming out for console as well.
I think Far Cry 2 could fall into A. The game looked great to me, but I did not enjoy the gameplay at all :thumbsdown: Didn't buy that one though, I got it free with a GTX 260 I think.
Great numbers, but it looks like the game has been completely consolized. It's just a shell of what the original Crysis was as far as graphics quality. They seem to use the same tricks a lot of other console -> PC ports use to boost graphics quality, but it's still night and day compared with the original:Some more benches of Crysis 2:
http://translate.googleusercontent....gle.ca&usg=ALkJrhifUgW_E3-g3g5LY2rT9ezRtP0sMA
and you are using that horrible looking pic as an example? sorry but the original Crysis is not as good looking as some of claim it is. I just fired it up a few minutes ago and honestly even on all very high DX10 it is just not that impressive looking any more. plus the shots of Crysis 2 do not even have all the graphics options that will be in the final game.Great numbers, but it looks like the game has been completely consolized. It's just a shell of what the original Crysis was as far as graphics quality. They seem to use the same tricks a lot of other console -> PC ports use to boost graphics quality, but it's still night and day compared with the original:
They compare the max overclock they can get on a 560 versus the stock 6970, 6950 & 580
The only game that has come close is Metro 2033, and its overall graphical quality still falls short. If you want to post something you feel looks better, go right ahead.and you are using that horrible looking pic as an example? sorry but the original Crysis is not as good looking as some of claim it is. I just fired it up a few minutes ago and honestly even on all very high DX10 it is just not that impressive looking any more. plus the shots of Crysis 2 do not even have all the graphics options that will be in the final game.