Crysis 2 Retail Benchmarked

[Grooveriding]

Valve seems to be one of the few companies innovating and that isn't saying much. Team Fortress 2 is still one of the best FPS games out there, but it was released quite awhile ago. Left 4 Dead 2 is original, but a pretty straight re-make of the original and the level design can get pretty boring. One path (with minor deviations) to the exit. Portal is probably the most original and we'll see what Portal 2 has in store.

Valve proves that gameplay>graphics, and I am a graphics whore. TF2 is one of my favorite games, the graphics may not be technically impressive but the art style is amazing in my opinion.

World of Warcraft is similar, the engine and technical level of graphics are atrocious, but I find the art style to be amazing.

 

[Vdubchaos]

And here is the rub. Too many PC gamers salivate over graphics rather than gameplay.

So why don't you have an Xbox? Why bother with PC?

Yes, graphics are important to PC Gamers, if they weren't Game PC/GPU market would be crap.

 

[tincart]

So why don't you have an Xbox? Why bother with PC?

Yes, graphics are important to PC Gamers, if they weren't Game PC/GPU market would be crap.

Because PC games can offer us the best in both gameplay and graphics when they are well designed.

 

[kami]

It makes me sad that my rig runs it at the highest settings without breaking a sweat This is not Crysis.... Crysis used to fuel upgrades by itself.

 

[nemesismk2]

If the supermodel is just fun to look at, but the normal looking woman (Crysis 2 is far from the ugliest game in the world) is wild in the sack, I'd bet almost every interested person without erectile dysfunction would choose the normal looking woman over the model.

Yes, Crysis 2 isn't pushing the graphics envelope...but so what? Do Crytek have a moral duty to push the envelope? At the end of the day they're here to make games (and make money). Personally, I thought the demo was dumb (but I find any fps where you can 'level' and essentially instagib people who are new to the game, dumb).

Quake 3 needs to be remade with heavily updated graphics...ahh, the good old days.

I remember the good old days of Quake 3 (actually remember the good old days of Doom, Quake, Wolfenstein 3D and Duke Nukem too)

I remember when games were about being fun with great playability but these days people just want great looking games. Sometimes I think we now live in the eye candy age, sod how the game plays we only want to look at it not play it. lol

When did I start sounding like my Dad, I must be getting old

 

[Dribble]

It makes me sad that my rig runs it at the highest settings without breaking a sweat This is not Crysis.... Crysis used to fuel upgrades by itself.

I think that was crytek's problem. Crysis was sold as a graphical master class, and so lots of people (e.g. me) didn't bother buying it till we had a machine that could really do it justice, and by then it was a budget game. The first time I could really play it maxed at decent fps was when I got my GTX 570 which I got 4 or 5 years after it was released. If you are selling games that the customers don't want to play for 4 or 5 years then you're gonna have problems.

 

[orbster556]

I remember the good old days of Quake 3 (actually remember the good old days of Doom, Quake, Wolfenstein 3D and Duke Nukem too)

I remember when games were about being fun with great playability but these days people just want great looking games. Sometimes I think we now live in the eye candy age, sod how the game plays we only want to look at it not play it. lol (

I have two responses to your argument:

1) Sure, by today's standards, the game you mentioned are no lookers. At the time, however, they were pushing the boundaries of graphics tech and it the games were presented as offering fun FPS gameplay with quality graphics. Some of the listed games either forced gamers to purchase or upgrade discreet gfx cards so I don't think it's entirely accurate to suggest or imply that graphics were an unimportant component of the FPSs of yesteryear.

2) I think the strong reactions to C2 can be attributed, to a large degree, to the fact that it is a Crytek game and the developer, because of its history, has come to be a symbol of the power and possibilities of PC gaming. Put differently, if C2 had been developed by XYZ developer, I would have praised the game for its good graphics and interesting implementation of a vertical approach to gameplay. Although I can speak only for myself, I reckon a lot of other people would share such sentiments.

The two elements with which Crytek has become most frequently associated -- non-linear FPS gameplay and boundary-pushing graphics -- can be seen in C2, but only vaguely. The gameplay is less linear than CoD or the like, but isn't nearly as open as Crysis, viz. C2 just funnels you from set-piece to set-piece without giving you much of a world to explore. The graphics are good but not as impressive as Crysis' were when the latter was initially released.

Regards,

 

[SHAQ]

Oops. There is a nano collection bug which stopped me in my tracks on the suit upgrades. Close to the end of the game I had plenty of pickups to upgrade but the game wouldn't let me. I'd wait for a patch if anyone is considering buying it but they are not crucial to the game. It only makes it a bit harder.

 

[TerabyteX]

I played the first two levels and I'm totally dissapointed in terms of graphics, It looks blurry, cartoonish foliage, overdone HDR which looks like Dirt 1 and looks that it has severe issues with precision, may be it is 32INT HDR??? I can't even force Anti Aliasing and it wouldn't do nothing as the game has some sort of edge blurring that looks nasty. The gameplay is ok, but I would give it 7 of 10.

 

[greenhawk]

Oops. There is a nano collection bug which stopped me in my tracks on the suit upgrades. Close to the end of the game I had plenty of pickups to upgrade but the game wouldn't let me.

Not 100% sure if this relates to what I have read (have not played the game) but in multiplayer to limit campers, the awards for killing people (I assume this is the nano collection process?) requires you to collect the "dog tags" of the fallen enemy.

Where you collecting these tags or is the bug something else again?

 

[RussianSensation]

So why don't you have an Xbox? Why bother with PC?

I play Xbox360 with friends as I find the multiplayer aspect more enjoyable with a group of friends. When I am playing alone, I prefer the PC. I enjoy different games on consoles and on the PC. I don't see the reason for choosing one over the other. It just depends on the game.

 

[SHAQ]

Not 100% sure if this relates to what I have read (have not played the game) but in multiplayer to limit campers, the awards for killing people (I assume this is the nano collection process?) requires you to collect the "dog tags" of the fallen enemy.

Where you collecting these tags or is the bug something else again?

It's in SP from killing aliens.

 

[nemesismk2]

I have two responses to your argument:

1) Sure, by today's standards, the game you mentioned are no lookers. At the time, however, they were pushing the boundaries of graphics tech and it the games were presented as offering fun FPS gameplay with quality graphics. Some of the listed games either forced gamers to purchase or upgrade discreet gfx cards so I don't think it's entirely accurate to suggest or imply that graphics were an unimportant component of the FPSs of yesteryear.

2) I think the strong reactions to C2 can be attributed, to a large degree, to the fact that it is a Crytek game and the developer, because of its history, has come to be a symbol of the power and possibilities of PC gaming. Put differently, if C2 had been developed by XYZ developer, I would have praised the game for its good graphics and interesting implementation of a vertical approach to gameplay. Although I can speak only for myself, I reckon a lot of other people would share such sentiments.

The two elements with which Crytek has become most frequently associated -- non-linear FPS gameplay and boundary-pushing graphics -- can be seen in C2, but only vaguely. The gameplay is less linear than CoD or the like, but isn't nearly as open as Crysis, viz. C2 just funnels you from set-piece to set-piece without giving you much of a world to explore. The graphics are good but not as impressive as Crysis' were when the latter was initially released.

Regards,

Thanks for the interesting post and I understand your point. Thinking about it I guess the situation is just like Supreme Comander 2, it's very playable even on modest hardware (which is good for sales and for people with modest hardware) but it's just not Supreme Comander which was demanding at the time of release.

 

[TerabyteX]

I can't withstand Crysis 2 edge blurrying effect.... :'(

 

[Grooveriding]

I can't withstand Crysis 2 edge blurrying effect.... :'(

Yes the entire graphical aspect of the game is utter fail.

Biggest game release letdown in many years. The game looks like it was released three years before Crysis & Warhead were. :thumbsdown: They even cut back the physics. In Crysis you could destroy everything, knock down trees, then break them up etc. In Crysis 2 it's like every other console port, you shoot at objects and they get the same bullet hole texture and that's it :thumbsdown:

Here is a good example of the garbage AA implementation in the game. Notice how it blurs the entire screen.

Now here is the same view with the AA disabled.

The images speak for themselves.

I'm enjoying the single player. The multiplayer is rather terrible and every server is full of hackers already as there is no anti-cheat.

The game would of been much more impressive if the graphics were actually impressive rather than looking like every other console port. Hopefully Crytek will pump some of that console revenue into a real Crysis PC sequal for Crysis 3 :awe:

Oh well, since Crysis 2 has failed we still have BF3 to look forward to for truly groundbreaking graphics on the PC this year.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLf3bV0Ueyw&feature=player_embedded

 

[tviceman]

DX11 patch is rumored to be incoming tomorrow. Looking forward to seeing the improvements and how the game will run fully maxed out on GF100/104/110/114, Cayman, Cypress, and Barts.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

Wait, they toned down the physics? That is a turn off; I loved blowing everything up. Is this patch going to improve physics?

 

[Arkadrel]

@Grooveriding



those screenshots... why does the AA on pic look so blurred?

massive details look lost from it, Am I nuts for thinking it looks better without it on?

 

[toyota]

@Grooveriding



those screenshots... why does the AA on pic look so blurred?

massive details look lost from it, Am I nuts for thinking it looks better without it on?

he posted the pics to show that the AA implementation in this game uses a blurring effect.

 

[Keysplayr]

Graphics may not be what people expected for a sequel to Crysis, but it sure is fun to play it. Good action and the feel of the game is as least as fluid as the first one. I'm having fun playing it. Multi player has quite a few bugs though. I'm sure they'll get worked out soon enough.

 

[Firestorm007]

Graphics may not be what people expected for a sequel to Crysis, but it sure is fun to play it. Good action and the feel of the game is as least as fluid as the first one. I'm having fun playing it. Multi player has quite a few bugs though. I'm sure they'll get worked out soon enough.

Have you played it in 3D? If so, how was it as far as immersion?

 

[Annisman*]

I have two responses to your argument:

1) Sure, by today's standards, the game you mentioned are no lookers. At the time, however, they were pushing the boundaries of graphics tech and it the games were presented as offering fun FPS gameplay with quality graphics. Some of the listed games either forced gamers to purchase or upgrade discreet gfx cards so I don't think it's entirely accurate to suggest or imply that graphics were an unimportant component of the FPSs of yesteryear.

2) I think the strong reactions to C2 can be attributed, to a large degree, to the fact that it is a Crytek game and the developer, because of its history, has come to be a symbol of the power and possibilities of PC gaming. Put differently, if C2 had been developed by XYZ developer, I would have praised the game for its good graphics and interesting implementation of a vertical approach to gameplay. Although I can speak only for myself, I reckon a lot of other people would share such sentiments.

The two elements with which Crytek has become most frequently associated -- non-linear FPS gameplay and boundary-pushing graphics -- can be seen in C2, but only vaguely. The gameplay is less linear than CoD or the like, but isn't nearly as open as Crysis, viz. C2 just funnels you from set-piece to set-piece without giving you much of a world to explore. The graphics are good but not as impressive as Crysis' were when the latter was initially released.

Regards,

THIS ^

If it was a different developer, I would say great graphics, now I say "It could or should have been so much more"

 

[Keysplayr]

Have you played it in 3D? If so, how was it as far as immersion?

Don't laugh, but have you ever been up high somewhere, like a few stories up on a building (I'm talking real life here) and you get that feeling down below as if you were about to fall?

I get that in Crysis 2 in 3DMode.

Another funny note here. My best friend came over today and I let him play 3D Surround Crysis 2. He sat down, started the game, put on the glasses. After a few seconds he turned to look at me and said "You.......Suck..... You've ruined gaming for me. I can't go home now and play on my 22" in 2D now.

It was funny for me because of the faces he was making. Hilarious.

 

[pcm81]

Don't laugh, but have you ever been up high somewhere, like a few stories up on a building (I'm talking real life here) and you get that feeling down below as if you were about to fall?

I get that in Crysis 2 in 3DMode.

Another funny note here. My best friend came over today and I let him play 3D Surround Crysis 2. He sat down, started the game, put on the glasses. After a few seconds he turned to look at me and said "You.......Suck..... You've ruined gaming for me. I can't go home now and play on my 22" in 2D now.

It was funny for me because of the faces he was making. Hilarious.

I still vote for CounterStrike. T vs. AT.

 

[Aristotelian]

Don't laugh, but have you ever been up high somewhere, like a few stories up on a building (I'm talking real life here) and you get that feeling down below as if you were about to fall?

I get that in Crysis 2 in 3DMode.

Another funny note here. My best friend came over today and I let him play 3D Surround Crysis 2. He sat down, started the game, put on the glasses. After a few seconds he turned to look at me and said "You.......Suck..... You've ruined gaming for me. I can't go home now and play on my 22" in 2D now.

It was funny for me because of the faces he was making. Hilarious.

That's excellent. I haven't tried 3D gaming yet, but what you say makes it sound like a lot of fun. Can you comment on the multiplayer aspect? In the demo, certain setups seemed to be walking around instakilling people (or at least, on my server, it'd seem like some of my opponents just needed one or two bullet hits to kill me, and I could be emptying a clip in them and nothing would happen).

I keep bringing up Quake 3 because it was my purest fps experience (Unreal Tournament was very good, also). I don't know why fps makers feel the need to add 'level grinding' of a sort, where you get stronger the more you play, and the more you play...the better you (should) get, too. I got tired of the demo after a few rounds, but might pick up this game if a) the single player mode is immersive and b) they fix the multiplayer rubbish setup a bit.