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
so they are saying that an E8500 can only average 23fps? I turned off one core and still averaged more than that when I played the demo.Here's some proper Crysis 2 benchmarks on a variety of video cards and CPUs:
Link
Nvidia does quite well, as does the Core i7 processor.. And I finally found out the difference between Extreme and Very high.. Too bad that Extreme enables AA and blurs everything though..
.
I played the demo on the very highest setting available at the time which is now called extreme. I was in the mid 30s most of the time which was playable. now of course the retail game could be more demanding but I have a hard time believing an E8500 cannot even crack 25 fps. that basically means no Core 2 Duo can get playable framerates on the extreme settings. and yes I know the Core 2 Duo is getting old but there are plenty of people with pretty high end gpus still using them. somebody with a gtx460 or so and E8500 will be quite shocked to average only 23fps no matter what res they try and play at on the extreme settings.They have only tested CPU performance using the extreme preset. I don't think your GTX260 can play the game at 1080P under Extreme Present. Although I imagine the Extreme setting affects GPU performance not CPU. Either way, as more and more games start taking advantage of quad cores, you'll prob. upgrade anyway. With BD and LGA2011 coming this year, you'll have plenty of good options to choose from, along with newer 28nm GPUs
I have a feeling if DX11 patch arrives for this game, it will bring just about anything to unplayable levels outside of GTX590.
the Q6600 results seem odd. the E8500 is the same basic architecture yet at 3.16 it can only get 23fps so that means at the same 2.4 speed as the Q6600 it would get only 17 fps. it just doesn't make sense that the Q6600 is well over twice as fast clock for clock.
That is coming in a future patch.
no other game is like that though. its rare to even get anywhere close to doubling the performance by going from 2 to 4 cores on the same architecture and speed. heck other most cpu heavy games a stock E8500 matches or beats the stock Q6600. again there are lots of people with Core 2 duos and fast cards running very high or extreme settings and I have not heard of one person getting just 23 fps. we would be hearing complaints left and right if people could not crack 30 fps with that setup.
Facebook
Twitter