Crysis 2 Retail Benchmarked

[Veliko]

How is having the option for the game to look even better something bad? Can the game look better? Based on the tech demos it can. So why not give the option? Not my problem you get upset you can't "max" the game on your rig - nobody would force you not to run the game at let's say DX9 "extreme". The game would look as it does now. But people having better hardware or playing at lower resolutions could run the game at DX11 "ultra extreme" or something...

I don't understand how can people approve of Crytek not making the game look as good as it could have been. Nobody is forcing anyone to max the game, why not give the option to use higher settings if Cryengine 3 allows it? Your "extreme" mode, what you get right now, would look the same still...

It's not so much actively approving as not getting completely hysterical about it like so many people have been doing. But lets no forget all the criticism that the original Crysis garnered due to the high system requirements.

When developers aim high the games don't usually scale back all that well so the current 'extreme' mode might not run as well as it does now.

 

[Qbah]

It's called pushing the limits of PC technology. Something Crytek was very proud of doing with the original Crysis. I will wait until they include higher settings on the game before I consider a purchase. Will I be able to run "omg" mode at 1080p with high AA? Most likely not, but I will be able to make the game look distinctively better than what is available in it now and still get decent framerates.

And my HD5850 is chugging along in the games I play quite fine at 1080p, thank you very much. This includes the DX10/11 titles I own.

 

[Veliko]

It's called pushing the limits of PC technology. Something Crytek was very proud of doing with the original Crysis. I will wait until they include higher settings on the game before I consider a purchase. Will I be able to run "omg" mode at 1080p with high AA? Most likely not, but I will be able to make the game look distinctively better than what is available in it now and still get decent framerates.

And my HD5850 is chugging along in the games I play quite fine at 1080p, thank you very much. This includes the DX10/11 titles I own.

There are limits to pushing the limits of PC technology, financial constraints being one of them. If there aren't enough people with the absolute top-end hardware buying the game then you won't be the core audience.

 

[Zanovar]

There are limits to pushing the limits of PC technology, financial constraints being one of them. If there aren't enough people with the absolute top-end hardware buying the game then you won't be the core audience.

Cough,Coughs tymfm

 

[tviceman]

There are limits to pushing the limits of PC technology, financial constraints being one of them. If there aren't enough people with the absolute top-end hardware buying the game then you won't be the core audience.

Crytek would not be alienating their core audience by giving an option to run the game at extremely demanding settings.

 

[Veliko]

Crytek would not be alienating their core audience by giving an option to run the game at extremely demanding settings.

Again, if you cater for the high-end PC crowd you limit the ability for the game to scale back down for those with weaker hardware.

 

[DeathReborn]

There are limits to pushing the limits of PC technology, financial constraints being one of them. If there aren't enough people with the absolute top-end hardware buying the game then you won't be the core audience.

None of that should stop them at least releasing a High Resolution Texture Pack which people can download and just adds a option in the Options menu to use them or not. It's these little things that Crytek should be doing.

 

[Dribble]

Crytek would not be alienating their core audience by giving an option to run the game at extremely demanding settings.

Actually I wouldn't buy the game till I could run it at really high settings - if a major reason for playing a game is the amazing graphics then it makes sense to wait untill I can experience them before playing it. If it takes 2 years before I own a card that can do it, then I'll buy the game in 2 years time (for a budget price). From Crytek's point of view that both (1) costs them money (2) lowers potential multi-player numbers meaning it's less likely to take off as a multi-player game.

 

[nemesismk2]

It's 'bad for them', if it takes them an inordinate amount of time and therefore money to develop options that are not usable today by the vast, vast majority (including enthusiasts) of gamers. Let's say they had put in some 'omg' mode, but to maintain 30fps at 1080p one would need 6990s in crossfire or 590s in SLI.

What's the incentive for Crytek to invest in options in a game that almost nobody in their market could use? To use your own language: "Not my problem that you're upset there aren't better graphics options available". I'm not the one who is upset; I enjoyed the game. It's people like you (the angry ones) who are rampaging across forums complaining that there aren't better graphics options available for their 5850 at 1080p. I mean...seriously.

Some sense finally about Crysis 2 which runs fine with a humble Radeon 4770 with very high settings I might add. I have a 5770 which does extreme settings with Crysis 2 giving a smooth, fast display which looks amazing.

PC Gaming should be about giving the majority a playable gaming experience not pandering to the tiny amount of people with a monster pc in their basement

I have seen the steam results showing that DX11 hardware is seriously in the minority so why should Crysis 2 have DX11 when most people don't have DX11 hardware?

 

[railven]

Some sense finally about Crysis 2 which runs fine with a humble Radeon 4770 with almost max settings I might add. I have a 5770 which does max out Crysis 2 giving a smooth and fast display.

PC Gaming should be about giving the majority a playable gaming experience not pandering to the tiny amount of people with a monster pc in their basement

I have seen the steam results showing that DX11 hardware is seriously in the minority so why should Crysis 2 have DX11 when most people don't have DX11 hardware?

It didn't stop them for Crysis 1. DX10 was barely available when Crysis 1 launched (and if I had to guess DX11 is more established now than DX10 was back then due to the Vista requirement.)

I play tons of games, on tons of hardware, and here is where I stand - Crysis 2 isn't going to stop the console community from ZOMG the COD Black Ops or the OMG Halos, or the OMG Killzone 3. I don't think it's online MP is going to knock any of those off from their perch on the console online arena.

The PC community would have embraced it with open arms. They wanted it. Asked for it. And in the end like many times before they were left out in the cold.

Is Crysis 2 a good game? Yes. Doesn't change Crytek selling out. 2 million dollars from nVidia could have paid for a lot of PC exclusive perks. I don't recall the Green Team boasting ingame PhysX or CUDA accelerated explosions. They just get 10FPS more than the Red team, hardly worth 2 million dollars. nvidia should be pissed.

Well at least Crysis 2 isnt demanding enough to blow up nvidia cards, that must be worth something

 

[Veliko]

None of that should stop them at least releasing a High Resolution Texture Pack which people can download and just adds a option in the Options menu to use them or not. It's these little things that Crytek should be doing.

For what purpose would they do that?

 

[Veliko]

It didn't stop them for Crysis 1. DX10 was barely available when Crysis 1 launched (and if I had to guess DX11 is more established now than DX10 was back then due to the Vista requirement.)

Yes, and? What is your point here?

I play tons of games, on tons of hardware, and here is where I stand - Crysis 2 isn't going to stop the console community from ZOMG the COD Black Ops or the OMG Halos, or the OMG Killzone 3. I don't think it's online MP is going to knock any of those off from their perch on the console online arena.

The PC community would have embraced it with open arms. They wanted it. Asked for it. And in the end like many times before they were left out in the cold.

Embraced what? I don't really get your point.

Is Crysis 2 a good game? Yes. Doesn't change Crytek selling out. 2 million dollars from nVidia could have paid for a lot of PC exclusive perks. I don't recall the Green Team boasting ingame PhysX or CUDA accelerated explosions. They just get 10FPS more than the Red team, hardly worth 2 million dollars. nvidia should be pissed.

You are entering cloud cuckoo land here.

What do you mean by 'selling out'? Do you think they made Crysis as an act of charity? How is going for the extra money from the console sales selling out whilst getting money from Nvidia (if they would even put it up in the first place) a positive thing for PC gamers?

 

[railven]

Yes, and? What is your point here?

It counters:

I have seen the steam results showing that DX11 hardware is seriously in the minority so why should Crysis 2 have DX11 when most people don't have DX11 hardware?

Feel free to ask him - "what's your point here?"

Embraced what? I don't really get your point.

They made the game specifically for the console community (ie console hardware was the root building platform). This game will end up like every other shooter on consoles that aren't named Halo, Killzone, or Call of Duty.

You are entering cloud cuckoo land here.

What do you mean by 'selling out'? Do you think they made Crysis as an act of charity? How is going for the extra money from the console sales selling out whilst getting money from Nvidia (if they would even put it up in the first place) a positive thing for PC gamers?

Exactly, glad you're thinking along my train of though. Isn't it wonderful here in Cloud Cuckoo Land?

 

[Veliko]

It counters:



Feel free to ask him - "what's your point here?"

Well no because his point was quite clear and the reasons for Crytek not including DX11 are entirely rational.

They made the game specifically for the console community (ie console hardware was the root building platform). This game will end up like every other shooter on consoles that aren't named Halo, Killzone, or Call of Duty.

They made the game specifically for people who like FPS games. I still don't understand your comment about Halo, etc. - how is Crysis 2 going to end up like them?

Exactly, glad you're thinking along my train of though. Isn't it wonderful here in Cloud Cuckoo Land?

You avoided the point entirely. Try and answer it this time:

How is going for the extra money from the console sales selling out whilst getting money from Nvidia (if they would even put it up in the first place) a positive thing for PC gamers?

 

[railven]

Well no because his point was quite clear and the reasons for Crytek not including DX11 are entirely rational.

And my point is clear - in which they made Crysis 1 the same situation existed and decided on the opposite. Odd.

They made the game specifically for people who like FPS games. I still don't understand your comment about Halo, etc. - how is Crysis 2 going to end up like them?

Because Crysis as a franchise has an establish fan base and expected audience in the PC sector. They catered to the console audience with Crysis 2 in terms of technology/requirements and in that sector they have no standing and have bigger franchises that will dwarf them.

You avoided the point entirely. Try and answer it this time:

How is going for the extra money from the console sales selling out whilst getting money from Nvidia (if they would even put it up in the first place) a positive thing for PC gamers?

And you missed my point entirely. My answers are there for you to read. I didn't hide anything.

 

[Veliko]

And my point is clear - in which they made Crysis 1 the same situation existed and decided on the opposite. Odd.

In what way is it 'odd'? It makes perfect sense.

Because Crysis as a franchise has an establish fan base and expected audience in the PC sector. They catered to the console audience with Crysis 2 in terms of technology/requirements and in that sector they have no standing and have bigger franchises that will dwarf them.

Until you see the sales of the game on each platform this is just pointless conjecture. There is also the point that before Far Cry was released Crytek didn't have a fanbase at all yet they did fine in a crowded genre.

And you missed my point entirely. My answers are there for you to read. I didn't hide anything.

So what was your point then? You lambast Crytek for chasing the money but then go on to say they should have chased the money from Nvidia.

 

[railven]

In what way is it 'odd'? It makes perfect sense.

So then you completely agree with. Glad we could work this out.

Until you see the sales of the game on each platform this is just pointless conjecture. There is also the point that before Far Cry was released Crytek didn't have a fanbase at all yet they did fine in a crowded genre.

Correct, they did fine in a crowded genre, and it was there efforts with the use of the technology that made them popular. Along that the support they gave their products. Now, if they turn around and do as all the console devs do now and nickle and dime everyone - well, I don't think they'll have the repeat success they had the first time around when venturing new terrain.

So what was your point then? You lambast Crytek for chasing the money but then go on to say they should have chased the money from Nvidia.

And here I thought you understood my original post. Sorry, you seem to have misunderstood me. Try re-reading it, see if it makes it clearer, because your conclusion is far from what I said.

 

[nemesismk2]

It didn't stop them for Crysis 1. DX10 was barely available when Crysis 1 launched (and if I had to guess DX11 is more established now than DX10 was back then due to the Vista requirement.)

I play tons of games, on tons of hardware, and here is where I stand - Crysis 2 isn't going to stop the console community from ZOMG the COD Black Ops or the OMG Halos, or the OMG Killzone 3. I don't think it's online MP is going to knock any of those off from their perch on the console online arena.

The PC community would have embraced it with open arms. They wanted it. Asked for it. And in the end like many times before they were left out in the cold.

Is Crysis 2 a good game? Yes. Doesn't change Crytek selling out. 2 million dollars from nVidia could have paid for a lot of PC exclusive perks. I don't recall the Green Team boasting ingame PhysX or CUDA accelerated explosions. They just get 10FPS more than the Red team, hardly worth 2 million dollars. nvidia should be pissed.

Well at least Crysis 2 isnt demanding enough to blow up nvidia cards, that must be worth something

I do agree with some of your comments, Crysis 2 is at a good level which gives most people a good gaming experience. Crytek will probably give you DX11 but only if it benefits Nvidia. That is my opinion and if AMD hardware benfits from DX11 more than Nvidia then you will never see it added to Crysis 2. Maybe Crysis 2 was going to have a DX11 option but Nvidia found out that AMD was faster with DX11 so said REMOVE IT and we will give you 2 million to never do Crysis 2 DX11

 

[Skurge]

If you believe CryTEK, they claim their engine doesnt need much work to make the game look much better than on consoles. You just build the game and then port it to Xbox360 and PS3 and it will scale down accordingly.

So according to them, it wouldn't cost much money or time to make the game look much better, so there was no reason why the game couldn't look better. It would still run as good as it does now, but people like Aristotelian, Grooveriding and pcm91 (if he plays games) have the choice of making the game look better. There is nothing bad about choices. Also if the game is as good as people say and it looked better, wouldn't more people be willing to upgrade their rigs to play it? A win for AMD, Nvidia, Intel, etc and crytek.

So I ask again, whats wrong with having a choice?

 

[Aristotelian]

Hey Skurge. My point isn't really that "having choice is a bad thing", my point was rather that given the context, not having the choice isn't such a big deal. The context is one where (at extreme settings and above 1080p) even 580s in SLI can start sweating. Is it really such a huge deal as is made out on internet forums, that there isn't an option for 'ultra mode' that almost no setups could manage, today?

Having said this, I would bet that Crytek will offer some kind of high res texture/add-on pack, but even so: the game is quite good looking. I enjoyed the mix of urban/park scenes, the varying altitudes, the lighting and all that. At no point while playing through the game did I think "man, this really should look better". The sway of the trees, all the combat - well, I thought it was a good game anyway. Well worth the Steam price.

 

[Skurge]

Hey Skurge. My point isn't really that "having choice is a bad thing", my point was rather that given the context, not having the choice isn't such a big deal. The context is one where (at extreme settings and above 1080p) even 580s in SLI can start sweating. Is it really such a huge deal as is made out on internet forums, that there isn't an option for 'ultra mode' that almost no setups could manage, today?

Having said this, I would bet that Crytek will offer some kind of high res texture/add-on pack, but even so: the game is quite good looking. I enjoyed the mix of urban/park scenes, the varying altitudes, the lighting and all that. At no point while playing through the game did I think "man, this really should look better". The sway of the trees, all the combat - well, I thought it was a good game anyway. Well worth the Steam price.

Well, I can't really comment on how it looks, don't have a rig to play it, but I can see your point.

Admittedly, some people are overreacting a bit, but I do think the game could have run better or had better AA with DX11 like Far Cry 2 or BC2. Just my opinion.

 

[RussianSensation]

Again, if you cater for the high-end PC crowd you limit the ability for the game to scale back down for those with weaker hardware.

Not necessarily. Crysis 1 had DX9 and DX10 paths and it ran pretty well even on Windows XP. At the same time, it looked better in DX10. I played Crysis 1 on 8800GTS 320mb and it still looked amazing without everything on very high.

Crysis 2's graphics OTOH weren't even catered towards the PC hardware from the beginning. The game was designed in DX9 from the ground-up for consoles. It is much cheaper to develop for a fixed level of hardware like PS3/Xbox360 than to push the limits by utilizing current "cutting edge" PC hardware. This is esp. true since Crytek probably expects to sell more copies of the game across consoles than on the PC. When they were developing Crysis 1, likely no one wanted to publish their game. So they had to put in full effort to stand out on the PC to make a name for themselves. Crysis 2 sold almost 600,000 copies across PS3 and Xbox360. I don't have the PC numbers, but this is likely superior to PC sales. Potential for much higher profits is why more and more developers continue to move to consoles. It's just too expensive to produce PC exclusives nowdays.

If the game was designed for the PCs in mind, then it would have looked a lot better. I mean there shouldn't even be a debate of how a sequel to a 2007 game doesn't look any better. You should be able to downscale the details so that Crysis 2 could run on weaker hardware. In other words, the current graphical details would be your DX9 base. The game would select this as default for weaker PC hardware. Those with more modern graphics cards would be defaulted to DX11 with all the bells and whistles and highest resolution textures. But Crysis 2 isn't like this because it is not a PC game ported to consoles, but rather a console designed game ported to the PC.

Right now it does look better on the PC. Most of that is related to soft shadows, HDR / global lighting, and better textures. But the difference isn't staggering considering the performance difference between say a GTX460 ($120-140 graphics card) and a 7900GTX. So Crytek left a lot of potential on the table.

 

[Zanovar]

Not necessarily. Crysis 1 had DX9 and DX10 paths and it ran pretty well even on Windows XP. At the same time, it looked better in DX10.

Crysis 2 wasn't even catered towards the PC hardware from the beginning. It was designed in DX9 from the ground-up for consoles so that it can run well on 7900GTX/X1950XTX level of hardware.

If the game was designed for the PCs in mind, then it would have looked a lot better. You would able to downscale the details so that it can run on weaker hardware. In other words, the current graphical details would be your DX9 base. The game would select this as default for weaker PC hardware. Those with more modern graphics cards would be defaulted to DX11 with all the bells and whistles and highest resolution textures. But Crysis 2 isn't like this because it is not a PC games ported to consoles, but rather a console designed game ported to the PC.

Right now it does look better on the PC. Most of that is related to soft shadows, HDR / global lighting, and better textures. But the difference isn't staggering considering the performance difference between say a GTX460 ($120-140 graphics card) and a 7900GTX. So Crytek left a lot of potential on the table.

was just about to get this game,russian you have put me off hmm,nephew said looks better on the 360,erm

 

[RussianSensation]

was just about to get this game,russian you have put me off hmm,nephew said looks better on the 360,erm

I was strictly speaking about the development of graphics. My point was that if you look at say EMAEE sales, you can see that Crysis 2 sales on the 360 + PS3 = 236,000 vs. 57,000 on the PC. So we can't really expect any developer to sit there and spend millions of dollars on top artists and programmers when they are making ~ 20% of their sales from the PC market. From a business sense, you'd cater towards 80% of your client base - which is console gamers. This is probably a large reason why they didn't go all out on this game in terms of graphics budget.

The other thing about PC games is that their prices drop like a rock. So there is almost never any incentive to buy a new $59.99 game. On consoles a game will be priced at $59.99 for 2-3+ months after release. In fact one of my friends just picked up COD:BO for his Xbox360 for $59.99 this week! Look at Medal of Honor for example. The game is barely 6 months old vs. 5 months old for BlackOps. Yet, Direct2Drive had it for $7.50 last week for the PC (obviously Black Ops is a more popular game though leading to its ability to maintain higher pricing for a longer time period). I have yet to see Medal of Honor for $7.50 for a console....

But even Crysis 2 has already seen a 20% discount as well. The only logical explanation as to why PC game prices drop so much quicker is because so few PC gamers are willing to pay $60 for a game in spite of often having expensive PC hardware. At first I thought PC gaming was going to be more expensive, but in the last 5 years I have completely changed my tune. PC gaming is far cheaper than console gaming after you add the cost of software. For developers, the higher sale prices of console games only increase their profits further and discourage them from developing games on the PC since most of those PC games will sell for $20-30 (if that) only 6 months from release (unless you are talking Blizzard games which tend to maintain their prices due to their popularity).

 

[Zanovar]

I was speaking strictly about the development of graphics. My point was that if you look at say EMAEE sales, you can see that Crysis 2 sales on the 360 + PS3 = 236,000 vs. 57,000 on the PC. So we can't really expect any developer to sit there and spend millions of dollars to top artists and programmers when they are making ~ 20% of their sales from the PC market. From a business sense, you'd cater towards 80% of your client base - which is console gamers. This is probably a large reason why they didn't go all out on this game in terms of graphics budget.

Aye,its not looking healthy
your point about price drops is interesting,i have noticed this also