[Incrysis/Sweclockers]Crysis 2 to launch with only DX9...DX11 will come later?

[-Slacker-]

Does anyone ever have anything to say about Far Cry and Crysis other than the graphics?

Not really. It's arguably their only forte.

Neither game was particularly outstanding so I find it quite worrying when people say that it is the very symbol of PC gaming.

Doesn't really mater weather it should or should not be considered as such. When people try to differentiate gaming pc's from consoles, crysis is the game that almost always comes up. Or at least it did before 2009 when they made a dumbed down iq version for the consoles.

 

[Veliko]

Doesn't really mater weather it should or should not be considered as such. When people try to differentiate gaming pc's from consoles, crysis is the game that almost always comes up. Or at least it did before 2009 when they made a dumbed down iq version for the consoles.

But why is it the game that is always brought up? There is nothing special about it other than the graphics.

 

[Skurge]

But why is it the game that is always brought up? There is nothing special about it other than the graphics.

Its comparable to other console games.

You can compare SC2 or The Total War series (Which is very impressive graphically) to console games can you.

 

[Veliko]

Its comparable to other console games.

You can compare SC2 or The Total War series (Which is very impressive graphically) to console games can you.

You can use them as examples of games that wouldn't work very well on a console which - if you really feel the need to actually bother trying to pimp PC gaming over console gaming - is a far better way of doing things.

There are people saying that they won't be getting this game because it isn't supporting DX11 or whatever other graphical effect seems to be missing. If the game was any good such things wouldn't really matter.

 

[Pocatello]

Unless my graphic card is broken, I won't need to upgrade anytime soon. Game advancement has stopped a few years ago.

 

[Necc]

You can use them as examples of games that wouldn't work very well on a console which - if you really feel the need to actually bother trying to pimp PC gaming over console gaming - is a far better way of doing things.

There are people saying that they won't be getting this game because it isn't supporting DX11 or whatever other graphical effect seems to be missing. If the game was any good such things wouldn't really matter.

The simple fact that pisses me off and let to cancel my preorder that crytek is just shitting on pc gaming, looking for excuses since 2009 and that led to a DX9 Call of duty clone named "crysis 2". look at lost planet 2, its on consoles too, but atleast they gave thought to pc gaming and released a DX11 version with a benchmark. dont get me wrong im not a graphics whore, but when ispend hard cash on my gaming rig, iwant to enjoy the eyecandy with descent gameplay.

 

[Veliko]

Unless my graphic card is broken, I won't need to upgrade anytime soon. Game advancement has stopped a few years ago.

This is precisely what I am talking about. Why are you equating graphics with gameplay?

 

[Veliko]

The simple fact that pisses me off and let to cancel my preorder that crytek is just shitting on pc gaming, looking for excuses since 2009 and that led to a DX9 clone named "crysis 2". look at lost planet 2, its on consoles too, but atleast they gave thought to pc gaming and released a DX11 version with a benchmark. dont get me wrong im not a grapich whore, but when ispend hard cash on my gaming rig, iwant to enjoy the eyecandy with descent gameplay.

Lost Planet 2 is another example of a nice looking but ultimately average game. Why are you so happy when a developer supports the latest version of DX when the game itself is subpar? You should be more concerned with the quality of the game rather than the graphics - developers are shitting on everyone when they put out games like Crysis and Lost Planet.

 

[Necc]

Lost Planet 2 is another example of a nice looking but ultimately average game. Why are you so happy when a developer supports the latest version of DX when the game itself is subpar? You should be more concerned with the quality of the game rather than the graphics - developers are shitting on everyone when they put out games like Crysis and Lost Planet.

Iget it and you are right they are average games but is there any good game that was developed for pc only since the 1st starcraft/diablo2/counter-strike that had good graphics/gameplay when they were released? very few. other then that whats the point then having the latest hardware if the games nowdays are average and are console ports? pc is superior to consoles because of graphics, so if that's laking, then Ishall sell my gaming rig and im good with a simple athlon x4 and a 8800gt. (Hell save my self lot of cash).

 

[showb1z]

But why is it the game that is always brought up? There is nothing special about it other than the graphics.

Far Cry has 89 and Crysis has 91 on metacritic.
With a better storyline they'd be almost level with HL2. I think they both did a good job of utilising their technical ability to further the gameplay. They certainly have a lot more going on than crap like Halo and Gears of War.

 

[FalseChristian]

I can't believe that Crytek traitored on us and now has that dreaded disease Consolitis!

 

[Qbah]

Lost Planet 2 is another example of a nice looking but ultimately average game. Why are you so happy when a developer supports the latest version of DX when the game itself is subpar? You should be more concerned with the quality of the game rather than the graphics - developers are shitting on everyone when they put out games like Crysis and Lost Planet.

You purchase a PC and equip it with the best components, so your games can both look good and have great gameplay. If I didn't care about graphics, I would still play X-com or HoMM3.

If you want to play games with sub-par graphics, aliasing, low texture resolution and general low IQ, go play your console. PC gaming is both about great looks and great gameplay. A PC gamer doesn't need to choose, so a question "would you rather have good graphics or good gameplay" is irrelevant - the PC platform has the capability to provide both.

 

[OILFIELDTRASH]

Have faith my fellow pc gamers. Nvidia won't let this happen. Too much money is riding on the Crysis wagon. Nvidia needs Crysis to just crush gpu's with insane graphics so many people will upgrade their gpu's. I can guarantee nvidia is hard at work with crytek as we speak getting it hammered out and you can bet crytek is being compensated for their troubles. Pc games have almost always come out later than console versions. IMO crytek is giving you the opportunity to play crysis 3 as it is instead of waiting a few months for the full version to come out. When dx11 is ready you'll get the patch. I personally am waiting for the dx11 patch before I buy.

 

[Veliko]

You purchase a PC and equip it with the best components, so your games can both look good and have great gameplay. If I didn't care about graphics, I would still play X-com or HoMM3.

If you want to play games with sub-par graphics, aliasing, low texture resolution and general low IQ, go play your console. PC gaming is both about great looks and great gameplay. A PC gamer doesn't need to choose, so a question "would you rather have good graphics or good gameplay" is irrelevant - the PC platform has the capability to provide both.

And yet neither Far Cry nor Crysis gave you both good graphics and gameplay so why all the fuss about them?

 

[Veliko]

Far Cry has 89 and Crysis has 91 on metacritic.
With a better storyline they'd be almost level with HL2. I think they both did a good job of utilising their technical ability to further the gameplay. They certainly have a lot more going on than crap like Halo and Gears of War.

Both Halo and Gears of War also score highly on Metacritic. I wasn't a fan of GoW but the Halo series has more going for it than either Far Cry or Crysis - strong and memorable characters, interesting story and an excellent soundtrack.

 

[Vdubchaos]

DX11 "support" is worthless unless the game is coded in DX11....Crysis 2 is NOT.

BC2 is a perfect example of this. Go ahead pull it up side by side with DX9 and DX11...you will hardly notice ANY difference. It's a DX9 engine with DX11 sprinkle.

DX11 from the ground up is what REALLY matters.

Also, Crysis 2 demo is so horrible that I wouldn't touch it with a 100 foot pole at this point. EVEN if it was coded in DX11.

At this point, it's a bigger let down than MOH...which was just horrid.

 

[Skurge]

Both Halo and Gears of War also score highly on Metacritic. I wasn't a fan of GoW but the Halo series has more going for it than either Far Cry or Crysis - strong and memorable characters, interesting story and an excellent soundtrack.

Characters, story and soundtrack have nothing to do with gameplay which was what he was talking about. Someone mentioned That if FC and Crysis had better story they would be on par with HL2. Ask yourself, whats the difference between those game and HL2 in terms of gameplay?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8f-ccWzF9k
Now tell me crysis is an average game.

Now that they have a proper SCI-FI writer on board, I'm hopping that can add some good story to that awesome gameplay.

Also, console games are always rated higher. Multiplatform games always get higher scores on the consoles. I don't know if the reviewers are more forgiving or what.


EDIT: Im sorry, I've never played a HALO game (watched a lot of Red vs Blue and I doubt they have characters as good as those), but GOW does not have memorable characters or a strong story. Saying that would be comparing it to something like Mass Effect 2 and it loses on every level. Including the soundtrack.

 

[Sickamore]

http://www.youtube.com/user/Battlefield#p/u/0/ekDutunw1mk

Actual footage gameplay of battlefield 3. This looks way better than the crysis 2 dx9.

 

[DrBoss]

Far Cry and Crysis were both excellent games, i suspect those who argue otherwise simply don't (or didn't) have the hardware to run the games well.

As for Crysis 2, this DX11 news coupled with the sub-par demo surely is a disappointment... no worries though. I still enjoy playing Crysis single-player and still plan to build a new system in the hopes of playing the original at even higher graphical settings.

Edit: GoW was fun, but lets face it, Halo is garbage. It's the reason FPS games are where they are today (auto-lock, simplified controls, you know... console'ization). Pop quiz! What was better than Halo when it came out? Answer: Counter-Strike. Yea........ CS. Talk about amazing gameplay... it didn't even have a story.

 

[OILFIELDTRASH]

DX11 "support" is worthless unless the game is coded in DX11....Crysis 2 is NOT.

BC2 is a perfect example of this. Go ahead pull it up side by side with DX9 and DX11...you will hardly notice ANY difference. It's a DX9 engine with DX11 sprinkle.

DX11 from the ground up is what REALLY matters.

Also, Crysis 2 demo is so horrible that I wouldn't touch it with a 100 foot pole at this point. EVEN if it was coded in DX11.

At this point, it's a bigger let down than MOH...which was just horrid.

Can we see the full release before we call it a flop? It's like using a leaked beta version of windows that crashes all the time and complaining what a flop the new windows is going to be.:/ You want pc gaming to push the envelope to the max but you're running a gtx 460?

 

[Skurge]

http://www.youtube.com/user/Battlefield#p/u/0/ekDutunw1mk

Actual footage gameplay of battlefield 3. This looks way better than the crysis 2 dx9.

WOW, now that is a cutting edge game. Thats what you get when you develop for the PC 1st and build your engine from the ground up with DX10/11.

I love the character animation.

Im going to pre-order this as soon as I can.

 

[Veliko]

Far Cry and Crysis were both excellent games, i suspect those who argue otherwise simply don't (or didn't) have the hardware to run the games well.

Or, you know, they just don't think the game is that great.

As for Crysis 2, this DX11 news coupled with the sub-par demo surely is a disappointment... no worries though. I still enjoy playing Crysis single-player and still plan to build a new system in the hopes of playing the original at even higher graphical settings.

Edit: GoW was fun, but lets face it, Halo is garbage. It's the reason FPS games are where they are today (auto-lock, simplified controls, you know... console'ization).

Again with the bland 'console' complaints. The original Unreal Tournament had an auto-aim option for goodness sake and I think it was even enabled by default. I really don't know what you mean about simplified controls though.

 

[dpodblood]

Well since there is no official confirmation of this one way or the other I will just wait and see. If it's launched without DX11 support though I will not be buying it. I though Crytek was one of the few companies who still developed games tailored to the PC crowd. If that's not the case then I guess it's all up to Valve, and Blizzard.

 

[dpodblood]

The Half-Life 1 had an auto aim as well. For single player who cares... If you don't want it just turn it off. Multiplayer is another story altogether though, and it should be disabled entirely. Though I think it's safe to assume Crysis multiplayer will just be tacked on. It will never compete with the Call of Duty's or the Battlefield's.

 

[Necc]

Well since there is no official confirmation of this one way or the other I will just wait and see. If it's launched without DX11 support though I will not be buying it. I though Crytek was one of the few companies who still developed games tailored to the PC crowd. If that's not the case then I guess it's all up to Valve, and Blizzard.

Idont think Blizzard will turn on the console side ever, as for valve we saw l4d2/hl2 on consoles. so im not so sure about them.

The main problem with gaming that there are less and less inative good ideas, every developer is just cloning each other ideas with minor changes. bioware is an exception with the mass effect series cuz its uniqe.