I think it's pretty fun.
I was never a big fan of COD, so maybe I'm missing something, but I like it.
Needs more maps though.
It looks much worse than Crysis 1 is for sure. This is especially insulting after the many times Crytek said it would look at least as good as the first if not better with all its DX11 graphics.
Battlefield Bad Company 2 looks better than this. The worst thing is how they covered up all their laziness in the graphics department. Temporal AA instead of real MSAA. Low Res textures worthy of a 2005 game. Motion blurring to cover up the lack of detail. FOV is terrible. No config files to change graphics with because Crytek hates people who change the way their game looks so much that they encrypt the config files so they cant be changed.
What ticks me off most is all the prerelease crap Crytek lied about before release. Here we are now weeks away from release, and DX11 doesnt even ship with the game. Press Start to continue is the first thing you see. These little things all add up that demonstrate how much their PR department was telling us differently than what their development team was actually doing.
I'll be surprised if they even ship with Sandbox at this point. I'm thinking that they won't even release an editor because they hate the PC crowd that much.
Just think about this for a second. Crysis 1 shipped with a DX10 Renderer. Crysis 2 is going to ship with a DX9 renderer only.
Um, people are already modding the demo to change graphics settings..
I posted my tweaks earlier in the thread. You can remove motion blur, change FOV, etc.
This is really a damned if they, damned if they don't situation.
Crysis 1 on release. Graphics to good, hardly anybody can run. WHY CANT I RUN CRYSIS
Crysis 2 on release. Graphics good enough, everybody can run it. WHY DOESNT THIS LOOK LIKE CRYSIS
What ticks me off most is all the prerelease crap Crytek lied about before release. Here we are now weeks away from release, and DX11 doesnt even ship with the game. Press Start to continue is the first thing you see.
Steam Forums said:Auto Aim
For those of you concerned about auto aim in the PC version, please note this functionality is for control pads only (the PC version supports 360 control pads) and will not affect keyboard + mouse!
http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1775562
As for auto-aim, I believe it's actually "aim assist" which is a little different. Auto-aim has the magnetizing effect of moving your cursor onto a target. It sucks big time and has no place in gaming, even on consoles! Aim Assist is a little different, it merely slows your cursor as you target over someone. This helps you aim, obviously, and has the same effect of switching your mouse dpi to a lower number "on the fly" as your recticle hovers over an enemy.
Tweaks in Steam Forums said:
Hahah I lol'd. I'm going to post this on InCrysis. Crytek dev's are all over that forum. They really should see this.
yep.. i like it too.
lot's of fun elements and the maps are very well thought out, genius almost.
You just don't know what to expect. Do they have armor on? NV on? Can they see me? What suit mods do they have? There's a lot of mods that can be done so you never know what advantage someone has.
THEY ARE OBVIOUSLY GENIUSES!
You nothin' but a troll
Honestly, I agree, to a point. I would have hoped Crysis 2 was as ground breaking graphically as Crysis 1 was.
But, as a business, they listened. The game runs well, and they basically toned things down a bit to make the game more accessible to the masses. They optimized it, especially the MP so that it wouldn't be sluggish.
Question is, had Crysis 1 not left the mark that it did, graphically, would you be as dissappointed? I just have a 3.6ghz amd quad core with a 4870, and I'm able to play on 1900x1080 on hardcore and get pretty damn good frame rates.
I had fun once I stopped comparing it to the original. I didn't download the leak, but a friend did, and I saw it on his rig (which is a little less than mine) and it looks beautiful and the gameplay was pretty epic. It reminded me of HL2 in a way.
Um, people are already modding the demo to change graphics settings..
I posted my tweaks earlier in the thread. You can remove motion blur, change FOV, etc.
This is really a damned if they, damned if they don't situation.
Crysis 1 on release. Graphics to good, hardly anybody can run. WHY CANT I RUN CRYSIS
Crysis 2 on release. Graphics good enough, everybody can run it. WHY DOESNT THIS LOOK LIKE CRYSIS
Crysis and Warhead were completely playable to the masses. You just put the graphics on medium or low. Perfectly playable. What they did was force everyone to play at medium to low settings with Crysis 2. The game looks HORRIBLE compared to the original.
Like I said above. Everyone can run Crysis, maybe not at the highest settings, but it's absolutely playable for everybody. The argument that they "toned the game down so everyone can play it" is complete garbage. I played the game JUST FINE on medium settings with my 8800GTS when it was released.
Releasing this kind of junk to the consumers is extremely damaging to their company's image. Not like they really care though because every console fanboy is now screaming "omgomgomg my console can play Crysis now!" and they'll probably rake in the $$ from them alone.
You never go backwards with a "new game engine" and thats exactly what they did. I won't buy this game, and I suspect that a very large majority of PC gamers won't buy it either. It's really pathetic.
Crysis 1 was a fun game that looked great even at medium settings, and knowing that with better hardware (at the time I had an 8800GTS) I could make it look even better was nice... very nice when I eventually did upgrade.
Crysis 2 dropped the high end graphics (you can say whatever you want, fact is the graphics downgraded for the sequel, which is ridiculous) and then apparently turned into a COD clone. That screams "made for consoles" more than anything.
No, Crysis did not look great on medium settings.
There were plenty of PC gamers moaning and bitching about the high requirements needed for the original Crysis game.
Given that you weren't able to play Crysis with the high-end graphics anyway I don't see what difference it makes to you.
Uh, yes it did it look good.
Read my post you quoted, I said I did eventually upgrade and got to enjoy the high settings, which to this date haven't been matched.
If I wanted COD, I would buy COD. Crysis was different, and that (combined with the better graphics) is what made it better. Crysis 2 is the textbook example of "If you want your game to run on consoles, start sacrificing."
Crysis and Warhead were completely playable to the masses. You just put the graphics on medium or low. Perfectly playable. What they did was force everyone to play at medium to low settings with Crysis 2. The game looks HORRIBLE compared to the original.
Like I said above. Everyone can run Crysis, maybe not at the highest settings, but it's absolutely playable for everybody. The argument that they "toned the game down so everyone can play it" is complete garbage. I played the game JUST FINE on medium settings with my 8800GTS when it was released. Releasing this kind of junk to the consumers is extremely damaging to their company's image. Not like they really care though because every console fanboy is now screaming "omgomgomg my console can play Crysis now!" and they'll probably rake in the $$ from them alone.
You never go backwards with a "new game engine" and thats exactly what they did. I won't buy this game, and I suspect that a very large majority of PC gamers won't buy it either. It's really pathetic.