Crysis 2 DX 11 confirmed.

[Aristotelian]

What is the score on Metacritic for Crysis 2? I am at work and can't check. Even some of the fans of Crysis in this thread have said that the gameplay wasn't very good.

Crysis 1: Metascore (91), User Score (7.9)

Crysis 2 (PC): Metascore (87), User Score (6.5). (XBOX 360) Metascore (85), User Score (7.6). (PS3) Metascore (86), User Score (7.2)

The correlation between the average Metacritic score and 'quality of the game'is dubious. For example, since Crysis 1 was the first of a series, there is an unquantifiable amount of pleasure obtained from its simply being the first game. The nanosuit, stealth, and all that - they were 'new' in Crysis 1, but old hat by Crysis 2. For the second in a series to be 'better than the first', who knows what it would have required. Even if every single building in New York had been designed with all sorts of goodies and options, would that have made a substantial difference? I doubt it.

Crysis 2 is simply a fun game. I'm sure that it's not up there with the experience you had with Crysis 1 and Warhead, but I don't think that this is the standard that needs to be met in order to produce a fun game. I preferred ME2 to ME1 (especially the combat), but that doesn't mean that I think ME1 sucks. I'm not sure why the thresholds around 'fun' need to be so separate with respect to Crysis 1 and 2.

 

[skace]

You are stubborn Aristotelian. You don't want to admit Crysis 2 was a step down. So you'd rather discuss the subjective "it was fun, I swear!" instead of being able to admit actual limitations and actual missing features.

For the second to be better than the first, I know exactly what was required, if you look at any good, successful sequel, it is building off of the first game and adding to it in a logical fashion.

Very rarely do you end up with a better game when you strip a game of most of its significant features.

 

[Carfax83]

Crysis 2 Ultra quality cfg

This is the best Crysis 2 cfg I've yet tried. It's practically perfect! :thumbsup:

Link to copy

The best thing is that it gets rid of the annoying blur in the standard extreme mode, and increases detail elsewhere like making shadows sharper and more pronounced.

Here's a comparison shot:

Standard extreme

Ultra quality

 

[sigurros81]

Crysis 2 Ultra quality cfg

This is the best Crysis 2 cfg I've yet tried. It's practically perfect! :thumbsup:

Link to copy

The best thing is that it gets rid of the annoying blur in the standard extreme mode, and increases detail elsewhere like making shadows sharper and more pronounced.

Here's a comparison shot:

Standard extreme

Ultra quality

Cool, I may have to check it out. My only concern would be that the sharper shadows will be a big hit to the frame rate.

 

[Carfax83]

Cool, I may have to check it out. My only concern would be that the sharper shadows will be a big hit to the frame rate.

I haven't noticed a hit to the framerate, and I was playing on standard extreme quality mode before.

The cfg reduces the AA from 4x to 2x, so performance may improve depending on what settings you usually use.

 

[OptimumSlinky]

You are stubborn Aristotelian. You don't want to admit Crysis 2 was a step down. So you'd rather discuss the subjective "it was fun, I swear!" instead of being able to admit actual limitations and actual missing features.

For the second to be better than the first, I know exactly what was required, if you look at any good, successful sequel, it is building off of the first game and adding to it in a logical fashion.

Very rarely do you end up with a better game when you strip a game of most of its significant features.

Everyone in this thread is being ridiculously stubborn. "Crytek lied!" The only thing Crytek lied about was that they weren't going to short-change the PC version, which they sadly did. But everything else, that it doesn't tax hardware as much, or that it would be a more focused, guided sandbox if you will, they stated up from the get go.

I can understand PC gamers being upset by the removal of the console, of the editing tools, of the advanced graphics options. Hell, I enjoy my PC games, and I'm upset by this. I'm sure the removal of the editing tools was probably forced down by EA wanting to sell DLC down the line, so that one might not even be on Crytek.

But in terms of actual gameplay, I just don't get it. The story is a hundred times stronger, the Nanosuit mechanics more efficient and functional, and the game still lets you play it in whatever style you desire. So you can't run a kilometer down the beach and look at a rock that has nothing to do with the game, or a crab walk back and forth. So what? Is that really what's important in a game? The first Crysis had these big open spaces, sure, but the truth is the majority of it was EMPTY, and at the end of the day, you HAD to go to the objectives assigned to complete the missions and progress the game. In my opinion, which quite frankly I am as entitled to as you are to yours, Crytek trimmed a lot of horizontal "fat" from the game by dropping the big empty space, and even added verticality through the urban environment. I would argue that the vast "nonlinear" environments of Crysis were an illusion in this sense, because you still had to get from point A to point B at the end of the day.

And the core mechanics of Crysis are STILL present. You can customize your weapons as you see fit. You can attach C4 to an abandoned car and kick it off a roof before detonating it. You can run around in stealth mode and lay down C4, then decloak and ambush your enemies. Or you can jack a .50-cal and go in guns blazing. Or leap up onto a scaffolding and snipe from the high ground. The choice is still yours. To me, that's more important than being able to run along some digital beach and stare at crabs.

Some of the best games in gaming history aren't "nonlinear." System Shock. Deus Ex. Half-Life. Half-Life 2. What made these games fun was the power of choice in how you respond to a given situation, not the fact you could run around some big empty space. So be pissed off that they didn't include the CryEngine 3, or that the PC version hasn't gotten a high-resolution textures pack or DX11 support. Those are valid complaints, in my opinion. But in almost every other way (storytelling, gameplay, control), Crysis 2 is a step up from its predecessor, and a great game.

 

[Aristotelian]

You are stubborn Aristotelian. You don't want to admit Crysis 2 was a step down. So you'd rather discuss the subjective "it was fun, I swear!" instead of being able to admit actual limitations and actual missing features.

For the second to be better than the first, I know exactly what was required, if you look at any good, successful sequel, it is building off of the first game and adding to it in a logical fashion.

Very rarely do you end up with a better game when you strip a game of most of its significant features.

Why does it have to be a step down? The graphics are worse in certain scenarios (though that might be remedied with this dx11 patch and end user arrangements). It is more linear (but since when is linearity necessarily worse?) and so on.

I do not think that it is fair for you to claim that I am stubborn. I do not claim that the game is perfect, so you and I might agree on areas where the game could be improved. Furthermore, I have noted that the AI is rather buggy in parts, therefore undermining your claim that I have not noted any limitations in the game.

You and I might not agree about the criteria by which a game is good. My singular premise here was to say that anyone whose sole basis for saying that Crysis 2 is a terrible game simply because the graphics in some parts are not so hot, has an insufficient basis (by my standard) for declaring a game to be terrible. It is that simple.

 

[gorcorps]

Everyone in this thread is being ridiculously stubborn. "Crytek lied!" The only thing Crytek lied about was that they weren't going to short-change the PC version, which they sadly did. But everything else, that it doesn't tax hardware as much, or that it would be a more focused, guided sandbox if you will, they stated up from the get go.

I can understand PC gamers being upset by the removal of the console, of the editing tools, of the advanced graphics options. Hell, I enjoy my PC games, and I'm upset by this. I'm sure the removal of the editing tools was probably forced down by EA wanting to sell DLC down the line, so that one might not even be on Crytek.

But in terms of actual gameplay, I just don't get it. The story is a hundred times stronger, the Nanosuit mechanics more efficient and functional, and the game still lets you play it in whatever style you desire. So you can't run a kilometer down the beach and look at a rock that has nothing to do with the game, or a crab walk back and forth. So what? Is that really what's important in a game? The first Crysis had these big open spaces, sure, but the truth is the majority of it was EMPTY, and at the end of the day, you HAD to go to the objectives assigned to complete the missions and progress the game. In my opinion, which quite frankly I am as entitled to as you are to yours, Crytek trimmed a lot of horizontal "fat" from the game by dropping the big empty space, and even added verticality through the urban environment. I would argue that the vast "nonlinear" environments of Crysis were an illusion in this sense, because you still had to get from point A to point B at the end of the day.

And the core mechanics of Crysis are STILL present. You can customize your weapons as you see fit. You can attach C4 to an abandoned car and kick it off a roof before detonating it. You can run around in stealth mode and lay down C4, then decloak and ambush your enemies. Or you can jack a .50-cal and go in guns blazing. Or leap up onto a scaffolding and snipe from the high ground. The choice is still yours. To me, that's more important than being able to run along some digital beach and stare at crabs.

Some of the best games in gaming history aren't "nonlinear." System Shock. Deus Ex. Half-Life. Half-Life 2. What made these games fun was the power of choice in how you respond to a given situation, not the fact you could run around some big empty space. So be pissed off that they didn't include the CryEngine 3, or that the PC version hasn't gotten a high-resolution textures pack or DX11 support. Those are valid complaints, in my opinion. But in almost every other way (storytelling, gameplay, control), Crysis 2 is a step up from its predecessor, and a great game.

I'm questioning if you actually tried that C4 stealth thing, because you de-cloak when you lay down C4 just like if you fired a gun.

 

[gorcorps]

You are stubborn Aristotelian. You don't want to admit Crysis 2 was a step down. So you'd rather discuss the subjective "it was fun, I swear!" instead of being able to admit actual limitations and actual missing features.

For the second to be better than the first, I know exactly what was required, if you look at any good, successful sequel, it is building off of the first game and adding to it in a logical fashion.

Very rarely do you end up with a better game when you strip a game of most of its significant features.

God forbid the guy has an opinion... why is he stubborn because he doesn't share your dislike of the game? Maybe you're the one being stubborn about how Crysis 1 was. On a having fun and gameplay perspective I think the 2nd one tops the 1st, and that's the reason you play games in the first place. Yes it's buggier, and it may not look as good if you happen to like green, but as far as a GAME I think the 2nd one wins. If you had fun with the first then that's fine... these are all opinions. Don't claim somebody is just stubborn for not agreeing with you. You sound like a cum guzzling douche when you pull shit like that.

 

[wuliheron]

You and I might not agree about the criteria by which a game is good. My singular premise here was to say that anyone whose sole basis for saying that Crysis 2 is a terrible game simply because the graphics in some parts are not so hot, has an insufficient basis (by my standard) for declaring a game to be terrible. It is that simple.

What a crock of shit. Your sole purpose here is to harass people which you've done even when people have clearly stated the game isn't terrible, but the graphics could be better.

 

[wuliheron]

God forbid the guy has an opinion... why is he stubborn because he doesn't share your dislike of the game? Maybe you're the one being stubborn about how Crysis 1 was. On a having fun and gameplay perspective I think the 2nd one tops the 1st, and that's the reason you play games in the first place. Yes it's buggier, and it may not look as good if you happen to like green, but as far as a GAME I think the 2nd one wins. If you had fun with the first then that's fine... these are all opinions. Don't claim somebody is just stubborn for not agreeing with you. You sound like a cum guzzling douche when you pull shit like that.

The guy doesn't have an opinion, he contradicts himself every other post.

 

[Rakewell]

I'm really enjoying this game. I don't understand the griping.

 

[blckgrffn]

I must have been the only one to quit playing Far Cry when the monsters started... and think that Crysis was ridiculous in its enemy spawning.

I wish I had taken a screen shot: I was on top of a house, dorking around with a guard below. I turn around - and there is a line of guys, to the edge of the screen, running towards me. An unbelievable amount. I actually quit playing Crysis for a while because the trailer made it look like you could play like superman, but you couldn't. Once I realized you could play as a Predator, well, then I dug in.

Until the horrible Alien part made that worthless. Ugh.

Have you played Crysis lately? I *just* played Warhead... which was a "meh" on my scale, not to mention hold your hand linear. Branching objectives? Nope. Bigger areas where you could pretend to sandbox but really just kill lots of guys the same way over and over again? Check. So the hallways were *big*.

Were you expecting Just Cause 2 in a nano suit, or what? Which the first Crysis wasn't, BTW.

Anyway, I am not buying Crysis 2 until its $20, so my opinion is only worth 1/3 of all of yours...

This thread was at least fun reading!

 

[gorcorps]

I must have been the only one to quit playing Far Cry when the monsters started... and think that Crysis was ridiculous in its enemy spawning.

I wish I had taken a screen shot: I was on top of a house, dorking around with a guard below. I turn around - and there is a line of guys, to the edge of the screen, running towards me. An unbelievable amount. I actually quit playing Crysis for a while because the trailer made it look like you could play like superman, but you couldn't. Once I realized you could play as a Predator, well, then I dug in.

Until the horrible Alien part made that worthless. Ugh.

Have you played Crysis lately? I *just* played Warhead... which was a "meh" on my scale, not to mention hold your hand linear. Branching objectives? Nope. Bigger areas where you could pretend to sandbox but really just kill lots of guys the same way over and over again? Check. So the hallways were *big*.

Were you expecting Just Cause 2 in a nano suit, or what? Which the first Crysis wasn't, BTW.

Anyway, I am not buying Crysis 2 until its $20, so my opinion is only worth 1/3 of all of yours...

This thread was at least fun reading!

I'll admit that I stopped playing Far Cry when the mosters showed up. I'm not sure why but I didn't like the game after that.

 

[blckgrffn]

I'll admit that I stopped playing Far Cry when the mosters showed up. I'm not sure why but I didn't like the game after that.

Playing against the Mercs was fun. I just didn't like the creature feature. I tried it, but it was a like a horrible dose of Doom + Serrious Sam that just didn't fit (for me.) Doom 3, Far Cry and Deus Ex: Invisible War are the only PC games that I haven't finished that weren't big Jelly Donuts of games that didn't really need to be finished to be done (Command & Conquer Renegade, Galactic Civ 2, etc.) There aren't many FPS that can turn me away.

The aliens came later in the Crysis story, so I felt obligated to finish it.

I played the first two or so hours of Far Cry every time they updated the graphics though HDR on my 6800U FTW! (and horrible frame rates...)

"64-bit Texture Pack" brought me back too...

 

[Aristotelian]

What a crock of shit. Your sole purpose here is to harass people which you've done even when people have clearly stated the game isn't terrible, but the graphics could be better.

No, your sole purpose is to harass anyone who does not happen to equate "worse graphics" with "terrible game". Get over yourself and try to address points instead of attempting one line limp sailed zingers.

The only one who has contradicted him or herself in this thread is you. See my other posts for a bit of education.

 

[wuliheron]

No, your sole purpose is to harass anyone who does not happen to equate "worse graphics" with "terrible game". Get over yourself and try to address points instead of attempting one line limp sailed zingers.

The only one who has contradicted him or herself in this thread is you. See my other posts for a bit of education.

OK Mr Objective, go ahead and post a single contradiction I have made. For that matter, post one example of me calling it a "terrible game". You can't because you are just so full of shit even the whites of your eyes are turning brown.

 

[Aristotelian]

OK Mr Objective, go ahead and post a single contradiction I have made. For that matter, post one example of me calling it a "terrible game". You can't because you are just so full of shit even the whites of your eyes are turning brown.

Try reading the thread? I've posted them a number of times, and you're the only person in this thread who is attention whoring and directly talking out of his/her ass. Ironically, you're doing the vast majority of the name calling. So, idiot + intellectual insecurity => name calling. That's you. Enjoy rereading the thread.

Why don't you start by posting a single contradiction I've made? There's a cookie in it for you if you can.

 

[wuliheron]

Try reading the thread? I've posted them a number of times, and you're the only person in this thread who is attention whoring and directly talking out of his/her ass. Ironically, you're doing the vast majority of the name calling. So, idiot + intellectual insecurity => name calling. That's you. Enjoy rereading the thread.

Why don't you start by posting a single contradiction I've made? There's a cookie in it for you if you can.

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

Don't wait for me to prove my point, because just by refusing to provide the slightest evidence to back up all your shit you are proving my point. You talk the talk, but just can't walk the walk. You're not even a good troll much less a philosopher because you don't even know how to lie convincingly.

 

[Aristotelian]

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

Don't wait for me to prove my point, because just by refusing to provide the slightest evidence to back up all your shit you are proving my point. You talk the talk, but just can't walk the walk. You're not even a good troll much less a philosopher because you don't even know how to lie convincingly.

A philosopher needs to be able to lie convincingly? I have posted plenty of evidence. Your inability to comprehend it is your problem, not an indication of any point of yours being proved. You're the troll. Note that a number of people in this thread have called you on your bullshit. I'm not sorry for having humiliated you repeatedly, for your information. It's a public service, and some day you'll look back on these posts of yours and shake your head in dismay. Look forward to it.

 

[NoSoup4You]

I quit Far Cry once the monsters showed up as well, the game was brutal after that. I also disliked Crysis 1 after the aliens appeared... however, after subsequent playthroughs I grew to somewhat enjoy the alien levels. Only from the "point and shoot" perspective with the Gauss. Anyway...

The graphics in Crysis 2 are often phenomenal, I do wish the textures had been cranked up because that would have been icing on the cake. But even still, in-motion the game is great looking once the motion blur is disabled.

 

[wuliheron]

A philosopher needs to be able to lie convincingly? I have posted plenty of evidence. Your inability to comprehend it is your problem, not an indication of any point of yours being proved. You're the troll. Note that a number of people in this thread have called you on your bullshit. I'm not sorry for having humiliated you repeatedly, for your information. It's a public service, and some day you'll look back on these posts of yours and shake your head in dismay. Look forward to it.

Once again with the blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

Get a grip fool. Your STUPID bullshit on a STUPID bulletin board about a STUPID game doesn't bother me in the least. In case it has somehow slipped your superior observational skills I don't care about being popular, I don't care about being embarrassed, and I don't care about being called names. I'm not some 8 year old kid who embarrasses easily and I'm not here to create lasting relationships.

People have been trying to discuss dx 11 for this game while you troll them. I intend to make sure they know just how full of crap you are so that maybe they can actually focus on discussing the game and ignore your bullshit. Besides, I've got nothing better to do right now then to trash an incompetent troll. Who knows, you might actually learn how to troll better.

 

[OptimumSlinky]

I'm questioning if you actually tried that C4 stealth thing, because you de-cloak when you lay down C4 just like if you fired a gun.

This is true, but if you use cover from line of sight (barriers, cars), you can recharge, recloak, and continue. I wasn't specific enough, sorry.

This thread is totally fucked. I don't think anyone is actually discussing what DX11 might bring to the game. It's just a fucking troll war between those who enjoyed the game, and those who are butthurt by the "disappointing" graphics and choose to insult anyone who sticks up for Crysis 2.

 

[wuliheron]

This is true, but if you use cover from line of sight (barriers, cars), you can recharge, recloak, and continue. I wasn't specific enough, sorry.

This thread is totally fucked. I don't think anyone is actually discussing what DX11 might bring to the game. It's just a fucking troll war between those who enjoyed the game, and those who are butthurt by the "disappointing" graphics and choose to insult anyone who sticks up for Crysis 2.

This thread is about dx 11 which is a controversial subject in many games and even more so for Crysis 2. If you want to start your own thread about how wonderful the game is go for it.

 

[OptimumSlinky]

This thread is about dx 11 which is a controversial subject in many games and even more so for Crysis 2. If you want to start your own thread about how wonderful the game is go for it.

Actually, I did already post my thoughts and gripes on the game elsewhere. I just don't think any thread, particularly one about graphics technology, requires comments about whether posters' mothers breast fed them as children.