Crysis 2 DX 11 confirmed.

[Lobo56]

Erm, no. If the gameplay is better in the sequel then it doesn't matter what platform it is on - it is a better game on every system.

Exactly.

Better gameplay. You play games. Hence, better.

Also I am yet to see any scathing reviews of the graphics apart from the whingers in this thread.

 

[Rhezuss]

I'd like to add to this *sarcasm on* very constructive thread *sarcasm off*.

It's more and more common to see this kind of behavior in the game hobby shit and it's getting pathetic as hell how gamers react, both PC and console ones.

Seriously, what did you expect? It's capitalism we live in and in capitalism, companies have to make capital, huge profits and quickly. Why would they lend another 6 months to the devs to work more on an awaited title when they can release it tomorrow and make extra bucks on the fly?!? Yes we now have consoles who can't perform as well as a decent PC and yes companies want to please console gamers AND PC gamers alike so what choice do they have?

It's part of life, we have to work and make money so we can have fun. That goes for a simple individual and for big companies. We made it happen.

Other thing I find completely disconcerning is why in the world would you stop doing anything in a game just to check the textures?!?!?!? And go in forums and spit on the games graphics saying the mud as low textures it sucks??!?!!?

People crying about how a game suffers from consolitis are the same who will cry because a game took a few months more to release on PC because the devs wanted to improve the game on that platform to please the PC crowd...and tell me, seeing your behaviors now, do you really think they enjoy working on titles FOR YOU?

 

[BladeVenom]

Also I am yet to see any scathing reviews of the graphics apart from the whingers in this thread.

I've seen them on every game forum I've been to. Steam is a popular site, lets see what they said about the textures. Worst texture you have found in Crysis 2 contest!!
Some hilarious ones there. Remember how good the wildlife looked in Crysis, now look at Crysis 2. http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/361/crysis22011033001314263.jpg
How do you like the shadows in Crysis 2? http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/7849/2011040100001j.jpg


Or do you mean professional reviewers who need the publishers advertising dollars to survive, and know that a scathing review means they could end up unemployed?

 

[EvilComputer92]

Other than the change from the jungle to a city the game is largely the same. There simply isn't that much difference between the two games that merits such extreme reactions.



Other than it's graphics Crysis 1 was mediocre. Crysis 2 is actually a better game.

What an idiotic statement. Maybe the non-linearity of Crysis 1 required too much thinking for you, and you would prefer to be railroaded along a set of "tactical options" that include such awe-inducing choices like "flank" and "jump on this ledge". I actually need to be told now which direction to move in a so called "sandbox" title.

Oh, let's also remove quicksaving and replace them with console checkpoints. Oh, let's also remove the editor because we don't want anyone creating custom maps.

Is this what passes for non-linearity now? What a total joke. In Crysis 1 you could create your own tactical options. If each one had to be explicitly labeled just to give the pretense of nonlinearity then the entire map would be loaded with them. There were entirely different ways to complete certain levels, multiple ways to get to a certain objective.

And really the excuse for the linearity being a city is laughable. The reason was the Crytek did not want to invest time into developing different areas that would not all be experienced in one playthrough. Why couldn't I go around certain buildings to reach my goal, or even through them.

Really, if you played Crysis 1 just for the graphics then you're a fool. They could have released it with Far Cry graphics and it would have still been just as good. Even years after it's release we have only seen an innumerable amount of COD clones wanting to be "cinematic" by sacrificing all element of choice. And you people have been eating them up because you would rather have someone tell you which direction to go in a game then decide for yourself.

No, Crysis 2 is not one of them, otherwise I would not have bought it. But it wants to be.

Oh and as for professional reviews, this one sums it up

Crucially, Crysis 2 represents the maturation of first-person shooters in general. Gone are the ludicrous system requirements, and the open-world setting. Instead, the series has shifted to a more focused linear playing field, where your actions are guided by the game rather than by your own curiosity.

 

[12andy]

Well said.

 

[Veliko]

What an idiotic statement. Maybe the non-linearity of Crysis 1 required too much thinking for you, and you would prefer to be railroaded along a set of "tactical options" that include such awe-inducing choices like "flank" and "jump on this ledge". I actually need to be told now which direction to move in a so called "sandbox" title.

Your first paragraph and you manage to fit in not a strawman argument or two but also a false dichotomy. Congratulations.

Has Crytek ever actually said Crysis 2 is a sandbox title? Did they ever say that for the first one...?

Oh, let's also remove quicksaving and replace them with console checkpoints.

To be honest the constant need to quicksave is a complete immersion killer. I prefer well-placed checkpoints for a game like this as it means I can concentrate on just playing the game.

Oh, let's also remove the editor because we don't want anyone creating custom maps.

Ok, your first legitimate point here.

Is this what passes for non-linearity now? What a total joke. In Crysis 1 you could create your own tactical options. If each one had to be explicitly labeled just to give the pretense of nonlinearity then the entire map would be loaded with them. There were entirely different ways to complete certain levels, multiple ways to get to a certain objective.

Who said anything about the game's non-linearity prior to it's release? At what point does a game stop being linear and becomes non-linear? There is nothing inherently wrong with a linear game.

And really the excuse for the linearity being a city is laughable. The reason was the Crytek did not want to invest time into developing different areas that would not all be experienced in one playthrough. Why couldn't I go around certain buildings to reach my goal, or even through them.

Yes, it's all a big conspiracy.

Really, if you played Crysis 1 just for the graphics then you're a fool. They could have released it with Far Cry graphics and it would have still been just as good.

If you played Crysis 1 for anything other than the graphics you are a fool as they were the only good thing about the game. The gameplay was pretty mediocre.

Even years after it's release we have only seen an innumerable amount of COD clones wanting to be "cinematic" by sacrificing all element of choice. And you people have been eating them up because you would rather have someone tell you which direction to go in a game then decide for yourself.

What do you mean by "you people"? It is entirely possible to enjoy a game irrespective of what choices it gives you - enjoying open-ended games like Morrowind and Oblivion does not mean you cannot also find enjoyment in a CoD game.

What CoD clones are you talking about exactly?

No, Crysis 2 is not one of them, otherwise I would not have bought it. But it wants to be.

Wants to be one what?

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

If they can't continue to provide even better graphics or at least as good as the original I want nothing to do with the game.

Then get the fuck out of this thread. Troll.

 

[skace]

Wow, what a fun thread to come in and read start to finish. On page 1, wuliheron and Lonbjerg are basically considered to be trolls. However, their statements are true and accurate, their wording is just harsh and emotional. The only reason the thread went on so long is that people refused to be the least bit open minded to what was being discussed and they refused to drop the issues. If you read it again, it can be kind of comical to see how many times something can be stated without being understood.

When I clicked on the thread, I came in here to say "Who gives a fuck about DX11, it won't save this game anyways". But I realized as I read it that the people who want DX11 don't necessarily want some shiny new graphical affect, they simply want the game to be more like Crysis and that I can agree with. Unfortunately, DX11 won't make Crysis 2 a sandbox game with a lot of fun things to do, the person who said you'll need a magnifying glass and comparison photos to see the difference is probably right. 9 times out of 10, after-the-fact graphical options tend to amount to not much of anything.

I'd like to address one of the reoccurring comments, which is that "the game isn't bad, as long as you don't compare it to it's predecessor". I think this is a ridiculous sentiment mainly because when you make a sequel, a large part of your target purchasing audience are the people who enjoyed the first game. So unless you come out and specifically say "I'm sorry but our veteran fans are going to absolutely hate this one" most people are going to consider a drastically different game as somewhat dishonest. And more often then not, you are better off giving the game a very specific name so that people do not think it is a sequel, such as Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles or Descent: Freespace. These types of changes do a lot to stem buyer misconception.

Let's get past that for a second, let's say that instead of comparing it to Crysis 1, we compare it to CoD. The first thing we have to acknowledge in such a comparison is that, the second we do this, we are saying to a lot of people "this is a bad game" because we are comparing it to a game that a lot of other people also think is bad. So even if it is accurate to say Crysis 2 is a good CoD clone, our statement alone has exemplified why many people would hate it without any further discussion.

But I'm going to go 1 step further, let's take the games that people are saying are good if you do not compare them to their predecessors. Dragon Age 2, Deus Ex 2, Crysis 2, Unreal 2. If we stop comparing these games, none of them were all that good on their own. These are all mediocre games, which means it isn't surprising if you enjoyed them but you should also be able to legitimately understand the concerns by which it became a mediocre game. Certainly, nobody would ever tell me not to compare Quake 2 to Quake 1, because they are both good games within the same genre. Nobody would ever tell me not to compare Civ 4 to Civ 5. We are being told not to compare these games because they simply aren't that good. If they had been firsts instead of sequels, the series may not have ever had any sequels. Something else to note about these sequels, if you look at many of these games you will see a sort of laziness in the feature-set. All of these games have that sort of "we cut out a lot of features" feature list that stems from the developer getting lazy and resting on the reputation of their first hit in the series.

The next thing I'd like to cover is performance related. One of the other arguments in the thread is that if you cannot run the game at the highest graphical level, then the game shouldn't have any additional graphical features. This is a logical fallacy because not every feature is an equal performance hit to each other. Often "very high" graphical settings tend to turn on things most people do not care about, such as uncompressed textures that can cause a massive performance hit. It doesn't make sense to then say, since you can't run uncompressed textures then you can't have windows that shatter or realistic water. The 2 are not related and this entire line of thinking of grossly broken. I hope you all realize how invalid this line of thought is without further discussion. Ultimately, if you asked if I'd rather have real time shadows or windows that break, destructible environment, drivable cars, more physics, etc - I'm ultimately going to say fuck shadows.

Which brings me to, I guess, what I feel about Crysis 2 and ultimately why I think other people feel let down. When Crysis 2 information was being discussed, one of the things that came up was that they were moving the series to a city environment as opposed to a jungle because that would allow them to make the game on consoles. When I heard that, in my mind, I thought that meant I'd be able to do all the things in Crysis 1 except not in a jungle. But it wasn't moving the game to the city that made it playable on a console, it was removing all of the things that made the game fun and unique. Ultimately it was game play and while you may hate that Crysis 1 was a graphical behemoth and may hate the ridiculous plot, I refuse to believe it had bad game play. I've seen a few people who seem to think that is some sort of irrefutable truth about C1 and I simply do not agree.

I'm going to end this post with 2 things. Someone alluded to the fact that gamers often have a binary rating system, if it isn't this then it sucks. I will admit that it may seem that way, but I consider this the "worth playing" rating system. Sometimes a game can be good, but it just isn't worth playing, meaning at the end of the day, when you get home from work, you simply don't want to fire it up despite how pretty the sidewalk looks in the game. This worth playing rating is ultimately the most important aspect of a game. When I picked up Crysis, I could barely put it down start to finish. I've started Crysis 2 but I'm not more than probably 4 hours into the game. While it looks decent and runs decent, I found nothing of interest to keep me pushing forward. I also had one embarrassing moment where I was standing in front of an ambulance trying to enter it when I clearly couldn't. And my last thing, in my opinion if they wanted to consolize Crysis, they should have gone the Just Cause route.

 

[EvilComputer92]

^pretty much agree with the above post, especially the part about Crysis 1's gameplay. I can understand complains about graphics or plot. Not sure how you can say it's gameplay was bad.

Has Crytek ever actually said Crysis 2 is a sandbox title? Did they ever say that for the first one...?

Who said anything about the game's non-linearity prior to it's release? At what point does a game stop being linear and becomes non-linear? There is nothing inherently wrong with a linear game.

From interviews with Crytek's executive producer

wherever we have play space available we try to offer a choreographed sandbox.

It’s the same structure. But there are action bubbles here as big as some Crysis levels, and in a true 3D sphere. Crysis was a 2D sandbox, if you like, and this is 3D.

You have all kinds of props in a city, from cars to hotdog stands and destroyed roads. They’re all technical challenges in a sandbox. If this was a linear shooter, we wouldn’t have those problems.

Crysis has the illusion that the maps were huge sandbox playgrounds that had a lot of playable space, we wanted to do the same thing within the city backdrop, keeping you confined in the seemingly huge city.

So you're either totally ignorant of any news Crytek releases or just dense at this point. Maybe both. Crytek promised a sandbox with all their marketing and did not deliver.

To be honest the constant need to quicksave is a complete immersion killer. I prefer well-placed checkpoints for a game like this as it means I can concentrate on just playing the game.

This is so stupid I don't even know what to say. For one, there is no reason you can't have checkpoints and the ability to save at anytime. It's totally optional to use it. Second, it makes you replay sections over and over when there is a gap in checkpoints. You're trying very hard to make excuses for Crytek and it's failing.

What CoD clones are you talking about exactly?

Homefront. Medal of Honor. Pretty much every FPS released within the last few years throws you along a set corridor.

There is nothing inherently wrong with a linear game.

There is when the market is saturated with them, and one of the few FPS games that wasn't linear get's a sequel that is.

 

[skace]

One thing I'd like to add, in reference to CoD. I've always been able to overlook CoD's game play because one of the most interesting things to me in CoD has always been sort of that semi-scripted "playing a war movie" experience. And while Crysis may have similar game play to CoD, I certainly don't get the war movie experience from it. And once you take that out of CoD, you are left with a hollow shell of a game. CoD always dropped you knee deep into the middle of some conflict that was already occurring.

 

[Veliko]

^pretty much agree with the above post, especially the part about Crysis 1's gameplay. I can understand complains about graphics or plot. Not sure how you can say it's gameplay was bad.

Well, it was.

From interviews with Crytek's executive producer

So you're either totally ignorant of any news Crytek releases or just dense at this point. Maybe both. Crytek promised a sandbox with all their marketing and did not deliver.

Not at all you just failed to actually understand what was being said. For instance:

"wherever we have play space available we try to offer a choreographed sandbox."

Key points in this qoute are 'try' and the word 'choreographed'.

It’s the same structure. But there are action bubbles here as big as some Crysis levels, and in a true 3D sphere. Crysis was a 2D sandbox, if you like, and this is 3D.

By 'action bubble' he means the points at where there is action going on. It doesn't matter how large a level is, the action bubbles are going to be in very small areas by their very nature.

Crysis has the illusion that the maps were huge sandbox playgrounds that had a lot of playable space, we wanted to do the same thing within the city backdrop, keeping you confined in the seemingly huge city.

Here he talks about how the huge sandbox in the original Crysis was actually an illusion rather something that existed as the player thought it did. The huge sandbox that you talk about didn't exist.

This is so stupid I don't even know what to say. For one, there is no reason you can't have checkpoints and the ability to save at anytime. It's totally optional to use it. Second, it makes you replay sections over and over when there is a gap in checkpoints. You're trying very hard to make excuses for Crytek and it's failing.

It's simply not a big deal. I haven't come across any large gaps in checkpoints so far. And why would I be trying to come up with excuses for Crytek? I haven't liked any of their previous games.

Homefront. Medal of Honor. Pretty much every FPS released within the last few years throws you along a set corridor.

Wait, hold on. A CoD clone is defined as any game that is broadly linear? What about Half Life 2, Metro 2033 and FEAR?

There is when the market is saturated with them, and one of the few FPS games that wasn't linear get's a sequel that is.

The original Crysis was still linear - there was a start to the level and an end to it.

 

[manimal]

What an idiotic statement. Maybe the non-linearity of Crysis 1 required too much thinking for you, and you would prefer to be railroaded along a set of "tactical options" that include such awe-inducing choices like "flank" and "jump on this ledge". I actually need to be told now which direction to move in a so called "sandbox" title.

Oh, let's also remove quicksaving and replace them with console checkpoints. Oh, let's also remove the editor because we don't want anyone creating custom maps.

Is this what passes for non-linearity now? What a total joke. In Crysis 1 you could create your own tactical options. If each one had to be explicitly labeled just to give the pretense of nonlinearity then the entire map would be loaded with them. There were entirely different ways to complete certain levels, multiple ways to get to a certain objective.

And really the excuse for the linearity being a city is laughable. The reason was the Crytek did not want to invest time into developing different areas that would not all be experienced in one playthrough. Why couldn't I go around certain buildings to reach my goal, or even through them.

Really, if you played Crysis 1 just for the graphics then you're a fool. They could have released it with Far Cry graphics and it would have still been just as good. Even years after it's release we have only seen an innumerable amount of COD clones wanting to be "cinematic" by sacrificing all element of choice. And you people have been eating them up because you would rather have someone tell you which direction to go in a game then decide for yourself.

No, Crysis 2 is not one of them, otherwise I would not have bought it. But it wants to be.

Oh and as for professional reviews, this one sums it up

winner winner chicken dinner

 

[Aristotelian]

Your mama really didn't breast feed you did she. All you do is lie and exaggerate and make insinuations. I suspect the real Aristotle would slap you for all your straw man arguments too.

Anyone who claims Crysis 2 will challenge a serious PC is flat out lying or doesn't know what the fuck they're talking about. Don't take my word for it, just read the benchmarks. Crysis 2 is even less demanding then the original which is now 4 years old.

The real Aristotle would not address you, because it's obvious that you have not been brought up in a way where your rationality (as limp as it is) has any sway over your desire to ignore a valid argument.

You obviously haven't played Crysis 2 at a high resolution. I own the game, so I don't need to take your word for it. I play on a u2711 with 580s in SLI (overclocked) and an overclocked 2600K. Anyone who tries to claim that at extreme settings I cannot possibly notice fps drops (into an uncomfortable range for an FPS game - twitch shoot) is, as you say "lying, or doesn't know what the fuck they're talking about." That's you, fyi.

Just because Crysis 2 is 'even less demanding th(a)n the original which is now four years old' does not entail that Crysis 2 is not demanding. Crysis 1 is still used at higher resolutions to benchmark even extreme computer setups (check EtheEnthusiast's channel on Youtube for more). Can you please take a logic course (a basic one, with sentential logic) and try to understand 'implication' or 'entailment' or, for that matter, anything?

In any case, the only reason why Aristotle would be upset with me is because I'm wasting my time with someone who is clearly a lesser life form. You are not open to rational arguments of any kind, and you keep repeating the same random, pathetic attempt at an insult. You're a lost cause. Enjoy your sub par existence.

 

[wuliheron]

Then get the fuck out of this thread. Troll.

In case you hadn't noticed this thread is all about Crytek deciding to improve the graphics of Crysis 2 by adding dx 11. If you don't want to discuss how they can improve the graphics then YOU are the one in the wrong thread.

 

[EvilComputer92]

Well, it was.

Metacritic, and by extension the majority of game reviewers, disagree, seeing as how Crysis has a higher score.

But don't let it interfere with your undying love for Crysis 2.

Bad attempts to spin Crytek's PR

Are you seriously trying to imply that Crysis 1 and 2 are equally linear?

It's simply not a big deal. I haven't come across any large gaps in checkpoints so far. And why would I be trying to come up with excuses for Crytek? I haven't liked any of their previous games.

Nice job ignoring the point where I asked they why they couldn't have implemented both. Especially seeing as how the original had checkpoints and quicksave what logic was there in removing it?

In fact, the leaked beta had quicksave implemented and an editor, but these were both removed for the final release.

The original Crysis was still linear - there was a start to the level and an end to it.

This may be one of the dumbest things ever said on this forum.
If this is your definition of linearity in a game then I'm quite sure others in the thread will agree with me when I say you're delusional.

It's obvious that you never finished the original game, and that you enjoy linear braindead corridor shooters more than open ended ones.
That's fine. They make a game called Call of Duty for people like you.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

In case you hadn't noticed this thread is all about Crytek deciding to improve the graphics of Crysis 2 by adding dx 11. If you don't want to discuss how they can improve the graphics then YOU are the one in the wrong thread.

If you think DX11 will magically make the graphics better than the original Crysis then you're as stupid as you are annoying. GTFO.

 

[wuliheron]

The real Aristotle would not address you, because it's obvious that you have not been brought up in a way where your rationality (as limp as it is) has any sway over your desire to ignore a valid argument.

So you knew the man personally. That explains the dementia.

You obviously haven't played Crysis 2 at a high resolution. I own the game, so I don't need to take your word for it. I play on a u2711 with 580s in SLI (overclocked) and an overclocked 2600K. Anyone who tries to claim that at extreme settings I cannot possibly notice fps drops (into an uncomfortable range for an FPS game - twitch shoot) is, as you say "lying, or doesn't know what the fuck they're talking about." That's you, fyi.

More bald faced lies, insinuations, and exaggerations. Do you kiss your mother with that mouth?

Like I said, don't take my word for it, check the benchmarks. If your computer is struggling with 2 580s then you have a problem. I have 2 radeon 5850s myself and one is enough to max the game.

Just because Crysis 2 is 'even less demanding th(a)n the original which is now four years old' does not entail that Crysis 2 is not demanding. Crysis 1 is still used at higher resolutions to benchmark even extreme computer setups (check EtheEnthusiast's channel on Youtube for more). Can you please take a logic course (a basic one, with sentential logic) and try to understand 'implication' or 'entailment' or, for that matter, anything?

In any case, the only reason why Aristotle would be upset with me is because I'm wasting my time with someone who is clearly a lesser life form. You are not open to rational arguments of any kind, and you keep repeating the same random, pathetic attempt at an insult. You're a lost cause. Enjoy your sub par existence.

Clearly you are wasting your time, and just as clearly you are a compulsive twit who just can't stop banging their head against the wall.

There's an old story about how Plato, Aristotle's teacher, was walking through field while teaching a class. Plato asked his students to tell him just how many teeth a horse in the field had. When one of his students walked over to the horse and started counting it's teeth Plato dismissed him from the class.

So long as you keep putting your personal feelings, thoughts, and experiences on a pedestal you will never learn the value of objectivity.

 

[wuliheron]

If you think DX11 will magically make the graphics better than the original Crysis then you're as stupid as you are annoying. GTFO.

Crysis 2 was developed specifically for stereoscopic 3D, hence all the vertical level design. Tessellation in particular makes figures look rounder and fuller giving s3d a significantly better look. Exactly what other improvements we see are still up in the air, but I'll take whatever they have to offer.

 

[MemberSince97]

I don't see how you think Crysis is not linear ? The travel boundaries are only a few hundred yards at most.

 

[Kudro]

The original Crysis was still linear - there was a start to the level and an end to it.

So would a nonlinear game be where you start a level and it never ends? That sounds fun.

*fires up Asteroids*

"I love nonlinear games!"

 

[Lobo56]

lol this is still going?

In the interest of our sanity, I think this is one of those 'agree to disagree' moments.

 

[skace]

I don't see how you think Crysis is not linear ? The travel boundaries are only a few hundred yards at most.

Travel boundaries do not dictate linearity. Linearity states that events in the game can only be done in 1 linear order. Your character MUST now go to the factory, your character MUST pull this lever, your character MUST now go to the park. Many FPS games with much smaller worlds than Crysis are not considered linear, such as Deus Ex.

However, one true indicator of a truly sandbox game (which is a step up from nonlinear) is emergent game play, which is unintentional game play. For instance, creating a death machine out of exploding barrels. Sandbox games tend to push the player to create new ways to play the game that the developer never intended.

That does not mean any game that can be played outside of how the developer intended it is sandbox (clearly room for bugs in any game exist) however most sandbox games do contain this aspect. For instance, maybe I play through GTA by only crashing cars. If I can do this for a large percentage of the game and it is not what the developers intended, then it is a testament to the sandbox nature of the game.

A good example of sandbox game play would be the drowning machine in Minecraft. This is a player built machine where monsters enter water, current pulls them under a structure they cannot breath under, they drown and then the items are harvested by the current to a chest. Now the game never told the player to do this, however the physics allowed for such a scenario to be possible. Another one from minecraft is the infinite mine cart system, where by players figured out that if they setup mine tracks in a certain way, they could create junction points that created massive force behind mine carts, sending them uphill or to areas they shouldn't have been able to reach. Clearly Minecraft is an exceptional case of sandbox game play, but I think you get the idea.

While Minecraft is a good example of sandbox game play, it isn't really an example of linear or nonlinear at all. The problem is that to define linearity, we actually have to have goals, which Minecraft doesn't (no ending, no goals, no choices). A game like Crysis has goals that can be completed in various ways. I'm not sure if it meets any other criteria, for instance I'm not sure if there are multiple endings or any choices you can pick.

 

[Aristotelian]

So you knew the man personally. That explains the dementia.

Inferring behaviour from philosophical positions is dementia? You spent two posts projecting about your mother's milky tits. Given that up already?

More bald faced lies, insinuations, and exaggerations. Do you kiss your mother with that mouth?

More wilful ignorance on your part. Move along, bubble boy.

Like I said, don't take my word for it, check the benchmarks. If your computer is struggling with 2 580s then you have a problem. I have 2 radeon 5850s myself and one is enough to max the game.

Hey moron? I didn't say that throughout the game 2 580s struggled at 2560x1440. I said that in parts they did.
Hey moron? http://www.techspot.com/review/367-crysis2-beta-performance/page4.html

A single 5850 would clearly do awesomely at my resolution. For an 'elite pc gamer' you seem to struggle with the difference between average, minimum and maximum FPS as well.

Hey moron? Feel free to consider this act of charity an ounce of good in the world. I can't believe how stupid you are.

Clearly you are wasting your time, and just as clearly you are a compulsive twit who just can't stop banging their head against the wall.

If I am wasting my time, then it is because you're a mental midget. Nothing more, nothing less.

There's an old story about how Plato, Aristotle's teacher, was walking through field while teaching a class. Plato asked his students to tell him just how many teeth a horse in the field had. When one of his students walked over to the horse and started counting it's teeth Plato dismissed him from the class.

Oh, wow, how elite. Did you get that from Sparknotes? Be sure to use that magical tidbit in your intro to ancient phil. class.

So long as you keep putting your personal feelings, thoughts, and experiences on a pedestal you will never learn the value of objectivity.

The thing that you're not understanding is, that I'm the one who is being objective here. Note that I am not discussing 'how linear' the game is, or 'how fun' the game is. I'm strictly making a point about graphical demands and fps. You are too obtuse to understand that, and it's unfortunate. You obscure the reality of the external world by your desire to be right (and your desire for your mother's tits, presumably (and understandably)), so I'm certain that I don't need to take advice from YOU on objectivity and subjectivity (though I highly doubt that you know how to use these terms properly).

 

[Veliko]

Metacritic, and by extension the majority of game reviewers, disagree, seeing as how Crysis has a higher score.

But don't let it interfere with your undying love for Crysis 2.

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.

Are you seriously trying to imply that Crysis 1 and 2 are equally linear?

No, I am saying that you completely misinterpreted what Crytek had been saying about Crysis 2. Your anger is a result of your inability to understand what was being said.

Nice job ignoring the point where I asked they why they couldn't have implemented both. Especially seeing as how the original had checkpoints and quicksave what logic was there in removing it?

I didn't ignore it I said it wasn't a big deal.

This may be one of the dumbest things ever said on this forum.
If this is your definition of linearity in a game then I'm quite sure others in the thread will agree with me when I say you're delusional.

So what is the definition of linearity then? Do you think it's a binary, one-or-the-other factor? Or is it a sliding scale?

It's obvious that you never finished the original game, and that you enjoy linear braindead corridor shooters more than open ended ones.
That's fine. They make a game called Call of Duty for people like you.

No I didn't finish the original game because it simply wasn't very good. And yet again you display your inability to think in anything other than binary. Crysis 1 is no less braindead than it's sequel and there are people who can enjoy both non-linear games and linear games.

You also skipped the part about other linear games I listed. What do you think about FEAR, Half Life 2 and Metro 2033?

 

[wuliheron]

The thing that you're not understanding is, that I'm the one who is being objective here. Note that I am not discussing 'how linear' the game is, or 'how fun' the game is. I'm strictly making a point about graphical demands and fps. You are too obtuse to understand that, and it's unfortunate. You obscure the reality of the external world by your desire to be right (and your desire for your mother's tits, presumably (and understandably)), so I'm certain that I don't need to take advice from YOU on objectivity and subjectivity (though I highly doubt that you know how to use these terms properly).

Subjective
existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought ( opposed to objective).

That YOUR computer might struggle occasionally with the game is not an indication of the game's general performance and is not an objective statement open to scrutiny. It doesn't even constitute proof that this really is your subjective experience and considering your demonstrable ignorance, penchant for exaggeration, insinuation, and outright lies there is no reason for anyone to take you seriously.