First Info of Crysis 2

I would like to see your point but you confuse me because shooters have always been more or less 12-15 hours in length. Even the first Half life was 12 hours. I don't see them getting shorter.

Call of Duty 4.. Like I said I am all for better graphics.. And Half-Life was a good deal longer then that.. It had the very good expansion Opposing Forces, and then also Blueshift.. That adds considerable amount of gameplay.. Also put into perspective the engine has shown above and beyond it really can do anything in both large or small scale... I would rather see a expansion then added another 15 hours of gameplay with other things then a full blown sequel with improved engine that could take an extended period of time to make.. The makers of FEAR had the right idea, that engine still looks sweet in my eyes and it has tons of gameplay with 2 full blown expansions ontop of the original.

I would like to see your point but you confuse me because shooters have always been more or less 12-15 hours in length. Even the first Half life was 12 hours. I don't see them getting shorter.

Call of Duty 4.. Like I said I am all for better graphics.. And Half-Life was a good deal longer then that.. It had the very good expansion Opposing Forces, and then also Blueshift.. That adds considerable amount of gameplay.. Also put into perspective the engine has shown above and beyond it really can do anything in both large or small scale... I would rather see a expansion then added another 15 hours of gameplay with other things then a full blown sequel with improved engine that could take an extended period of time to make.. The makers of FEAR had the right idea, that engine still looks sweet in my eyes and it has tons of gameplay with 2 full blown expansions ontop of the original.

sSubZerOo

I thought the two expansions were boring and the same stuff that you were doing in FEAR.

The engine looks horrible nowadays, anyway.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

I would like to see your point but you confuse me because shooters have always been more or less 12-15 hours in length. Even the first Half life was 12 hours. I don't see them getting shorter.

Call of Duty 4.. Like I said I am all for better graphics.. And Half-Life was a good deal longer then that.. It had the very good expansion Opposing Forces, and then also Blueshift.. That adds considerable amount of gameplay.. Also put into perspective the engine has shown above and beyond it really can do anything in both large or small scale... I would rather see a expansion then added another 15 hours of gameplay with other things then a full blown sequel with improved engine that could take an extended period of time to make.. The makers of FEAR had the right idea, that engine still looks sweet in my eyes and it has tons of gameplay with 2 full blown expansions ontop of the original.

dgsag

I thought the two expansions were boring and the same stuff that you were doing in FEAR.

The engine looks horrible nowadays, anyway.

If you say so :|, I think its still a great engine.. Its no Crysis or Unreal 3, but like Source engine it stillis great...

I would like to see your point but you confuse me because shooters have always been more or less 12-15 hours in length. Even the first Half life was 12 hours. I don't see them getting shorter.

Call of Duty 4.. Like I said I am all for better graphics.. And Half-Life was a good deal longer then that.. It had the very good expansion Opposing Forces, and then also Blueshift.. That adds considerable amount of gameplay.. Also put into perspective the engine has shown above and beyond it really can do anything in both large or small scale... I would rather see a expansion then added another 15 hours of gameplay with other things then a full blown sequel with improved engine that could take an extended period of time to make.. The makers of FEAR had the right idea, that engine still looks sweet in my eyes and it has tons of gameplay with 2 full blown expansions ontop of the original.

sSubZerOo

What? FEAR was awesome but the expansions blow. Extraction I barely stomached and I completely am skipping Mandate..just don't want to play it and it doesn't appeal anymore. everything is the same, I might as well just grab the original FEAR...which is still the best one of them all. CoD4 is short and doesn't speak for every shooter. Just because one is short. Crysis took me 13 hours to get through and that is preft length for the SP of a shooter. CoD4 is just a short game in general and I never liked it as much as some people here do...Oh and I did beat HL1 in 12 hours.

[QUOTE="horrowhip"][QUOTE="SkullboyX"][QUOTE="cobrax75"][QUOTE="redneckdouglas"]

They love feeding the PC graphic wh***s. Oh wait, they need something to justify those $300+ video cards.

paullywog

hell of a lot better than justifying paying for P2P.

achievements suck anyway.... Seriously, WHY do you need a game to tell you that you achieved something? I knew I achieved something when I beat Crysis on Delta. Didn't need a game to tell me that....

:lol: someone post that nerdy 360 pic "The best thing about XboxLIVE is not achievments, its showing everyone that I did it" ....

Painful fact for the haters: The most expensive Xbox360 pack + 5 years of XboxLive is less expensive and a hell of a lot more sustainable then a Gaming PC.wok7

Sure, but I like to ...you know... PLAY GAMES, not just stare at the box. And with 360 games costing up to 30$ more than PC ones here in Europe somehow 360 ends up more expensive

hurray we'll get to buy new pcs againejstrup

Whoever does that truly is a fool.

I still stand by my theory that graphics will hit a peak were they can't advance any further and then devs will pay more attention to detail instead of graphical beauty. Such as bullet holes in everything they hit, ricochet damage and visible damage and physics, damage to specific areas (think Gears and Soldier of Fortune but on everything, buildings, humans, machines, plants), advanced vapor and smoke physics. That is what I feel will be the future of video games, not photorealism.

At least thats what I would like to see happen.

Bansheesdie

Graphics will never hit a limit I'm afraid. There is a lot of available study on the subject.

why would u buy a **** concole like xbox to play a game with awsome graphics ?

LOL, and the 8800GT's just went on sale too, too bad that we'll need to upgrade yet again : /wok7

[QUOTE="wok7"]LOL, and the 8800GT's just went on sale too, too bad that we'll need to upgrade yet again : /imprezawrx500

[QUOTE="whocares9"]

[QUOTE="cobrax75"]yeah, I dont seem them making a new engine from scratch....their current one can do far more advanced things than modern hardware can handle (as shown by all the graphical tweaks)Lonelynight

Why not? no one said it will be released any time soon...modern hardware will be old hardware by the time Crysis 2 is nearing release. They took 3-4 years to make Crysis and I would expect the same amount of time for the sequal. In 4 years what will the hardware be?

Crysis took a long time because they made Crysis along with CryEngine 2

:lol: I got duped by this thread I really thought it was info on Crysis 2 and read the first few pages until people kept saying 2010 is 3 years. Kudos for the bump.

I remember Ubisoft did say that we'd reach photorealism soon, well, 10-15 years :P

But still in 5 or so years I think we will get to a point where its very hard to tell the difference. Some stills of crysis manage that already...

Who the hell bumped a 2 year old thread?

I still stand by my theory that graphics will hit a peak were they can't advance any further and then devs will pay more attention to detail instead of graphical beauty. Such as bullet holes in everything they hit, ricochet damage and visible damage and physics, damage to specific areas (think Gears and Soldier of Fortune but on everything, buildings, humans, machines, plants), advanced vapor and smoke physics. That is what I feel will be the future of video games, not photorealism.

At least thats what I would like to see happen.

Bansheesdie

[QUOTE="ejstrup"]hurray we'll get to buy new pcs againwhocares9

By the time Crysis 2 will be out you will be on the next gen xbox so whocares? So you will be buying a new console hurray!

Crysis 2 comes out like next year so i doubt it .

It's funny how PC gamers always play the "graphics" card but when you ask for game recommendations on the PC board 90% of the games will either be several years old with outdated graphics or just ugly straight away like Mount & Blade for example. PC gamers should be the first to understand that graphics don't matter as long as the gameplay is great.nethernova

It's funny how console gamers always play the "gameplay' card, but the fact is, gameplay + graphics > gameplay.

:lol: I got duped by this thread I really thought it was info on Crysis 2 and read the first few pages until people kept saying 2010 is 3 years. Kudos for the bump.

Gamerz1569

[QUOTE="nethernova"]It's funny how PC gamers always play the "graphics" card but when you ask for game recommendations on the PC board 90% of the games will either be several years old with outdated graphics or just ugly straight away like Mount & Blade for example. PC gamers should be the first to understand that graphics don't matter as long as the gameplay is great.Hanass

It's funny how console gamers always play the "gameplay' card, but the fact is, gameplay + graphics > gameplay.

hurray we'll get to buy new pcs againejstrup

[QUOTE="Hanass"]

[QUOTE="nethernova"]It's funny how PC gamers always play the "graphics" card but when you ask for game recommendations on the PC board 90% of the games will either be several years old with outdated graphics or just ugly straight away like Mount & Blade for example. PC gamers should be the first to understand that graphics don't matter as long as the gameplay is great.danish-death

It's funny how console gamers always play the "gameplay' card, but the fact is, gameplay + graphics > gameplay.

Yes, it's the laws of mathematics. A + |B| > A

[QUOTE="danish-death"][QUOTE="Hanass"]

It's funny how console gamers always play the "gameplay' card, but the fact is, gameplay + graphics > gameplay.

Hanass

Yes, it's the laws of mathematics. A + |B| > A

[QUOTE="Hanass"]

[QUOTE="danish-death"] Oh really?danish-death

Yes, it's the laws of mathematics. A + |B| > A

Prove me wrong. Give me one example where my equation would not work.

[QUOTE="danish-death"]

[QUOTE="Hanass"]

Yes, it's the laws of mathematics. A + |B| > A

Prove me wrong. Give me one example where my equation would not work.

[QUOTE="Hanass"]

[QUOTE="danish-death"]shi't I got to tell everybody.

danish-death

Prove me wrong. Give me one example where my equation would not work.

Actually, it isn't obvious at all, because most people here just go "ZOMG GAMEPLAY" when their games have crap graphics.

[QUOTE="ejstrup"]hurray we'll get to buy new pcs againexplainnow

[QUOTE="explainnow"][QUOTE="ejstrup"]hurray we'll get to buy new pcs againdgsag

I still stand by my theory that graphics will hit a peak were they can't advance any further and then devs will pay more attention to detail instead of graphical beauty. Such as bullet holes in everything they hit, ricochet damage and visible damage and physics, damage to specific areas (think Gears and Soldier of Fortune but on everything, buildings, humans, machines, plants), advanced vapor and smoke physics. That is what I feel will be the future of video games, not photorealism.

At least thats what I would like to see happen.

Bansheesdie

[QUOTE="ejstrup"]hurray we'll get to buy new pcs againwhocares9

By the time Crysis 2 will be out you will be on the next gen xbox so whocares? So you will be buying a new console hurray!

[QUOTE="Bansheesdie"]

I still stand by my theory that graphics will hit a peak were they can't advance any further and then devs will pay more attention to detail instead of graphical beauty. Such as bullet holes in everything they hit, ricochet damage and visible damage and physics, damage to specific areas (think Gears and Soldier of Fortune but on everything, buildings, humans, machines, plants), advanced vapor and smoke physics. That is what I feel will be the future of video games, not photorealism.

At least thats what I would like to see happen.

bobbetybob

[QUOTE="bobbetybob"][QUOTE="Bansheesdie"]

I still stand by my theory that graphics will hit a peak were they can't advance any further and then devs will pay more attention to detail instead of graphical beauty. Such as bullet holes in everything they hit, ricochet damage and visible damage and physics, damage to specific areas (think Gears and Soldier of Fortune but on everything, buildings, humans, machines, plants), advanced vapor and smoke physics. That is what I feel will be the future of video games, not photorealism.

At least thats what I would like to see happen.

explainnow