I'm living in "LA-LA" land because I think a few PC gamers are butthurt over the smallest things I have ever even heard of... and things in which are getting blown *way* out of proportion. Please. Ironically, in fact... people have said before that there is "more to Crysis than just its graphics." Disappointingly, that is OBVIOUSLY not the case as many PC gamers here consider the Crysis franchise to be nothing more than benchmarch. And that, my friend, is quite sad. Besides, I *try* not to base or draw conclusions on shoddy leaked betas, or multiplayer demos. But hey, this is SystemWars... I guess we shouldn't use logic, verdad?And your living in LA-LA land believing this wait and see approach when the facts have already been shown, many have seen the leak, videos of the leak, or 2nd handed accounts from friends using the leak and the rescent new Pc demo which give a clear idea of what the game is. Put it this way if your a Pc gamer and liked the 1st crysis chances are you wont like the 2nd because the games is so far of course of what it should have been. Its a step backwards in many ways.
04dcarraher
Why all the Crysis 2 hate?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
I think you're entirely missing the point here.
Following your logic I don't see the reason why console gamers upgraded their PS2with a PS3.
That said, I have Crysis 2 pre ordered and I have faith it will turn out to be worth every penny.
I'm living in "LA-LA" land because I think a few PC gamers are butthurt over the smallest things I have ever even heard of... and things in which are getting blown *way* out of proportion. Please. Ironically, in fact... people have said before that there is "more to Crysis than just its graphics." Disappointingly, that is OBVIOUSLY not the case as many PC gamers here consider the Crysis franchise to be nothing more than benchmarch. And that, my friend, is quite sad. Besides, I *try* not to base or draw conclusions on shoddy leaked betas, or multiplayer demos. But hey, this is SystemWars... I guess we shouldn't use logic, verdad?[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]
And your living in LA-LA land believing this wait and see approach when the facts have already been shown, many have seen the leak, videos of the leak, or 2nd handed accounts from friends using the leak and the rescent new Pc demo which give a clear idea of what the game is. Put it this way if your a Pc gamer and liked the 1st crysis chances are you wont like the 2nd because the games is so far of course of what it should have been. Its a step backwards in many ways.
Stevo_the_gamer
Just because you hope a game is good does not make it so. And you ignoring the facts laid out before you kinda shows your in denial about the whole thing because the leaked beta and demos shows clearly a console oriented game(another medicore game/sequel) . It isnt logical believing that the beta isnt what the game is going to be or heck even the demos are a sample of what it is. Im finding it funny that when Crysis 2 info is becoming more detrimental, more and more Pc gamers see for what it is. a step backwards, a downgrade, another FEAR to FEAR 2 scenario or just another console game.
Only the hardcore defenders, and people "hoping", are defending Crysis 2 at this point. The quality of the arguments in support of the game have fallen substantially. They are pretty much down to "just wait, even if the changes are obvious" or "if consoles cannot do it; it can't have been that important"... the funny thing is that the leak was from January so there will not be any big changes to the game if any at all besides touch ups. Now is the game bad? No .....Is it great? No, Does it try to improve upon what was done before from the first not not really. Them tacking on Direct x 11 should tell you that Pc version was an after thought. The 1st Crysis was a benchmark is set a new level in gameplay, design, graphics for first person shooters. So claiming Crysis was only a benchmark is a complement because it did elevate fps standards in may areas.
Yeah, it's for evaluation, but not of the game they want me to buy? :|[QUOTE="yellonet"]
[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]The demo is for evaluation only and is not a representative of the final product. This should be common knowledge for all. I repeat: the demo is not a representative of the final overall quality of the product.Stevo_the_gamer
Well, based on that evaluation I will not be buying.You won't be buying a singleplayer centric game because of a multiplayer demo? Okay...Yeah, I guess it would have made too much sense to release a singleplayer demo for a "singleplayer centric game", huh?
Seriously, Crytek really dropped the ball with this one :?
Because it's even more boring than Crysis. Crytek is the most overrated dev this generation.The_RedLion
Yup. Not to mention that the animation in Crysis aint all that. For example when you enter a vehicle theres no animation you're just- zoink! in the vehicle.... And all this open world madness? yeah right, walk in any direction for a little bit and there's suddenly a mountainside wall to run into. There are plenty of "open world" games that are way more diverse in assets with way less pop in and load screens without mods. Be careful though there's a dude on this forum (you know who you are) that reports anyone who dares to do anything but praise the game.
Be careful though there's a dude on this forum (you know who you are) that reports anyone who dares to do anything but praise the game.You can't get moderated for not liking a game. :roll:Pray_to_me
[QUOTE="Lto_thaG"]FOR 999999 times who play Crysis games for MP Who gives a s*** whether people play it for the MP or not.The MP has proved itself to suck..a lot,so people are allowed to hate.I played the MP demo.That sucked. So,they brought out another demo...Again a MP demo(only a different map)..That sucked.So,that's why.
SNIPER4321
[QUOTE="Lto_thaG"]FOR 999999 times who play Crysis games for MPI played the MP demo.That sucked. So,they brought out another demo...Again a MP demo(only a different map)..That sucked.So,that's why.
SNIPER4321
I did.
And also: Crytek moved to multiplatform development in order to enhance the sales. Well, forget about enhance the sales in a fps if the multiplayer isn't appealing. To sell 5-6+ millions of units in a fps you need a popular mp. You'll never be able to touch the Gears, Halo, BC 2 or KOD sales without a well stablished multiplyer.
The argument "who cares about the mp" is invalid: is you want sales, you must care about, at least in the competitive world of fps.
People are hating Crytek because they pulled an Infinity Ward (or Activision). They proudly displayed the Console version of the game and hid the PC version (and any info about it) for as long as possible, then at the 11th hour have started divulging that info. Making it quite clear that the game was console first/PC second. I have said this time and time again. How would people feel if a Developer that was PS3/Xbox first suddenly went Wii first-PS3/Xbox second? The uproar would be immense. That's the reason why there is so much hate for Crysis 2. We were expecting huge open areas in the city to do battle in and explorer, yet we are handed corridor like sections to funnel our way through. Instead of complete destrucibility we are given non-interactive environments. Instead of getting DX11 or even DX10 FFS we get DX9???? DX9 is going all the way to back almost a decade. A decade FFS??? How much more can they twist that knife in? Crytek was born on PC and PC gamers gave it it's chance. Yet people make silly comments like "there is no pleasing some people" and "Crysis 2 improves on Crysis 1". If you have been getting Filet Mignon (insert your favorite food here) and then were handed a crappy McDonalds cheeseburger (insert your hated food here) and told this is so much better than what you had what do you expect people to feel? Are they supposed to bend over and apply the lube themselves? It's sad how mediocrity is celebrated because it's the best a system can do. WakeTFU and realize that the PC is being handed a pile of caca and are expected to like it.
You can't get moderated for not liking a game. :roll:[QUOTE="Pray_to_me"]Be careful though there's a dude on this forum (you know who you are) that reports anyone who dares to do anything but praise the game.
110million
Pray_to_me didn't understand what he was being told. He was being told that obvious trolling can be moderated. :roll:
[QUOTE="Xtasy26"]
[QUOTE="DreamCryotank"]
DreamCryotank
This is clearly laughable. Just look at the first level of Crysis 1, it is several miles long. The point where you see the morning sunrise towards the end of the level, there is no level in Crysis 2 that can match that size. The entire level is loaded on to memory, this is only possible on PC's because it has at least 5X the memory of consoles. So, tell me how in the world is it possible to fit that size of level as in the first level of Crysis 1 on to a system that is only 256MB? It is not possible, it never was and it nevel will be. It would be insane to consider that you could fit that level on to consoles.
Maybe you should try to play Crysis 1 on 256MB RAM and see how it runs. LOL.
I mean the sections of the levels where you fight. Crysis 1 had alot of filler where you're just running through the same enviroments with no enemies. Crysis 2 still keeps the same ability to plan out your attacks. :roll: Look at the size of the Rescue mission (3rd mission in Crysis 1), it's no bigger then the first mission in Crysis 2. :|
Explain to me this...how is it possible to load the vast levels in Crysis 1 on consoles retarded 256MB of RAM? Are the PS3 or X360 made of magic?
COLOR WARS. Prepare your eyes, friends.
Just because you hope a game is good does not make it so.And you ignoring the facts laid out before you kinda shows your in denial about the whole thingbecause the leaked beta and demos shows clearly a console oriented game(another medicore game/sequel) .It isnt logical believing that the beta isnt what the game is going to be or heck even the demos are a sample of what it is.Im finding it funny that when Crysis 2 info is becoming more detrimental, more and more Pc gamers see for what it is. a step backwards, a downgrade, another FEAR to FEAR 2 scenario or just another console game.04dcarraher
Guess what buddy--that logic isn't a one way street.LOL. Denial? Denial about what? There is no "ignoring" of any "facts" -- and the "facts" are downright contrued to the individual person's motives. In this case, my fellow PC fans thinking they know all and a few minor things in a multiplayer demo dictate the end of Crysis as we know it. This doom and gloom attitude is downright sad.
The mutliplayer demo shows that the *multiplayer* portion of the game won't be a selling point for me and others. I'm shocked that anyone was hyping Crysis 2 for its multiplayer in the first place... oh yeah, because they're WEREN'T. Crysis 2 is a SINGLEPLAYER centric game, and all the praise and love for CRYSIS and CRYSIS WARHEAD were all directed towards it's awesome singleplayer experience.
You're totally right! It's *totally* logical to assume the multiplayer portion of Crysis automatically dictates the singleplayer portion of Crysis is going to be crap! I mean, heck, someone can make that sweeping generization... verdad? Even though they *haven't* played the singleplayer of Crysis but they played the multiplayer? Hmm. Perhaps we should let that baby sink in a bit. Yes. But what remember what I have been saying, I have been consistently saying the demo is not a representative of the *final* quality and features of the game itself. Again, perhaps we should let that sink in as well for everyone to understand.
Crysis 2 information is becoming more detrimental? Ha. It's the end of Crysis... as we know it! Oh, it's the end of Crysis...
Only the hardcore defenders, and people "hoping", are defending Crysis 2 at this point. The quality of the arguments in support of the game have fallen substantially. They are pretty much down to "just wait, even if the changes are obvious" or "if consoles cannot do it; it can't have been that important"... the funny thing is that the leak was from January so there will not be any big changes to the game if any at all besides touch ups. Now is the game bad? No .....Is it great? No, Does it try to improve upon what was done before from the first not not really. Them tacking on Direct x 11 should tell you that Pc version was an after thought. The 1st Crysis was a benchmark is set a new level in gameplay, design, graphics for first person shooters. So claiming Crysis was only a benchmark is a complement because it did elevate fps standards in may areas.04dcarraher
Actually, it's the people who don't only care about graphics and who don't think Crysis 2 as a benchmark, and who know that Crysis franchise is singleplayer centric and therefore will wait to see how the singleplayer plays out. You know, the logical ones. The guys who *play* their games, and not just looking at em'. You know?
From the impressions I read from folks, they really enjoyed what they saw and played in the leak. :? And that was a shoddy, incomplete and broken leak.
The multiplayer is. I don't about the singleplayer because I haven't played it.
lolwat.
It was a benchmark in regards to graphics only. I didn't really see it raising any standards outside of graphics.
Yeah, I guess it would have made too much sense to release a singleplayer demo for a "singleplayer centric game", huh?For the ones who understand the motives for releasing the multiplayer demo instead of a SP demo, the reasons should be abundantly clear to anyone. I do not fault them for that for it makes sense in what they did. Lockhaw333 explained it fairly well.
Seriously, Crytek really dropped the ball with this one :?yellonet
I'm a bit annoyed that it runs worse than Crysis 1, yet looks worse aswell, with all the bloody filters on. Still gameplay was fun if a bit consolised
Runs worse? I'm getting average around 70-80fps... game runs smooth as butter for me. :oI'm a bit annoyed that it runs worse than Crysis 1, yet looks worse aswell, with all the bloody filters on. Still gameplay was fun if a bit consolised
OB-47
[QUOTE="OB-47"]Runs worse? I'm getting average around 70-80fps... game runs smooth as butter for me. :o I got up to 70 on a GTX 460, I can't even get that high in Crysis 1.XD Maybe 2 460s would do it.I'm a bit annoyed that it runs worse than Crysis 1, yet looks worse aswell, with all the bloody filters on. Still gameplay was fun if a bit consolised
Stevo_the_gamer
[QUOTE="OB-47"]Runs worse? I'm getting average around 70-80fps... game runs smooth as butter for me. :oI'm a bit annoyed that it runs worse than Crysis 1, yet looks worse aswell, with all the bloody filters on. Still gameplay was fun if a bit consolised
Stevo_the_gamer
Better than Crysis 1? Well to be fair my PC isn't exactly high performance but it could handle Crysis 1 MP smoothly on medium
Yeah, better than Crysis 1. Crysis 1 multiplayer I can get way higher FPS though since that wasn't especially demanding at all. Could just be that you're in need up upgrading your rig. :PBetter than Crysis 1? Well to be fair my PC isn't exactly high performance but it could handle Crysis 1 MP smoothly on medium
OB-47
I got up to 70 on a GTX 460, I can't even get that high in Crysis 1.XD Maybe 2 460s would do it.mitu123
There must be something wrong with my drivers or something, because I'm dipping below the 30s on hardcore at my native res. It stays above the 30s and hits 40s from time to time, but it doesn't stay above 30.
These cannot be the correct frame rates. Because while Crysis 1 had all sorts of frame rate stability problems, at least it did something with that performance. There is nothing about Crysis 2's visuals that suggests to me it should be stressing my PC.
[QUOTE="The_RedLion"]Because it's even more boring than Crysis. Crytek is the most overrated dev this generation.Pray_to_me
Yup. Not to mention that the animation in Crysis aint all that. For example when you enter a vehicle theres no animation you're just- zoink! in the vehicle.... And all this open world madness? yeah right, walk in any direction for a little bit and there's suddenly a mountainside wall to run into. There are plenty of "open world" games that are way more diverse in assets with way less pop in and load screens without mods. Be careful though there's a dude on this forum (you know who you are) that reports anyone who dares to do anything but praise the game.
Not sure if serious. So I;m guessing the animations to pick items up (which there are MANY) and this looks terrible? :| Crysis 1s animations were amazing, it was the ragdolls that sucked.
Yeah, better than Crysis 1. Crysis 1 multiplayer I can get way higher FPS though since that wasn't especially demanding at all. Could just be that you're in need up upgrading your rig. :P[QUOTE="OB-47"]
Better than Crysis 1? Well to be fair my PC isn't exactly high performance but it could handle Crysis 1 MP smoothly on medium
Stevo_the_gamer
Your not getting the point. I've seen Crysis 2 MP on my mates rig, with hardcore settings run at like 70fps. It doesn't look that great tbh, just alot of filters and yet it runs worse than Crysis 1 which IMO looks better.
Yeah, better than Crysis 1. Crysis 1 multiplayer I can get way higher FPS though since that wasn't especially demanding at all. Could just be that you're in need up upgrading your rig. :P[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]
[QUOTE="OB-47"]
Better than Crysis 1? Well to be fair my PC isn't exactly high performance but it could handle Crysis 1 MP smoothly on medium
OB-47
Your not getting the point. I've seen Crysis 2 MP on my mates rig, with hardcore settings run at like 70fps. It doesn't look that great tbh, just alot of filters and yet it runs worse than Crysis 1 which IMO looks better.
Your friend gets over 70 FPS on crysis 1 maxed?[QUOTE="DreamCryotank"]
[QUOTE="Xtasy26"]
This is clearly laughable. Just look at the first level of Crysis 1, it is several miles long. The point where you see the morning sunrise towards the end of the level, there is no level in Crysis 2 that can match that size. The entire level is loaded on to memory, this is only possible on PC's because it has at least 5X the memory of consoles. So, tell me how in the world is it possible to fit that size of level as in the first level of Crysis 1 on to a system that is only 256MB? It is not possible, it never was and it nevel will be. It would be insane to consider that you could fit that level on to consoles.
Maybe you should try to play Crysis 1 on 256MB RAM and see how it runs. LOL.
Xtasy26
I mean the sections of the levels where you fight. Crysis 1 had alot of filler where you're just running through the same enviroments with no enemies. Crysis 2 still keeps the same ability to plan out your attacks. :roll: Look at the size of the Rescue mission (3rd mission in Crysis 1), it's no bigger then the first mission in Crysis 2. :|
Explain to me this...how is it possible to load the vast levels in Crysis 1 on consoles retarded 256MB of RAM? Are the PS3 or X360 made of magic?
Because, from what I've played of C2s SP, I'm not seeing what's so different to C1. Sure there may be a long *** beach with nothing but a guy in a jeep in C1, but the compact areas of C1s levels (beginning of Rescue for example) are no bigger than C2s areas. :roll: Jungle enviroment =/= City enviroment.
Your friend gets over 70 FPS on crysis 1 maxed?i5750at4Ghz
I think what he means is, we got better visuals for our frame rate in Crysis 1 than what Crysis 2 is offering.
Because, from what I've played of C2s SP, I'm not seeing what's so different to C1. Sure there may be a long *** beach with nothing but a guy in a jeep in C1, but the compact areas of C1s levels (beginning of Rescue for example) are no bigger than C2s areas. :roll: Jungle enviroment =/= City enviroment.
DreamCryotank
I see you have chosen to ignore my previous post about scale being about interactive range, not visual range.
Not forgetting to make sure to downplay the scale in Crysis 1; to make Crysis 2 seem better huh?
[QUOTE="i5750at4Ghz"]Your friend gets over 70 FPS on crysis 1 maxed?AnnoyedDragon
I think what he means is, we got better visuals for our frame rate in Crysis 1 than what Crysis 2 is offering.
Depends completely on your pov. Technically, none of use has a clue whats really going on. Although I know the jump for gamer to hardcore pushes like 2x the amount of polygons.[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"][QUOTE="OB-47"]Runs worse? I'm getting average around 70-80fps... game runs smooth as butter for me. :o I got up to 70 on a GTX 460, I can't even get that high in Crysis 1.XD Maybe 2 460s would do it.Serious 70?! On my laptop which has a GTX 460 (1.5gb) it's frame rate chops terribly, even on 'gamer' settings it runs poorly. I can't really say I have had trouble with any other games, though Crysis, ArmA II OA and Metro (and Napoleon TW) need some scaling - they still run so much better.I'm a bit annoyed that it runs worse than Crysis 1, yet looks worse aswell, with all the bloody filters on. Still gameplay was fun if a bit consolised
mitu123
Depends completely on your pov. Technically, none of use has a clue whats really going on. Although I know the jump for gamer to hardcore pushes like 2x the amount of polygons.i5750at4Ghz
A 1024x1024 texture is better than its 512x512 equivalent, there is no point of view when it comes to technical information.
And what I'm saying, is even though Crysis 1 had its frame rate stability problems, I was getting more value out of that frame rate; than what Crysis 2 seems to be offering. I have no idea what Crysis 2 is doing to get my frame rate to the range I mentioned above, because the visuals to me look technically inferior to Crysis 1.
[QUOTE="i5750at4Ghz"]Depends completely on your pov. Technically, none of use has a clue whats really going on. Although I know the jump for gamer to hardcore pushes like 2x the amount of polygons.AnnoyedDragon
A 1024x1024 texture is better than its 512x512 equivalent, there is no point of view when it comes to technical information.
And what I'm saying, is even though Crysis 1 had its frame rate stability problems, I was getting more value out of that frame rate; than what Crysis 2 seems to be offering. I have no idea what Crysis 2 is doing to get my frame rate to the range I mentioned above, because the visuals to me look technically inferior to Crysis 1.
Please tell me how it is you know the texture sizes? As for the performance maybe you're simply wrong.[QUOTE="i5750at4Ghz"]Your friend gets over 70 FPS on crysis 1 maxed?AnnoyedDragon
I think what he means is, we got better visuals for our frame rate in Crysis 1 than what Crysis 2 is offering.
Because, from what I've played of C2s SP, I'm not seeing what's so different to C1. Sure there may be a long *** beach with nothing but a guy in a jeep in C1, but the compact areas of C1s levels (beginning of Rescue for example) are no bigger than C2s areas. :roll: Jungle enviroment =/= City enviroment.
DreamCryotank
I see you have chosen to ignore my previous post about scale being about interactive range, not visual range.
Not forgetting to make sure to downplay the scale in Crysis 1; to make Crysis 2 seem better huh?
No, you're over exaggerating Crysis 1s scale. You keep talking about an interactive range, but what's the point of things being interactive if you're on the other side of the level? Please, give me examples.
It doesn't look that great? :?Your not getting the point. I've seen Crysis 2 MP on my mates rig, with hardcore settings run at like 70fps. It doesn't look that great tbh, just alot of filters and yet it runs worse than Crysis 1 which IMO looks better.
OB-47
Please tell me how it is you know the texture sizes? As for the performance maybe you're simply wrong.i5750at4Ghz
I never claimed to know the texture size. I was just using texture resolution as a example of making a claim that something is better, independent from opinions.
Also, are you accusing me of lying about my own frame rate in Crysis 2 :? How can I be wrong, when I can just stick fraps up and look at it during play?
No, you're over exaggerating Crysis 1s scale. You keep talking about an interactive range, but what's the point of things being interactive if you're on the other side of the level? Please, give me examples.
DreamCryotank
First you said I'm exaggerating Crysis 1s scale, then you talked as if you accepted it as being the case; and questioned the point of that range of interactivity :?
From my experience, people who object to the difference in scale as much as you do; often don't want to be proved wrong. Anything I say won't convince you because you don't want to be convinced, it is against your own interests as it goes against your argument, so why bother? People like you I have spoken to the past just proved it was a wasted effort.
All I have is my word and the word of the CEO of Crytek, which apparently isn't enough. As far as I'm concerned, everyone has pretty much accepted Crysis has been consolized at this point, there are just a handful of hardcore defenders who are performing damage control.
These cannot be the correct frame rates.AnnoyedDragonWhy not? Every rig will play a game at a different rate; think of it as overclocking, just because you have the same CPU does NOT mean it will overclock to the same level.
Anything I say won't convince you because you don't want to be convincedAnnoyedDragonThat isn't a one way street. ;)
[QUOTE="i5750at4Ghz"]Please tell me how it is you know the texture sizes? As for the performance maybe you're simply wrong.AnnoyedDragon
I never claimed to know the texture size. I was just using texture resolution as a example of making a claim that something is better, independent from opinions.
Also, are you accusing me of lying about my own frame rate in Crysis 2 :? How can I be wrong, when I can just stick fraps up and look at it during play?
No, you're over exaggerating Crysis 1s scale. You keep talking about an interactive range, but what's the point of things being interactive if you're on the other side of the level? Please, give me examples.
DreamCryotank
First you said I'm exaggerating Crysis 1s scale, then you talked as if you accepted it as being the case; and questioned the point of that range of interactivity :?
From my experience, people who object to the difference in scale as much as you do; often don't want to be proved wrong. Anything I say won't convince you because you don't want to be convinced, it is against your own interests as it goes against your argument, so why bother? People like you I have spoken to the past just proved it was a wasted effort.
All I have is my word and the word of the CEO of Crytek, which apparently isn't enough. As far as I'm concerned, everyone has pretty much accepted Crysis has been consolized at this point, there are just a handful of hardcore defenders who are performing damage control.
Care to give me examples of the ranged interactivity in Crysis 1? I'm not damage controlling, I'm just giving my opinion. Stalker is my favorite game ever so I know alot about ranged interactivity. I just fail to see what's so different about Crysis 2, than Crysis 1, except that C2 is set in a city and C1 is set in a jungle. :?
[QUOTE="AnnoyedDragon"]
[QUOTE="i5750at4Ghz"]
I never claimed to know the texture size. I was just using texture resolution as a example of making a claim that something is better, independent from opinions.
Also, are you accusing me of lying about my own frame rate in Crysis 2 :? How can I be wrong, when I can just stick fraps up and look at it during play?
[QUOTE="DreamCryotank"]
No, you're over exaggerating Crysis 1s scale. You keep talking about an interactive range, but what's the point of things being interactive if you're on the other side of the level? Please, give me examples.
DreamCryotank
First you said I'm exaggerating Crysis 1s scale, then you talked as if you accepted it as being the case; and questioned the point of that range of interactivity :?
From my experience, people who object to the difference in scale as much as you do; often don't want to be proved wrong. Anything I say won't convince you because you don't want to be convinced, it is against your own interests as it goes against your argument, so why bother? People like you I have spoken to the past just proved it was a wasted effort.
All I have is my word and the word of the CEO of Crytek, which apparently isn't enough. As far as I'm concerned, everyone has pretty much accepted Crysis has been consolized at this point, there are just a handful of hardcore defenders who are performing damage control.
Care to give me examples of the ranged interactivity in Crysis 1? I'm not damage controlling, I'm just giving my opinion. Stalker is my favorite game ever so I know alot about ranged interactivity. I just fail to see what's so different about Crysis 2, than Crysis 1, except that C2 is set in a city and C1 is set in a jungle. :?
I'm not a crysis expert (been awhile since I played it last), but I thought the tank level was pretty long range and approaching some of the built up areas you could snipe from pretty far away. I remember alot of what could be considered close engagement ranges, but there were multiple opportunities for long range combat as well.
Why not? Every rig will play a game at a different rate; think of it as overclocking, just because you have the same CPU does NOT mean it will overclock to the same level.Stevo_the_gamer
The difference between 30 and 70 is a tad too big to make that claim don't you think? I doubt mitu123 was using 1920x1200 at hardcore settings like I was, not with that frame rate. I think my frame rate is the more realistic one, given the benchmarks Nvidia ran.
That isn't a one way street. ;)Stevo_the_gamer
Do you have any idea how many times I have had to explain this? Just to have someone shrug it off on a whim, because it is inconvenient for their argument? It begs to question the point of typing all of it up.
It's not my opinion that Crysis 1 offered far greater scale than Crysis 2, it's a fact, and anyone who says otherwise is wrong. Consoles simply don't have enough memory to support that sort of scale, something the head of Crytek himself has said. It is this, being a console specific limitation, which often has people rejecting it; because it shows consoles aren't just as capable as a PC.
Care to give me examples of the ranged interactivity in Crysis 1? I'm not damage controlling, I'm just giving my opinion. Stalker is my favorite game ever so I know alot about ranged interactivity. I just fail to see what's so different about Crysis 2, than Crysis 1, except that C2 is set in a city and C1 is set in a jungle. :?
DreamCryotank
It's simply that interactive range is limited by real world factors, such as bullet physics and the ability to hit something that far away, rather than technical limitations. So when I approach a enemy base with sniper towers, I'm given the option of taking them out when I'm within shooting range. A cell streaming based game would required that the number of cells loaded be expanded over the sniper towers, before letting you try to take them out. AI activity on the island is also not restricted to within a radius of the player, enemy units can be seen patrolling at great distances; and interacted with.
If you can see it, it's actually there. Not a fake LOD object impersonating the object; while offering no interactivity. This offered a great sense of scale in Crysis 1, with the island feeling alive; rather than revolving around you.
Crysis 2 will have been designed for cell streaming, with the number of cells loaded being determined by console memory. So unlike Crysis 1, I doubt it would benefit from the same scale; because it isn't designed for it. Arguably the choice to set the game in the city was one done for consoles benefit, as cities are the perfect streaming environment, making it very easy to control player movement and visibility. Not like that prevented them from fogging the distance.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment