Crysis 2 Multiplayer PC Demo Arrives in March

Status
Not open for further replies.

kiddagoat

Distinguished
Mar 14, 2006
52
0
18,630
0
So basically what they are saying.... the system requirements have not changed since Crysis 1 and the game has ultimately been dumbed down for the consoles and the PC gamer gets the shaft yet again....

Crytek used to be the ones that put out the new engines or implemented new feature sets in games to show case the capabilities.

FarCry set a new bar.... Crysis established a new one.... Crysis 2 is taking 5 years back.... WTF Crytek! Another good PC developer gone turncoat.
 

kiddagoat

Distinguished
Mar 14, 2006
52
0
18,630
0
Video cards up to 3-4 generations old can play Crysis 2??? WTF!!! And it is not even 64-Bit native??? They established a 64-Bit for FarCry ffs....

Sorry for the double post but this really pisses me off....
 

silky salamandr

Distinguished
Sep 16, 2009
277
0
18,810
9
People complain when the specs are too high. People complain when the specs are too low. Simply dont play the game if it pisses you off that much. But we all know that you will play the game and complain all the way to the end.

You shouldnt have to have 1500 bucks invested in a triple sli setup to run a game at a respectable fps with all the candy on period.
 

ken062083

Distinguished
Aug 30, 2010
4
0
18,510
0
Comparable system specs to Crysis 1 does NOT mean the game will be dumbed down. Crytek developed an entirely new engine for this game (that looked amazing in the demo btw). Better coding = better performance with lesser hardware
 

rohitbaran

Distinguished
Mar 21, 2010
1,938
0
20,160
116
Well, the requirements are not very high, but most of the laptop owners, myself included will not be able to play it. The game however doesn't look much improved from the original Crysis. Yes, they have made an achievement by developing a cross platform engine, but visually, the game doesn't break any new ground.
 

elcentral

Distinguished
Apr 19, 2010
459
0
18,790
1
its made for fucking consoles in mind of corse its get lower standards how did ppl not c this comming i already realised this the secong they anounsed it for consoles.
 

wikiwikiwhat

Distinguished
Dec 4, 2008
148
0
18,690
1
This game doesn't work great on consoles. I've tried it and played the 360 demo. This belongs on PC. Honestly, they are hoping the consoles would be money-makers for them. Will they probably sell a million? Yes. They need to get controls fixed before this game releases on Xbox 360.

I dunno, after playing Crysis 1 and Crysis Wars, Crysis 2 looks like an abomination. Pretty grahpics but its gameplay is hurting.
 

Trialsking

Distinguished
Mar 2, 2007
733
0
19,010
6
[citation][nom]kiddagoat[/nom]Video cards up to 3-4 generations old can play Crysis 2??? WTF!!! And it is not even 64-Bit native??? They established a 64-Bit for FarCry ffs.... Sorry for the double post but this really pisses me off....[/citation]

Have you been living under a rock for the last 6 months?!?!!? Everyone knew this the moment they announced its was going to the PS3 and Xbox. Anytime a game goes to the consoles it guarantees it will not be breaking any new ground graphically.
 

joytech22

Distinguished
Jun 4, 2008
1,687
0
19,810
10
I like how everybody is saying how much the games graphics will be toned down when they forgot one important detail:

The game was developed on all systems at the same time, the game has GRAPHICS SETTINGS on PC and that no company is going to purposely go BACKWARDS in graphics on PC after so many years of development.

Sure, consoles have limited how many missions we get and stuff (I blame the 360 with it's limited storage) but the game will still look great on PC.
 

unknown_13

Distinguished
May 12, 2009
1,539
0
19,860
46
I really don't understand why the people are pissed off 'cause a Core 2 CPU and a 8800 series GPU would play the game with solid FPS on medium-high settings. Would you be happy if the game required an i5 and a HD 5800 for low settings?? Surely NOT! And as someone already pointed out, CryEngine 3 is a whole new engine.

And what is really important to me is the gameplay. Serious gamers would worry more 'bout the gameplay than the graphics (which will obviosly be perfect in Crysis 2)
 

utengineer

Distinguished
Feb 11, 2010
169
0
18,680
0
"Note: There's indication that this list of minimum hardware requirements many not be final."

Even if these are the final-final minimums, that does not mean you cannot crank up the settings for higher-end machines.
 

darkchazz

Distinguished
Jul 27, 2010
404
0
18,790
2
All those idiots are whining about a game that has not been released yet, what the hell...

They probably pirated the buggy leak which is locked at DX9 and medium gfx settings, and thought that's maxed out.
 

sceen311

Distinguished
Apr 19, 2008
291
0
18,790
3
[citation][nom]kiddagoat[/nom]Video cards up to 3-4 generations old can play Crysis 2??? WTF!!! And it is not even 64-Bit native??? They established a 64-Bit for FarCry ffs.... Sorry for the double post but this really pisses me off....[/citation]
Guess they actually wanted people to be able to play their game... damn you Crytek for not requiring that I buy a new computer just to play your game!
 

iNiNe5

Distinguished
Aug 3, 2006
50
0
18,630
0
I understand that enthusiasts get upset that many games developed nowadays aren't worth enough to be played on your 10k setup, but do realize that video game development is now a business and not an art. Don't let the word "Studios" in the company name fool you.
 

dalta centauri

Distinguished
Apr 1, 2010
885
0
19,010
15
[citation][nom]iNiNe5[/nom]I understand that enthusiasts get upset that many games developed nowadays aren't worth enough to be played on your 10k setup, but do realize that video game development is now a business and not an art. Don't let the word "Studios" in the company name fool you.[/citation]
Although there are a number of games that play on 400$ systems maxed out while the 1k systems are losing what potential they had. There are times when developers and publishers shouldn't exclude those who spent more then the norm, but base off of the enthusiasts and degrade from that.

I'm happy that Crytek and EA decided to release a multiplayer demo after the leak, I though Crytek would have to redo certain parts of the game and make a later release date. Could still happen, but so far there's no news of delaying the game.
 

kiddagoat

Distinguished
Mar 14, 2006
52
0
18,630
0
Well I see I came off like an ass but being an engineering student and a tech enthusiast, I like to see stuff evolve and become more advanced.

Crytek is known for setting the bar high and keeping that evolution going. We've had 64-Bit CPUS and OS for how long now?? DirectX 11 has caught on really well. I feel they are really taking a step back. Yes I spent about $2000 on a computer and yes I expect to get the value out of my box. Don't call me an idiot like I made a bad decision because some people don't invest that much into a system.

Every 3-4 years a developer makes a game that is amazing and it in return causes people to upgrade and get better systems. I am sorry but the current life cycle on most systems is about 3-4 years. If you are holding onto a C2D with a 8800GT and still expect to play the newest and greatest games on high, there is something wrong.

If the new engine scales well, awesome hope it does.

Should everyone be able to play a game, sure, within reason. But looking at how far the PC hardware has come and the software lagging because it is being made to fit the console hardware that is now 5 years old, come on, be realistic.
 

alidan

Splendid
Aug 5, 2009
5,303
0
25,780
0
[citation][nom]kiddagoat[/nom]Well I see I came off like an ass but being an engineering student and a tech enthusiast, I like to see stuff evolve and become more advanced.Crytek is known for setting the bar high and keeping that evolution going. We've had 64-Bit CPUS and OS for how long now?? DirectX 11 has caught on really well. I feel they are really taking a step back. Yes I spent about $2000 on a computer and yes I expect to get the value out of my box. Don't call me an idiot like I made a bad decision because some people don't invest that much into a system. Every 3-4 years a developer makes a game that is amazing and it in return causes people to upgrade and get better systems. I am sorry but the current life cycle on most systems is about 3-4 years. If you are holding onto a C2D with a 8800GT and still expect to play the newest and greatest games on high, there is something wrong. If the new engine scales well, awesome hope it does.Should everyone be able to play a game, sure, within reason. But looking at how far the PC hardware has come and the software lagging because it is being made to fit the console hardware that is now 5 years old, come on, be realistic.[/citation]

crysis was simply put, poorly coded. engine wise.
from what we see now, no one can deny it.

i can write a game that takes a 2000$ rig to its knees and it will only look as good as an atari 2600 game. does that mean it has the best graphics? HELL NO

now there is an upper bar for how good games can look, and dont kid yourself thinking there isn't. that limit is ((time x graphics) money) and we are hitting a BIG WALL HERE. there is only so much graphically, that can be canned and not made new for every game. crysis 1 is currently the upper limit on what we can do graphically and still make a profit. now, crysis 2 takes that upper limit and brings it down to real world systems while still looking as good as the first, with a highly scalable engine, which surpasses the first graphically.

if you want a tech demo instead of a game, GET A DAMN TECH DEMO
if you want a game... there is no way crysis 2 running at playable frame rates on lesser hardware is a bad thing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS