- Status
Finally! I was wondering when someone was even going to mention the release of this demo, let alone benchmark it.
And it seems, from a hardware stance that this game aint no Crysis!!!!
Won't it be great to see if the old 8800GTX can run Crysis 2.
And it seems, from a hardware stance that this game aint no Crysis!!!!
Won't it be great to see if the old 8800GTX can run Crysis 2.
kashifme21
Distinguished
- Feb 1, 2009
- 273
- 0
- 18,810
It will be a concern for Nvidia and AMD if a game like Crysis 2 the successor to the most demanding game ever runs smoothly on current hardware. people simply wont have a reason to upgrade.
Crysis 2 doesnt look any better then Crysis 1 judging by the Demo, i surely wont be buying this game day 1 as it looks like a console port and at 60usd thats steep for a port.
Console hardware is no 6years old, Nvidia and AMD shot themselves in the foot by supporting consoles, Games now no longer need high end hardware as witnessed with Crysis 2. If games wont progress good luck getting sales AMD and Nvidia.
Crysis 2 doesnt look any better then Crysis 1 judging by the Demo, i surely wont be buying this game day 1 as it looks like a console port and at 60usd thats steep for a port.
Console hardware is no 6years old, Nvidia and AMD shot themselves in the foot by supporting consoles, Games now no longer need high end hardware as witnessed with Crysis 2. If games wont progress good luck getting sales AMD and Nvidia.
iam2thecrowe
Glorious
- Jul 4, 2010
- 10,590
- 21
- 44,965
i have to say i had a great time playing it, i went to play it today and didnt realise the servers had been taken off 
im not installing half life 2 to give that a re-play. I had it runnign great on my 8800gts (heavily overclocked) im surprised the gt240 and 5670 recorded such low fps, my card seemed like it was always above 30 fps and should be similar to the gt240....although no fraps recod of that. was smooth to the eye though.
im not installing half life 2 to give that a re-play. I had it runnign great on my 8800gts (heavily overclocked) im surprised the gt240 and 5670 recorded such low fps, my card seemed like it was always above 30 fps and should be similar to the gt240....although no fraps recod of that. was smooth to the eye though.
Onus
Titan
- Jan 27, 2006
- 37,036
- 12
- 89,965
[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]...
GRAPHICS DONT MAKE A GAME GOOD...
you know what game sells the best? the one you can run.[/citation]
Excellent points.
Diablo II graphics really suck, but the game is very replayable and still fun sometimes.
It's been a long time since I tried a shooter, and I'll probably pass on this one too, but looking at the benchmarks I feel a lot better about having splurged recently on a GTX560 Ti.
GRAPHICS DONT MAKE A GAME GOOD...
you know what game sells the best? the one you can run.[/citation]
Excellent points.
Diablo II graphics really suck, but the game is very replayable and still fun sometimes.
It's been a long time since I tried a shooter, and I'll probably pass on this one too, but looking at the benchmarks I feel a lot better about having splurged recently on a GTX560 Ti.
woshitudou
Distinguished
- Oct 11, 2006
- 302
- 0
- 18,790
Toms has been purposely leaving the Radeon 5970 out of benchmarks for the last year. Why is that? I can understand leaving out a bottom card but not a top card.
theLaminator
Distinguished
- Jul 21, 2008
- 127
- 0
- 18,680
Looks like my 6950 will be here just in time to replace my 3870x2/3870 CF. Timed my upgrade perfectly
tom should have used older systems ( year 2007/2008) then compared it then compared it to the first game before they say "Crysis 2 Is A Lot Easier To Run Than Its Predecessor"
it is natural that crysis 2 will be faster because the parts available today are much much faster than before.
it is natural that crysis 2 will be faster because the parts available today are much much faster than before.
rohitbaran
Distinguished
- Mar 21, 2010
- 1,938
- 0
- 20,160
[citation][nom]sabot00[/nom]Actually, a 8800GTX is more or less equal to a 9800GTX, and the 5770 = 9800GTX+/GTS250, so the slight improvements means a 5770 (mainstream today) is only say 10-20% better instead of 2-3 times.[/citation]
Point taken. I was comparing it to the 5850 I used to have in my PC.
Point taken. I was comparing it to the 5850 I used to have in my PC.
silverblue
Distinguished
- Jul 22, 2009
- 1,199
- 4
- 19,285
[citation][nom]lhowe005[/nom]How in the world could you not include either the hd5850, hd5870, or hd5970?[/citation]
Don did say testing was cut short (I did originally say pressed for time but that's not entirely accurate as he would've known of a time limit at the time, which he didn't). He may not have intended to test with any of them at all, but the point is moot now that the testing enviroment no longer exists.
Something else to consider is that he didn't test on the 470 or 480, which means he didn't intend to test on any card which has technically been superceded. Sure, there's no results for the 6990, but the 6950 and 6870 cover for the 5870 and 5850 nicely. Re-running the tests for the higher-end 5xxx cards may not show anything worthwhile, however I agree that the 5970 or 6990 would've been good candidates. Consider though, that he only did two multi-GPU tests - one for NVIDIA and one for AMD - so perhaps that's all the multi-GPU testing he wanted to perform, and considering how the game isn't yet optimised for multi-GPU setups, it would've been a waste of time to test the 5970 or 6990.
(okay, I'm really done editing my post... )
Don did say testing was cut short (I did originally say pressed for time but that's not entirely accurate as he would've known of a time limit at the time, which he didn't). He may not have intended to test with any of them at all, but the point is moot now that the testing enviroment no longer exists.
Something else to consider is that he didn't test on the 470 or 480, which means he didn't intend to test on any card which has technically been superceded. Sure, there's no results for the 6990, but the 6950 and 6870 cover for the 5870 and 5850 nicely. Re-running the tests for the higher-end 5xxx cards may not show anything worthwhile, however I agree that the 5970 or 6990 would've been good candidates. Consider though, that he only did two multi-GPU tests - one for NVIDIA and one for AMD - so perhaps that's all the multi-GPU testing he wanted to perform, and considering how the game isn't yet optimised for multi-GPU setups, it would've been a waste of time to test the 5970 or 6990.
(okay, I'm really done editing my post...
)NecessaryEvil4
Distinguished
- Jun 9, 2010
- 27
- 0
- 18,530
"If Crytek improved the single-player experience as much as it improved multiplayer, Crysis 2 is going to be one hell of a game." C2 MP is better than it's predecessor? In terms of WHAT? I can't think of a single front on which C2's MP element is an upgrade over the original. The 12 maps in C2 are tiny, cookie-cutter CoD-clones. There are no vehicles. The player limit has been halved! There is no power struggle game mode - the essence of Crysis is missing. Don Woligroski, you do not represent the PC gaming community.
-Fran-
Glorious
- May 3, 2007
- 9,267
- 2,659
- 44,640
Why bash it so hard for being close/similar to CoD? If you liked CoD MP, that means that going to Crysis 2 won't be much of a surprise or hard experience.
Come on guys, if you want to criticize it, do it for being bad up front but not for being similar to another game (which at the same time is similar to older ones too).
Cheers!
Come on guys, if you want to criticize it, do it for being bad up front but not for being similar to another game (which at the same time is similar to older ones too).
Cheers!
silverblue
Distinguished
- Jul 22, 2009
- 1,199
- 4
- 19,285
Supertrek32
Distinguished
- Nov 13, 2008
- 442
- 0
- 18,780
People saying this game plays like CoD have either not played the demo, or not played CoD. Yes, some of the outlying features are the same (levels, killstreaks, and loadouts), but the CORE gameplay, the important part, is VERY different.
CoD is a very slow, "campy" type of game. Playing aggressively in CoD is still pretty passive gameplay compared to, say, battlefield. Crysis 2, on the other hand, is very run-and-gun friendly. Where movement in CoD is slow and deliberate, Crysis 2 is fast-paced and hectic. In CoD, killstreaks are king. In Crysis 2 they're useful, but they're not going to win the game for you.
The tactical elements of Crysis 2 are much deeper than those in CoD. Just by looking at how easy the game is to get used to makes this perfectly clear. I haven't met anyone who did amazing, or even truly enjoyed, Crysis 2 for their first couple games. It's just hard to get used to. There's a lot to take in. At the other end of the spectrum, any bimbo that can pick up a controller can do well at CoD.
Both games are fun and good in their own ways, for their own reasons. Crysis 2 in NOT a CoD clone. I can't possibly stress this enough.
In CoD, I consistently get kills in the upper 20s in TDM and prestiged 7 times in as many days played - well above average. How do you do well in CoD? You pick a spot overwatching a heavily trafficked area and lock it down. You "camp" a large section of the map.
In the Crysis 2 demo, I had a 3.5 KDR and on day 3 (right before I got sucked back into life), I had the highest SPM of the top 25 - making me arguably the best player in the world at that time (Pics or it didn't happen). How do you do well on Crysis? You run-n-gun. You never stop running around the map. You bring the fight to the enemies. You get shot first but still turn around and kill them. The people I see trying to use CoD tactics I also see at the bottom of the scoreboards. They are not the same game.
Crysis 2 in NOT a CoD clone. I can't possibly stress this enough.
CoD is a very slow, "campy" type of game. Playing aggressively in CoD is still pretty passive gameplay compared to, say, battlefield. Crysis 2, on the other hand, is very run-and-gun friendly. Where movement in CoD is slow and deliberate, Crysis 2 is fast-paced and hectic. In CoD, killstreaks are king. In Crysis 2 they're useful, but they're not going to win the game for you.
The tactical elements of Crysis 2 are much deeper than those in CoD. Just by looking at how easy the game is to get used to makes this perfectly clear. I haven't met anyone who did amazing, or even truly enjoyed, Crysis 2 for their first couple games. It's just hard to get used to. There's a lot to take in. At the other end of the spectrum, any bimbo that can pick up a controller can do well at CoD.
Both games are fun and good in their own ways, for their own reasons. Crysis 2 in NOT a CoD clone. I can't possibly stress this enough.
In CoD, I consistently get kills in the upper 20s in TDM and prestiged 7 times in as many days played - well above average. How do you do well in CoD? You pick a spot overwatching a heavily trafficked area and lock it down. You "camp" a large section of the map.
In the Crysis 2 demo, I had a 3.5 KDR and on day 3 (right before I got sucked back into life), I had the highest SPM of the top 25 - making me arguably the best player in the world at that time (Pics or it didn't happen). How do you do well on Crysis? You run-n-gun. You never stop running around the map. You bring the fight to the enemies. You get shot first but still turn around and kill them. The people I see trying to use CoD tactics I also see at the bottom of the scoreboards. They are not the same game.
Crysis 2 in NOT a CoD clone. I can't possibly stress this enough.
bustapr
Distinguished
- Jan 23, 2009
- 1,613
- 0
- 19,780
i played the ps3 demo yesterday, and the graphics werent the best Ive seen. It had detail in shadows and colors, but it looked very pixelated and mudy sometimes. But the multiplayer was brilliant. It IS CoD with a nanosuit, and that just makes it more awesome. I like the new control scheme, but its hard to forget the original control scheme and how strategic it was, and not forget the non power consuming maximum armor mode. You can tell this new scheme had fast paced action in mind, not necesarily a bad thing and its easy to use. Havent seen the PC version yet.
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
News TSMC founder says Intel should focus on AI, not advanced process technologies- Started by Admin
- Replies: 30
-
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram