Crysis 2 is another console port, no DX11!!!!

[jonneymendoza]

sorry but FFS have some of you read what is being posted, not buying the game because it says DX9 and not DX11, what the **** is up with that? who cares that it could actually be a decent game, not getting it because its not DX11, what a lame excuse! know Im going to get flamed for this but don't give a damn, because nothing ever seems to be good enough? DX9 is totally fine, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it, big deal its an older version, but at the end of the day, if the game is good and looks good why do you care? though we would have all learned from Crysis I that DX10 made absolutely no difference to the way the game looked or performed, infact it did the opposite and made it perform worse! I for one say Kudos to Crytek for actually trying to make a presentable and working game, thats not just a technical showpiece that isn't accessable to 90% of people because its too demanding to run, so far the Crysis II demo is running on my 'ancient' (at least in forum terms) 4870X2 totally fine, 1080P without much trouble, the game looks great (sorry but it just does) and most importantly barring the absolutely terrible dedicated servers that so many people 'worship' for some hilarious reason (usually find them sodding awful!) there has been no problems for me as of this moment. can we not just chill the **** out and be happy that Crysis II is finally here, and this time they are doing it better (it'll actually work FFS!) and focusing more on storytelling and more action-based multiplayer...?

also big freaking deal if it plays like a console FPS, how is that really a bad thing, why do people want fifty different controls for games anyways? the best shooters in recent memory for me have all been console shooters, sorry but thats the honest truth, even Modern Warfare II was a good game (curse me all you want, doesn't change anything) since it did everything its supposed to do well, not brilliantly but well. don't understand what is with all the hate towards MW2 anyways, what exactly did it do badly? it had a good single-player campaign, simple but addictive multiplayer, brilliant soundtrack, decent visuals, decent characters (soap is epic!). gonna make a statement that will likely get me basically shot at on this forum, but meh! whatever. after playing both games start to finish, anyone who prefers something like Portal for example over Modern Warfare II is totally mental.

pc fans have higher expectations then console fans. why? because pc fans are generally more hardcore players while console fans are laid back casual players who want a quick blast in a game every now and then.

Also, pc games set the benchmark in a technological and innovative way. always has, always will.

This is why any game that just does what other console games do is unacceptable for pc users. if you did not know all of this what i am talking about then you are not a pc gamer or just recently moved into pc gaming

 

[Klo]

anyone who prefers something like Portal for example over Modern Warfare II is totally mental.

Invalidating your argument. I for one do not like copy and paste games, and every COD since COD4 has been one.

 

[Elfmeister.]

I couldn't care less what impact DX11 has visually. The fact that it has been left out though, when PC games should be embracing new tech, along with all the other factors that point towards it being a straight port (press start, aim assist, 55 FoV, clunky console feel etc.), as well as a cash in on the CoD structure success, makes me not want to support it or the developers at all.

The "Press start" screen is no doubt what they call a placeholder, for that specific section in yellow font about it being a demo, no doubt the same screen will be used on the PS3 demo as well, instead of creating a bespoke one.

The aim assist is there for those who wish to use a Pad, if you plug a 360 pad all the button prompts change and there's an option to switch on vibration but know one seems to moan about that and guess what just like in the original Crysis and Warhead, all be it very clunky due to the buttons being mapped oddly.

Nice of them to cater to everyones needs, ask gareth170 what he thought of DS2.

55 FoV is pretty much the same in most FPS released in last 12 - 18 months, Bad Company 2 is 55 too, big deal, I got a config tool and voila 72 FoV.

The COD style ranking system works and if it aint broke don't fix it, I'm sure their marketing knows what's what.

 

[LoGaN_TnT]

The "Press start" screen is no doubt what they call a placeholder, for that specific section in yellow font about it being a demo, no doubt the same screen will be used on the PS3 demo as well, instead of creating a bespoke one.

The aim assist is there for those who wish to use a Pad, if you plug a 360 pad all the button prompts change and there's an option to switch on vibration but know one seems to moan about that and guess what just like in the original Crysis and Warhead, all be it very clunky due to the buttons being mapped oddly.

Nice of them to cater to everyones needs, ask gareth170 what he thought of DS2.

55 FoV is pretty much the same in most FPS released in last 12 - 18 months, Bad Company 2 is 55 too, big deal, I got a config tool and voila 72 FoV.

The COD style ranking system works and if it aint broke don't fix it, I'm sure their marketing knows what's what.

Well said you know what you are talking about unlike some in this thread.

 

[Jono8]

I have ONE hope for this game, and it is as follows:

We know that the multiplayer game was actually made by a different developer ( Free Radical) so one can only hope that it is only the multiplayer game that is ported across all three platforms with the same graphics settings e.t.c

Maybe they didnt have the time/expertise to unlock all the technical wizadry in cryengine 3 and just did a bog standard " one size fits all" approach to things.

This means that hopefully the single player game will be a full blown pc game with proper state of the art graphics, using cryengine 3 to its full potential.

One can dream anyway

What i don't understand is Crysis' silence on the whole thing? Surely they want to re-assure their fan base, especially when people are cancelling their pre-orders left right and centre.

 

[bigjimmyauk]

I have ONE hope for this game, and it is as follows:

We know that the multiplayer game was actually made by a different developer ( Free Radical) so one can only hope that it is only the multiplayer game that is ported across all three platforms with the same graphics settings e.t.c

Maybe they didnt have the time/expertise to unlock all the technical wizadry in cryengine 3 and just did a bog standard " on size fits all" approach to things.

This means that hopefully the single player game will be a full blown pc game with proper state of the art graphics, using cryengine 3 to its full potential.

One can dream anyway

What i don't understand is Crysis' silence on the whole thing? Surely they want to re-assure their fan base, especially when people are cancelling their pre-orders left right and centre.

THIS

i was reading earlier crytek uk did the multiplayer and had hardly anytime with the new engine.

 

[Streeteh]

innovative way. always has, always will.

Again this, with no examples to back this up. How exactly have PC games been more innovative in recent years? Other than Portal i can think of nothing particularly ground breaking brought to the table.

Also surely a 'hardcore' (god i hate that term) gamer would own as many platforms as possible in order to get the most out of his/her hobby? Or is the PC community the straight edge of gaming these days?

 

[Klo]

Again this, with no examples to back this up. How exactly have PC games been more innovative in recent years? Other than Portal i can think of nothing particularly ground breaking brought to the table.

Also surely a 'hardcore' (god i hate that term) gamer would own as many platforms as possible in order to get the most out of his/her hobby? Or is the PC community the straight edge of gaming these days?

Ever heard of Minecraft?

Well I'm personally a hardcore PC gamer, I clarify the difference.

 

[orderoftheflame]

pc fans have higher expectations then console fans. why? because pc fans are generally more hardcore players while console fans are laid back casual players who want a quick blast in a game every now and then.

Seriously? You seem to have little awareness of what's actually available on consoles if you think that only offer a "quick blast every now and then" for players.

What about the players that play games on both PC and Consoles? Are we hardcore on the outside and squishy on the outside?

End of the day, imo all of the consoles and PC each offer great titles. I want to play as many of them as possible regardless of a ridiculous allegiance to the hardware it's played on.

 

[Warbie]

pc fans have higher expectations then console fans. why? because pc fans are generally more hardcore players while console fans are laid back casual players who want a quick blast in a game every now and then.

Also, pc games set the benchmark in a technological and innovative way. always has, always will.

This is why any game that just does what other console games do is unacceptable for pc users. if you did not know all of this what i am talking about then you are not a pc gamer or just recently moved into pc gaming

As a long term PC and console gamer I can safely say you are talking out of your behind

 

[Streeteh]

Ever heard of Minecraft?

Well I'm personally a hardcore PC gamer, I clarify the difference.

Yep, what's so new about it though? It's great, don't get me wrong, but other than the way the game is marketed and distributed, it's done nothing ground breaking.

Why do you feel the need to clarify the difference?

 

[jonneymendoza]

Seriously? You seem to have little awareness of what's actually available on consoles if you think that only offer a "quick blast every now and then" for players.

What about the players that play games on both PC and Consoles? Are we hardcore on the outside and squishy on the outside?

note the word generally mate.

i did not say all console fans are. why do u think the biggest largest console machine is the wii?

no hardcore innovative games there. most are casual pick up and play games

 

[orderoftheflame]

Yep, what's so new about it though? It's great, don't get me wrong, but other than the way the game is marketed and distributed, it's done nothing ground breaking.

I'd agree actually, I love Minecraft, but playing it never makes me feel any more than "This is pretty cool". There's plenty of indie games that have given me a lot more wow factor, and equally as many titles that do the same on consoles.

note the word generally mate.

i did not say all console fans are. why do u think the biggest largest console machine is the wii?

no hardcore innovative games there. most are casual pick up and play games

I'd disagree with that actually. While the vast majority of titles are catered to the casual market and are "family friendly". Despite it's stereotypical image, the Wii is not devoid of innovative games that long term gamers would enjoy.

Indeed the Wii sold massively to the casual market, but you'd be an idiot to bundle every console game into that.

As a long term PC and console gamer I can safely say you are talking out of your behind

I agree with this though.

 

[jonneymendoza]

hardcore gamers generally want challenging, long lifespan, photo realistic games

 

[Streeteh]

hardcore gamers generally want

As i said i hate that term, but i'm intrigued to see where you're going...

challenging,

Agreed

long lifespan,

Assuming that replayablilty falls into your criteria for 'long lifespan' then yes, agreed

photo realistic games

A million times no. Many of the greatest games ever made were not the cutting edge of graphics processing when they were released, nor are they today. To only consider games that are 'photo realistic' is utterly hampering your enjoyment of the medium, especially the indie or small developers market, where i'd argue a huge portion of innovation occurs.

 

[orderoftheflame]

hardcore gamers generally want challenging, long lifespan, photo realistic games

Sorry. As a "hardcore" as you call it gamer, I'd agree that I want long life and a challenge from some of my games. I can get both of those easily from many console titles.

Photo realistic? Sometimes, it's nice to see. However not one of my top 50 games would come close to it.

I'd much rather have a great story, and great gameplay over graphics any day of the week.

 

[badcompany]

hardcore gamers generally want challenging, long lifespan, photo realistic games

lol

 

[Jono8]

So, how much of this will we see in the final release...

http://videos.pcgames.de/v/NqgX4rxYjrY/Crysis-2/GDC-2010-Technik-Trailer-in-HD/

 

[jonneymendoza]

great gameplay can be done achieved numerous ways and one is using technology. bigger maps? more ai's onscreen. more dynamic enviornments etc etc. all cant be achieved on consoles 4-5 years ago.

Dont tell me you would not like to experience full on war game with the same intensity as the first scenes of saving private ryan movie with the exact same dynamic enviornment and graphics. that would be awsome and wont be achieved on a console before pc's

Hench why PC games will always be the benchmark

 

[Streeteh]

great gameplay can be done achieved numerous ways and one is using technology. bigger maps? more ai's onscreen. more dynamic enviornments etc etc. all cant be achieved on consoles 4-5 years ago.

Dont tell me you would not like to experience full on war game with the same intensity as the first scenes of saving private ryan movie with the exact same dynamic enviornment and graphics. that would be awsome and wont be achieved on a console before pc's

Hench why PC games will always be the benchmark

So basically you think technology = better game?

I think we differ completely in our opinions of what makes a good game.