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

jonneymendoza said:
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
Click to expand...

Lots of explosions fail to make a good game just by itself, and you can "benchmark" how good a game be by many "numerous ways".

A game with great graphics and poor gameplay, will never ever be better than a game with great gameplay and poor graphics regardless of platform in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
Streeteh said:
So basically you think technology = better game?

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

no, what he's saying is immersion = better game. Technology makes it possible for there to be greater depth to that immersion.
 
orderoftheflame said:
Lots of explosions fail to make a good game just by itself, and you can "benchmark" how good a game be by many "numerous ways".

A game with great graphics and poor gameplay, will never ever be better than a game with great gameplay and poor graphics regardless of platform in my opinion.
Click to expand...

my point is that technology CAN ENCHANCE gameplay.
 
Deific said:
no, what he's saying is immersion = better game. Technology makes it possible for there to be greater depth to that immersion.
Click to expand...

I'd agree with that. Some games are made better by new technology. I'd disagree that it's the sole reason that makes PC the bench setter for new games though which is what he was claiming.

Hench why PC games will always be the benchmark
Click to expand...

A great new innovative enjoyable game can pop up on any platform without any new technology required.
 
orderoftheflame said:
I'd agree with that. Some games are made better by new technology. I'd disagree that it's the sole reason that makes PC the bench setter for new games though which is what he was claiming.



A great new innovative enjoyable game can pop up on any platform without any new technology required.
Click to expand...

no im not trying to claim it as the soul reason. im saying its one of the reasons that cant be done on consoles, simple as that.

innovative gameplay done with different mechanisms like portal can be achieved on consoles first for sure but massive MP fps games like BF2 when that first came out was only achievable on a pc full stop. no ifs or buts about it.

till this day, most if not all console fps games still cannot produce a 64 player game with maps the same size as BF2.
 
jonneymendoza said:
name me another 2 games with high player count on consoles
Click to expand...

Clearly this is going to be a 'prove one side but not the other' debate.

Resistance 1 + 2 both have 64 player count maps.

Warhawk has 64 player maps too iirc.

Technically that's three, though two are part of the same series of games.

Also all three were capable of joining online servers in split screen. Warhawk is able to render 4 way splitscreen while playing online which for a game released in 2007 was an excellent feat.

But what does playercount really have to do with enjoyment? My favourite, and one of the most popular globally, online games of last year was Street Fighter, a 2 player only game.
 
Last edited:
Streeteh said:
Clearly this is going to be a 'prove one side but not the other' debate.

Resistance 1 + 2 both have 64 player count maps.

Warhawk has 64 player maps too iirc.

Technically that's three, though two are part of the same series of games.

Also all three were capable of joining online servers in split screen. Warhawk is able to render 4 way splitscreen while playing online which for a game released in 2007 was an excellent feat.

But what does playercount really have to do with enjoyment? My favourite, and one of the most popular globally, online games of last year was Street Fighter, a 2 player only game.
Click to expand...

Edit: nm you saved me the effort of replying. ;)
 
Is this actually a joke?

Just downloaded the demo - it crashes halfway through the map loading. The worst part?

My 360 demo actually did the same and I couldn't play that either. The same bug.
 
Have faith. They're probably trying to do a lot to get the game out of the door in time for the deadline. I've got an xbox too and trust me, the pc demo blows it out of the water in every respect.
I know people who have directx11 hardware will be itching to use it but graphical effects do not make a game. They are garnish. I have a 5870 and don't care if the game uses directx 9, hell I'd even play in directx 9 in multiplayer if it gave me a smoother framerate.

Strtife212, sorry to hear that. All I can say is that I've played the demo a lot on pc and console and I've only had one crash and that was on the xbox.
 
Right, tried again and for some reason it works now, was a one off. Have been getting pretty annoyed today after Rift wasn't working either :p

As for the game, I actually like it. The graphics are pretty nice too - some of the texture work isn't Crysis 1 level but overall it looks better imo.
 
Strife212 said:
Right, tried again and for some reason it works now, was a one off. Have been getting pretty annoyed today after Rift wasn't working either :p

As for the game, I actually like it. The graphics are pretty nice too - some of the texture work isn't Crysis 1 level but overall it looks better imo.
Click to expand...

Well your opinion is wrong.
 
I just putting my two pence in! I dont really care regarding console port, no dx11 etc. My problems with crysis 2 are its lost its soul!

Things I liked about crysis and warhhead were an open world that felt alive, an on the fly suit hud that allowed me use and switch between abilities very quickly and a generally fluid feel to movement. The fact that I could switch to strength mode, jump then cloak, land behind someone switch back to strength mode and kill them with one punch gave it the slick super soldier feel that other games lacked.
Unfortunately getting rid of this feature and exchanging it for just armour and cloak with the sh** nanovision rubbish is one dimensional in my opinion. Also the preconfigured jump and stomp crap just feels amatuer. Bringing in stuff like kill streak rewards will just make this game super campy, how campy would COD be if you could cloak as well?

All in all, regardless of the unimpressive graphics, movement physics this game feels like its been made by people who have never played crysis. Rather taken influences from COD, Gears of War and Halo and mashed them together really badly. I'm hugely dissapointed!

Before people start slagging me off as a pc gamer who doesnt understand console gaming, I have a gaming pc, 360 and ps3. Lets face it all consoles are pc's really, even the ps3. Yes it uses different code but pull it apart its just a gaming pc squeezed into a small box, then mass produced to keep retail prices low. Crytek should have developed Crysis 2 primarily for pc then dumbed it down a bit to run on consoles, doing it the reverse doesnt make sense in any way!
 
mack d4ddy said:
I just putting my two pence in! I dont really care regarding console port, no dx11 etc. My problems with crysis 2 are its lost its soul!

Things I liked about crysis and warhhead were an open world that felt alive, an on the fly suit hud that allowed me use and switch between abilities very quickly and a generally fluid feel to movement. The fact that I could switch to strength mode, jump then cloak, land behind someone switch back to strength mode and kill them with one punch gave it the slick super soldier feel that other games lacked.
Unfortunately getting rid of this feature and exchanging it for just armour and cloak with the sh** nanovision rubbish is one dimensional in my opinion. Also the preconfigured jump and stomp crap just feels amatuer. Bringing in stuff like kill streak rewards will just make this game super campy, how campy would COD be if you could cloak as well?

All in all, regardless of the unimpressive graphics, movement physics this game feels like its been made by people who have never played crysis. Rather taken influences from COD, Gears of War and Halo and mashed them together really badly. I'm hugely dissapointed!

Before people start slagging me off as a pc gamer who doesnt understand console gaming, I have a gaming pc, 360 and ps3. Lets face it all consoles are pc's really, even the ps3. Yes it uses different code but pull it apart its just a gaming pc squeezed into a small box, then mass produced to keep retail prices low. Crytek should have developed Crysis 2 primarily for pc then dumbed it down a bit to run on consoles, doing it the reverse doesnt make sense in any way!
Click to expand...

Totally agree. the original Crysis felt A LOT more immersive. This just feels static and lifeless.

Looks like a slightly better looking cross breed of Vegas 2 and F.E.A.R 2 with all the silly filters/bloom e.t.c When you compare it to the graphical fidelity of Crysis/Warhead it is laughable.

I still hope the single player will be loads better.
 
Last edited:
Streeteh said:
Clearly this is going to be a 'prove one side but not the other' debate.

Resistance 1 + 2 both have 64 player count maps.

Warhawk has 64 player maps too iirc.

Technically that's three, though two are part of the same series of games.

Also all three were capable of joining online servers in split screen. Warhawk is able to render 4 way splitscreen while playing online which for a game released in 2007 was an excellent feat.

But what does playercount really have to do with enjoyment? My favourite, and one of the most popular globally, online games of last year was Street Fighter, a 2 player only game.
Click to expand...

your comparing a beat up game to a fps game lol. o and that list proves MS 360 games cant cut it.
 
jonneymendoza said:
your comparing a beat up game to a fps game lol. o and that list proves MS 360 games cant cut it.
Click to expand...

What? You asked him to list two more games that have a high player count on consoles and he did. How many big blockbuster PC FPS games from the last few years have 64 player support? Not that many either.

He's entirely right though. How does having more players automatically make a game better? Can you imagine Counter Strike with 64 players? It would be rubbish.
 
jonneymendoza said:
your comparing a beat up game to a fps game lol. o and that list proves MS 360 games cant cut it.
Click to expand...

Your point? Ok, the last, best multiplayer FPS i've played was killzone 2, that only supports 16 player online but the maps and objectives are designed to make that work. It's fast paced, close quarters combat and the small player count is part of that. Just like Counter Strike in fact.

The 360 is every bit as powerful as the PS3, it's just a limitation of the way Xbox live functions which is p2p. Future games have been mentioned that support dedicated servers and so with that you will find larger playercount multiplayer games will be released.

Again you're just slagging consoles without actually providing me with any explanation of how PCs are the 'only way' to innovate and will always be the 'cutting edge' of every element of gaming (i agree with graphics as a PC is much more powerful, but you don't need a powerhouse machine in order to do everything that is needed to make an excellent game).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom