[Official] Crysis 2

[Athernar]

It looks like the final game won't ship with support for DX11. Instead, it'll be added with a post-launch patch. Also, it may not even have any advanced graphics options whatsoever. :(

If true, that's downright hilarious.

The only thing Crytek had going for them was the whole "superduper advanced engine" thing. Take that away and you're left with a bland cookie-cutter story that has generic characters tied together with generic gameplay. Aka, Call of Duty with Space Marines.

[trag3dy]

Well Crytek has little more than 2 weeks to straighten their **** out and give some good answers as to why these things are the way the are to their pc community.

[syobon999]

WTF steam 59$ for a ****ing DEMO? no ****ing way, i'm not that ****ing stupid.

[Yusuf M. Veteran]

For me personally that just isn't good enough. The game doesn't look or play the part of a PC game, and nothing is going to change that. Their priorities clearly lie in creating a better console experience because that's where the money is these days. There's no reason for excluding DX11 or advanced graphics options other than laziness.

PC gaming for the majority of developers has become an afterthought, and we've been getting nothing but horrible ports. Controls felt clunky to me, the game itself was buggy (no sound, freezing while changing resolution), and despite what everyone else has said I disagree with the graphics looking better than Crysis 1. One of the first things I noticed was the lack of proper antialiasing and the use of a terrible blur filter to cover it up. Typical console nonsense. Is everyone forgetting we waited over a month after the Xbox demo was released only to end up with a near direct console port?

It honestly isn't my problem though. Crytek has decided to gimp PC users, so I'll simply respond by not buying the game. I know a single person isn't going to affect their overall sales in the least, but I'll save myself the money and put it towards a game developed with the PC taken into consideration.

I won't deny that the game is geared more toward console gaming; however, I also won't deny that it's the best-looking and best-performing PC game I've played in awhile. The Gamer setting alone looks noticeably better than the Gamer setting in Crysis Warhead. Also, I haven't noticed a "blur filter". Instead, I noticed a rather effective shader-based AA filter that does a good job at getting rid of jagged edges. I still can't figure out why they decided to leave out advanced graphics options. It's almost like they're punishing PC gamers.

[trag3dy]

Sprint In the demo is no where near as quick as that in crysis 1and 2

Sprint is exactly the same as in Crysis 1. It's hard to tell with the small fov though.

[WastedJoker]

As far as advanced graphics options go, as long as they've got a cfg or ini file to edit I'll be happy.

[Wilhelmus]

WTF steam 59$ for a ****ing DEMO? no ****ing way, i'm not that ****ing stupid.

Eh?

[ViperAFK]

No DX11, but there *are* Advanced Graphics options (and they are selectable in the demo) - who fed you that BS?

I have moved from 1024x768 and Gamer setting to 1152x884 and Advanced (I will likely settle for 1280x720 and Advanced after next week's CPU upgrade).

A lot of the serious eye-candy isn't there (the demo is small, folks), even for the low and middle settings. They have to leave *something* out to get folks to buy the full game (and likely it was the high-end settings and hyper-customization, which is still greater than that for the Crysis demo).

The leak of the full game had the exact same limited graphics options. I wanted to believe that its just because it was a leaked old build and I defended them as well, but crytek has done nothing to prove that.

And why the heck would you lock down the advanced graphics options as incentive to buy the full game? Thats not an incentive in the slightest.

As far as advanced graphics options go, as long as they've got a cfg or ini file to edit I'll be happy.

In the demo there is no support for an autopexec.cfg, console, and the only thing you can change in the game.cfg is the resolution. The only way to change advanced options is launch options.

[WastedJoker]

Well that's poor form BUT it's not enough of an issue to stop me looking forward to the game.

The gameplay I've seen is more than enough to convince me the PC experience will not be a problem.

[boogerjones]

The very definition of a PC game is being able to various video settings.

No, the definition of a PC Crysis game is being able to modify my minigun to shoot overweight incendiary rounds, which is exactly what I'm looking forward to doing.

[c3ntury]

I've got my copy pre-ordered.. and I really don't want to spoil the fun, so I'll hang back from getting the demo for now.

[Elliot B.]

I'm really enjoying the demo! The sounds are fantastic if you have a decent sound system and it's cranked up.

[BoneyardBrew Member]

I've got my copy pre-ordered.. and I really don't want to spoil the fun, so I'll hang back from getting the demo for now.

I'd strongly suggest you try the demo. That's all it took for me to decide the game isn't worth my money. Feel free to look up the other Crysis 2 threads to see why.

I'm really enjoying the demo! The sounds are fantastic if you have a decent sound system and it's cranked up.

I thought the sounds were very weak, specifically the guns. No "bang" whatsoever.

[Elliot B.]

I thought the sounds were very weak, specifically the guns. No "bang" whatsoever.

I found it completely the opposite. They're bassy and you really feel like you're holding and firing heavy weaponry. I get big balls whilst playing this game :p

[BoneyardBrew Member]

I found it completely the opposite. They're bassy and you really feel like you're holding and firing heavy weaponry. I get big balls whilst playing this game :p

That's strange that I felt the complete opposite. Maybe it was just the gun I was using in particular?

I hadn't gotten very far because the game was too buggy for me to continue playing. After starting the game up for the second time I suffered from the no sound issues, among other things.

[Ayepecks]

^--That's false with my setup, Core i7 950 @ 4GHz and a single GTX 580 @ 920 MHz Core. And we're talking 1900x1200 here.

Crysis 1.21 (the original with patches) gets 40-50 fps at maximum settings + enchanced edge AA

Crysis Warhead gets 80-100 fps at maximum settings and 1.21 looks more real. I think it's much more optimized for cards with huge numbers of ROPs and shaders.

Crysis 2 MP Demo gets 70-80 fps at the hardcore setting. It looks pathetic.

I never checked the framerate for Metro 2033 DX11 but it's always playable at max settings and certain effects (like wispy 3d smoke) look very beautiful in it, but Crysis 1.21 is closer to reality.

I was hoping to see something more real (outdoors) than Crysis 1.21... but well, it does not look like Crytek are going to be the ones who make this happen :angry:

You're comparing using AA with non-AA? Not really a valid comparison, given how much of a strain enabling AA puts on a card.

[Yusuf M. Veteran]

You're comparing using AA with non-AA? Not really a valid comparison, given how much of a strain enabling AA puts on a card.

Crysis 2 makes use of an effective form of shader-based AA. It's not as good as MSAA but it does a decent job at smoothing out jagged lines. It also incurs a smaller performance hit. Compared to the previous Crysis games though, it's more detailed in some areas and less detailed in others. For example, a lot of the DX10 features from CryENGINE 2 aren't present like per-object motion blur, sub-surface scattering, and volumetric fog. It's possible that some of these features have been implemented with DX9 and I assume the remaining features will be added later with DX11 in a post-launch patch.

Personally, I think it would be in their best interest to add as many PC-exclusive features as possible to Crysis 2. Right now, it seems like they're doing their best to give Crysis 2 a consistent appearance across all platforms. And because of that, it feels like they're intentionally "holding back" what the game could look like on the PC.

[PaulCabby]

It's a different type of game from the Battlefield franchise.

The Battlefield franchise is very much open-field, large maps, almost company-sized teams. (Are there *any* urban/CQB-type maps in any of the Battlefield games? I personally don't know of any - either official or even fan-created.)

That's why I compared it to Rainbow Six or GRAW (both of which are heavily into smaller maps, smaller teams, and have a lot of urban settings) or even old-school Doom, Unreal, Quake, or UT. (Closest modern equivalent would be TF2 or TF Classic, or some of the CounterStrike maps.)

(From the other thread).

I'm fully aware of that. I don't care what sort of gameplay (both are FPS) it is, I enjoy both. As long as I do enjoy it and thus the mention.

[Athernar]

Crysis 2 makes use of an effective form of shader-based AA. It's not as good as MSAA but it does a decent job at smoothing out jagged lines. It also incurs a smaller performance hit. Compared to the previous Crysis games though, it's more detailed in some areas and less detailed in others. For example, a lot of the DX10 features from CryENGINE 2 aren't present like per-object motion blur, sub-surface scattering, and volumetric fog. It's possible that some of these features have been implemented with DX9 and I assume the remaining features will be added later with DX11 in a post-launch patch.

Personally, I think it would be in their best interest to add as many PC-exclusive features as possible to Crysis 2. Right now, it seems like they're doing their best to give Crysis 2 a consistent appearance across all platforms. And because of that, it feels like they're intentionally "holding back" what the game could look like on the PC.

To shine some light on this, CryENGINE 3 apparantly uses a "deferred renderer" which means that as far as DirectX 9 is concerned - MSAA is technically impossible to do; hence the gimmicky shader-based approach. (Which is just edge-detect + smudge)

I hear that changes in DirectX 10 allows MSAA to work with deferred renderers, so the ball is in Crytek's court as to if they actually bother to put any effort into the PC version with the D3D10+ codepaths.

[Spartan Erik]

SPOILER ALERT

This demo is garbage. Maps are incredibly small, and the gameplay is an insane run-and-gun FPS. Maybe I'm not used to it since I play games like BF:BC2, but when your average lifespan is <10 seconds, it gets boring pretty quickly. (Invisibility + Shotty is by far the lamest strategy.)

The graphics engine seems nice, but the glare is ridiculously high, and the FOV is very small. It feels like you're looking through a paper towel tube when you play.

Make a shortcut for the demo, I would recommend adding these parameters after "xxxxxxxxxxxx\Crysis2Demo.exe" +g_skipIntro=1 +r_MotionBlur=0 +cl_fov=75 +pl_movement.power_sprint_targetFov=75

[Yusuf M. Veteran]

To shine some light on this, CryENGINE 3 apparantly uses a "deferred renderer" which means that as far as DirectX 9 is concerned - MSAA is technically impossible to do; hence the gimmicky shader-based approach. (Which is just edge-detect + smudge)

I hear that changes in DirectX 10 allows MSAA to work with deferred renderers, so the ball is in Crytek's court as to if they actually bother to put any effort into the PC version with the D3D10+ codepaths.

I think having deferred lighting instead of MSAA is a worthwhile trade-off. It adds so much more realism to a scene than smooth lines. Plus, the shader-based AA is definitely better than no AA at all. From what I've read, it's edge detect AA and blur for close-up objects and temporal AA for far-off objects. Of course, support for DX10 would be great because that may allow MSAA but I'm sure they'd rather focus on supporting DX11.

SPOILER ALERT

This demo is garbage. Maps are incredibly small, and the gameplay is an insane run-and-gun FPS. Maybe I'm not used to it since I play games like BF:BC2, but when your average lifespan is <10 seconds, it gets boring pretty quickly. (Invisibility + Shotty is by far the lamest strategy.)

The graphics engine seems nice, but the glare is ridiculously high, and the FOV is very small. It feels like you're looking through a paper towel tube when you play.

Make a shortcut for the demo, I would recommend adding these parameters after "xxxxxxxxxxxx\Crysis2Demo.exe" +g_skipIntro=1 +r_MotionBlur=0 +cl_fov=75 +pl_movement.power_sprint_targetFov=75

Glare? Do you mean HDR lighting? It's been turned up a couple of notches from Crysis Warhead. As for the FOV, I believe it's the same as the default value for Crysis and Crysis Warhead: 60.

[Athernar]

I think having deferred lighting instead of MSAA is a worthwhile trade-off. It adds so much more realism to a scene than smooth lines. Plus, the shader-based AA is definitely better than no AA at all. From what I've read, it's edge detect AA and blur for close-up objects and temporal AA for far-off objects. Of course, support for DX10 would be great because that may allow MSAA but I'm sure they'd rather focus on supporting DX11.

I don't think deferred rendering has any effect on overall image quality, it's more of a performance thing. Which would certainly make sense, all things considered.

I find myself generally sensitive to aliasing, so lack of MSAA even with smudge shaders doesn't cut it in my opinion, if anything; I often find the smudgy appearance such techniques bring to ruin the scene entirely.

[Yusuf M. Veteran]

I don't think deferred rendering has any effect on overall image quality, it's more of a performance thing. Which would certainly make sense, all things considered.

I find myself generally sensitive to aliasing, so lack of MSAA even with smudge shaders doesn't cut it in my opinion, if anything; I often find the smudgy appearance such techniques bring to ruin the scene entirely.

Well, being able to add more dynamic lights as well as real-time global illumination counts as improving the overall image quality of a game. ;) I guess I'm sensitive to it as well but I try not to notice it. It's really hard though because anytime you move slowly enough to notice the aliasing, you can also see ghosting. It's very noticeable with your weapon when you're indoors and looking outside. Anyway, I just realized that it may be possible to use in DX11 mode. Unfortunately, that leaves out MSAA for those with DX10 video cards. Also, something tells me Crytek developed CryENGINE 3 without DX10 in mind.

[ViperAFK]

Well, being able to add more dynamic lights as well as real-time global illumination counts as improving the overall image quality of a game. ;) I guess I'm sensitive to it as well but I try not to notice it. It's really hard though because anytime you move slowly enough to notice the aliasing, you can also see ghosting. It's very noticeable with your weapon when you're indoors and looking outside. Anyway, I just realized that it may be possible to use in DX11 mode. Unfortunately, that leaves out MSAA for those with DX10 video cards. Also, something tells me Crytek developed CryENGINE 3 without DX10 in mind.

DX11 can run on DX10 hardware just fine as long as a few specific dx11-hardware only features are disabled like tesellation. There are some games that do this, such as avp (dx10 cards can use dx11 mode and tessellation is disabled, dx11 cards in dx11 mode have it enabled) DX10 support isn't really necessary if you have dx11 support, if you implement dx11 properly.

[Andre S. Veteran]

DX11 can run on DX10 hardware just fine as long as a few specific dx11-hardware only features are disabled like tesellation. There are some games that do this, such as avp (dx10 cards can use dx11 mode and tessellation is disabled, dx11 cards in dx11 mode have it enabled) DX10 support isn't really necessary if you have dx11 support, if you implement dx11 properly.

This is so confusing. Games never clearly tell you if you are missing any features by running DX11 with a DX10 card. I have [edit: one of] the fastest DX10 single gpu (HD 4890) and don't plan on upgrading it anytime soon, and this haze around DX11 support really irritates me.