1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Windows Crysis 2 Anticipation

Discussion in 'Gaming' started by Agosen, 7 Feb 2011.

  1. wuyanxu

    wuyanxu still wants Homeworld 3

    Joined:
    15 Aug 2007
    Posts:
    10,622
    Likes Received:
    236
    FPS games should be gameplay focused, i am pretty sure the story was written after gameplay direction has been decided.
     
  2. BRAWL

    BRAWL Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    16 Aug 2010
    Posts:
    2,666
    Likes Received:
    184
    Simple... it's been done on other games before.

    The humans will always win, which is exactly why I kind of liked Avatar (The movie) because the humans lost. Area 51, Gears of War and Halo have proven that no matter the size of the enemy fleet, the size of their guns, the fact that they're superior in every way to humanity they always make a fatal flaw in their plan that one man/squad can infiltrate deep into their most secure lair and destroy their entire civilisation in less than a week.

    Games design seems to be going round in circles because of consolification. PC games always seemed to have a more enhanced plot, Command and Conquer and Warhammer for example... Consoles just make everything a Halo/CoD clone in which humanity or "The Moral Right" (i.e. your character) always wins.

    CnC - Scrin invaded, humanity kicked their ass JUST. Then the Scrin got disregarded and EA commited an act of heresy so great that Brawl become two personalities in which one side plays games and the other is planning revenge on EA for destroying his beautiful games that he grew up on[s/] became a bunch of money grabbing asshats who make generic games.

    Warhammer40k - Humanity is losing ground on all fronts, Heresy and Xeno's are everywhere and they really aren't winning any wars with what they have...

    When FPS games take on a non-generic-armouredlikeatank-inventive-awesome-dukenukemesque roll again, then I'll be happy >.< and yes that included Forever... I will be destroying all things xeno on that game. Because Duke Nukem is only outmatched by the Astartes version of Chuck Norris that is The Emperor of Mankind

    wow... rant.
     
  3. Pete J

    Pete J RIP Teelzebub

    Joined:
    28 Sep 2009
    Posts:
    5,427
    Likes Received:
    386
  4. smc8788

    smc8788 ...at least I have chicken

    Joined:
    23 Apr 2009
    Posts:
    5,964
    Likes Received:
    272
    What, 50 FPS isn't enough for you? I'm running through the original Crysis at the moment, with the Natural Mod (so higher than high settings), with a single 6870 at 1680x1050 and it seems super smooth to me. Unless you're running crazy resolutions, the days of 'but can it play Crysis comments?' are a thing of the past with any moderately high-end card.
     
  5. Pete J

    Pete J RIP Teelzebub

    Joined:
    28 Sep 2009
    Posts:
    5,427
    Likes Received:
    386
    'Smoothness' is a subjective thing - some people are happy with 20FPS, some want 60FPS to keep in sync with their monitor.

    However bear in mind that Modern Warfare 2, with a 6870, can run at over 100FPS even at 1920x1200 - and I personally think the game looks fantastic.

    So: no, 50FPS isn't enough for me.
     
    knuck likes this.
  6. Ljs

    Ljs Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    4 Sep 2009
    Posts:
    2,217
    Likes Received:
    113
    Still haven't played the original but I did notice it was in Game (that and all the expansions) on a 2 for £15 deal. Need to pick something else I haven't got yet...
     
    Last edited: 7 Feb 2011
  7. Zurechial

    Zurechial Elitist

    Joined:
    21 Mar 2007
    Posts:
    2,045
    Likes Received:
    99
    Kindof missing the point. Crytek have a history of handling non-human enemies in their games terribly, from the Trigens in Far Cry to the Aliens in Crysis.
    I don't want an alien invasion in these games - Crysis worked beautifully when the player was fighting the KPA, then turned to generic, brainless, spray-and-pray shite when the player was thrown up against the Alien forces.
    It's not as though the story is actually decent anyway - I'd happily retcon those stupid aliens out of the whole thing.

    The fact that Crysis 2 has from the very start of its promotional campaign been focused on the Nanosuits fighting off an alien invasion just makes it lose appeal in my eyes.

    -

    On the topic of Crysis framerates, I'm aware that there's a huge element of subjectivity in this but I think it was fairly widely agreed that the way Crysis renders the game and its use of motion blur make framerates as low as 25fps comfortable for most people who ordinarily demand 45fps or more in other games.
    I've made this point before and I'm not a Crysis fanboy (I'm well aware of its many flaws), but I think it's pointless to make any kind of claims about Crysis' optimization or lack thereof merely based on how it performs on typical or even cutting-edge hardware.


    And? That's not a sign of poor optimization, it's just a sign that the midrange in modern graphics cards still isn't up to the task of rendering a game whose maximum settings demanded performance way ahead of what contemporary hardware could handle - And it delivered the visuals to match.

    You get what you pay for with Crysis in terms of its hardware demands. The game is demanding, yes; but it still looks better than most other games released after it if your hardware is up to the job.
    Sure they could have dropped the polycounts on the models in the game, reduced the vegetation, simplified the physics, culled the shader counts... But that's what Low/Medium settings are for and those settings DO work well on lesser hardware in Crysis.

    The game is extremely scalable in its performance and in terms of what you get from your hardware - I played the game comfortably on a 7600GT with crappy visuals when it was released and on an 8600M GT on my laptop - And I'm the kind of person who typically demands high framerates and who rolls their eyes when others roll out the tired, flawed ******** about the human eye and framerates over 30.

    Optimisation isn't a magic process that can give us Crysis' visuals at high resolution on an 8800GT - The problem here is one of expectations and what we feel entitled to get out of our expensive hardware from a game. Cytek could just have easily limited the game's visuals to the 'High' settings and it would have staved off years of complaints about the game's performance, but since the game's release people have been determined to run the game at 'Very High' on their high-resolution monitors just because the option is there.

    Without seeing the game's source code I think it's pointless to say that it's badly optimised when it demonstrably scales as well as it does, just because it doesn't deliver 100fps on a tri-SLI rig like the way a Call of Bollocks title that was very noticably optimised for years-old consoles does.
    Crysis has better (higher-resolution) texturing, richer shaders, higher polycounts and a stark advantage in visual quality over the competition.

    You want to see badly-optimised? Look at Just Cause 2. Visuals that only barely approach Crysis' level of fidelity despite running like a dog even on a fermi card.
    There's a big difference between a game or engine that can scale upwards by a huge degree and a game that's just badly optimised. Crysis is the former, not the latter.

    I don't mean any of the above to sound like an attack on you, Pete J - I just disagree with your opinion on the matter :p
     
  8. Pete J

    Pete J RIP Teelzebub

    Joined:
    28 Sep 2009
    Posts:
    5,427
    Likes Received:
    386
    The point is that the 'Call of Bollocks' can achieve a very nice looking game (and in my opinion approaches Crysis in some instances) at 100+FPS - whilst running on a 560, let alone 3x580s.

    I do see what you're saying though: in Crysis' case the 'very high settings' are really meant to be 'very high'; but Crytek are gits for dangling it like a carrot in front of us!
    *Runs off to cry himself to sleep* :waah: .
     
  9. EvilMerc

    EvilMerc Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    1 Feb 2010
    Posts:
    2,326
    Likes Received:
    79
    The trouble with 'Call Of Bollocks' is that, while shiny, its graphics are very superficial. It's an age old engine which has had modern effects added to it which can briefly fool you into thinking it looks good. Think of it like lots of make up on an ugly woman, potentially good from a distance but get up close and you see the flaws. CoD has frankly awful textures and the particle effects are laughable, it hasn't got any motion blur as far as I can tell and its lighting is basic. A good example are the smoke effects from gun barrels and the bullet impacts, they simply don't compare to Crysis.

    The one thing I can't deny is its fluidity, much like the Source engine it doesn't require much of modern hardware to run but frankly, it annoys me when people claim it to look awesome. After all, you can add glitter to a turd but you really can't polish it.

    Also, the physics in CoD are biggest pile of rubbish EVER.
     
  10. Pete J

    Pete J RIP Teelzebub

    Joined:
    28 Sep 2009
    Posts:
    5,427
    Likes Received:
    386
    :confused:

    We are talking about MW2, right?

    Beause I think it looks awesome :worried: .
     
  11. EvilMerc

    EvilMerc Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    1 Feb 2010
    Posts:
    2,326
    Likes Received:
    79
    The engine is ancient, it has no breakable trees for starters ;)
     
  12. knuck

    knuck Hate your face

    Joined:
    25 Jan 2002
    Posts:
    7,668
    Likes Received:
    302
    Oh WOW

    Let's be friends ! Make me babies or something ! FINALLY someone who understands ! :rock:

    85FPS or nothing, damn it ! (preferably 115)
     
  13. Deders

    Deders Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    14 Nov 2010
    Posts:
    4,053
    Likes Received:
    106
    The lighting in Modern Warfare 1 was much better than the most recent call of duty, I think it's partly how well the developers are able to make use of the engine, and partly down to how much time they have to do so, especially the extra development time it takes to make the most out of PC hardware. Hence why most movie tie in games have little attention payed to the lighting.

    I've also noticed that the later COD series looks more cohesive on the console/TV setup, a good monitor will more than likely show up any weaknesses that a game has.
     
  14. spectre456

    spectre456 New Member

    Joined:
    29 Dec 2007
    Posts:
    1,009
    Likes Received:
    42
    what's the big fuss about the aliens in crysis 2? they are pretty much humanoid foes and not the floaty tentacle ones from the first games. sheesh, did no one watch the trailer?
     
  15. smc8788

    smc8788 ...at least I have chicken

    Joined:
    23 Apr 2009
    Posts:
    5,964
    Likes Received:
    272
    There were physics in COD? :confused:

    I completely agree the visuals in the COD games are very superficial. MW2 for instance has such ridiculously oversaturated colours that it makes every level look like a Toys R Us store. While you might go 'oooohhh' the first time you see them, they're not at all realistic, and when you take a close look at the textures they're nowhere near as detailed as Crysis. Also remember that Crysis' levels are huuuge in comparison to COD, which are little linear corridors outside of which there is even less detail in the textures. So when you put it all together, you have one game which is superficially nice to look at (and don't get me wrong they've done well to get a engine as old as that too look so good), and another which is much bigger, with much larger draw distances, higher resolution textures, and is also able to handle complex physics calculations. Can you cut down a tree with an assault rifle in MW2? Do the buildings collapse when you throw a grenade into them? Can you kill a man with a watermelon? Can you launch a frog into outer space? These are all important details which make Crysis a much more complete and detailed environment than any of the COD games. Playing MW2 is like walking through a museum: everything looks nice from a distance, but that's all you can do - look at it. No touching allowed. Whereas Crysis is just a big playground which lets you do so much more.

    I would also kinda agree with Pete on the framerate issue, but with one big caveat - which is that it only applies in multiplayer games (at least for me). If I'm playing a fast paced shooter, I'll want it to be running at around 100FPS, but then I'd also want a monitor with a refresh rate faster than 60Hz since even a constant 60FPS is too slow for a fast paced shooter. For single player games this is less of an issue however - especially with Crysis, since after years of struggling to play the game at 20-30FPS, playing it at 50FPS makes it seem positively fluid.
     
  16. Pete J

    Pete J RIP Teelzebub

    Joined:
    28 Sep 2009
    Posts:
    5,427
    Likes Received:
    386
    WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE TREES! :D

    Actually, it's pretty damn epic when everything's being shot up around you and trees start to fall. On you :hehe: .
    Ha ha!
     
  17. keir

    keir S p i t F i r e

    Joined:
    5 Oct 2003
    Posts:
    4,377
    Likes Received:
    48
    That game play looked lame as ****. I hope it's better on PC.
     
  18. Zurechial

    Zurechial Elitist

    Joined:
    21 Mar 2007
    Posts:
    2,045
    Likes Received:
    99
    Go and play Far Cry if you haven't, then the levels in Crysis where Nomad faces the Aliens - Then come back and see if you have faith in Crytek to make non-human opponents in a game fun to face and anything but a total pain in the arse that ruins the flow of the game from that point onwards.

    If you can tell me that you have faith in Crytek to not make the aliens annoying and unsatisfying to fight then you must have seen something I didn't. :p

    Besides, I prefer fighting human or close-to-human opponents in shooters even when the aliens aren't poorly balanced - But that's just my preference.
     
  19. spectre456

    spectre456 New Member

    Joined:
    29 Dec 2007
    Posts:
    1,009
    Likes Received:
    42



    I haven't played Farcry ( the voice acting is too terrible for me to bare) but i have played and beaten Crysis over 3 times and Warhead 2 times.

    The alien bits at the end of the first Crysis were a great change (ice environments, new weapons, new foes etc) of pace compared to 3/4 of the game dealing with fighting Koreans. The aliens were a bit tedious to fight at times but i found it never got too terrible as i hear people drone on and on about. I'm pretty sure if Crytek left out the aliens then people would bitch about the game lacking variety and having samey enemies.
     
  20. soviet_

    soviet_ Bantros

    Joined:
    17 Dec 2008
    Posts:
    258
    Likes Received:
    14

Share This Page