I've been pretty impressed by C2! Performance wise I can't complain either. Smooth gameplay at 1920x1080 on med/high settings. Yeah, agree it probably doesn't have the depth of gameplay that C-W offered but still great fun!
I'm in the same boat as you, randomhero, believe me. But your mistake is being angry at Crytek and Crysis: the people who've let you down here are the graphics card manufacturer. As said above, it's their responsibility to make their drivers work properly with games. Games developers struggle to unimaginable extremes trying to get their stuff to work on every possible hardware combination, so I kinda feel sorry for them. Multi-GPU setups are just an added pain in their collective posterior, and I bet they're sick of having gamers shout at them for nVidia and AMD's mistakes. On a related note, has anyone else had SLI/Crossfire really mess up Bad Company 2? Actually I'mma make a thread about this, it needs one.
Considering the texture size is half that of Crysis/Warhead there's no reason why you would get less performance unless the game was a crap port like GTA4 was!
I see, I've probably been away from the gaming "scene" for too long as gaming on my laptop wasn't a option.
You played GTA4 recently?? Were on patch SEVEN now and really has changed quite a bit. It's now a 'good' port if anything.
Thankfully I waited until recently to get this booted up. Initial seizure inducing lighting thanks to playing on a 4870x2 but thankfully 11.4 had been released and sorted that out no problems. The game. Well, it is pretty but that's about it. It's another game, it's not another Crysis unfortunately. Hopefully this will be the tricky 'second album' and C3 will blow my socks off.
That was my initial thought watching gunsmith's video. It doesn't look objectively bad, but what it's doing is so familiar to FPS gamers that it's boring before it begins. Crysis was nice for doing something different, as well as doing it well. I suppose innovation is a hard thing to put across to your execs as being sound business planning, though, and sequels are more about money than ideas.
Sounds similar to the Matrix. The first was new, had great innovation with Bullet time etc, but then the 2nd and 3rd were rubbish. Lets hope Crysis isn't a repeat. Sam
I guess the question now then is what will Crysis 3 be? In space? Underwater? They've done cities and jungles... What bugged me was *SPOILER* getting to the end and only facing off against 4 cloaked bad guys throughout the entire game *SPOILER END*
and even then its in a ****ing ditch where as the original had you facing off something 4 times your size on a burning aircraft carrier in the middle of a raging storm. no really I've been scratching away at the surface of Crysis 2 hoping theres some meat under poor presentation and all I've found is a sign saying "go the other way, stupid"
I agree that it's overrated by most reviews (including - IMO - bit-tech's one). I've played it (didn't bother finishing it) and it's half-decent, but certainly nothing special nor something I'd recommend to be honest.
It is pretty, and I did enjoy it, but it isn't a great game by any stretch of the imagination; and the finale was very forgettable. Meh. Roll on Duke Nukem - it's due to be released early June now, isn't it?
I enjoyed it as a game on it's own, but when compared to it's predecessor I was deeply unimpressed. Granted it's been made much more accessible, which is great for letting everyone enjoy it, but part of the glory of Crysis 1 was the sense of achievement & pride you had in your rig when it could actually play it with 30+ fps at max settings after squeezing every last bit of juice from your pc. Thats just not there in Crysis 2. Good game, but I kinda expected more "oomph" from it.
Lol, I didn't even realise the final shoot out was the final shoot out until I'd blown the crap out of them and gone for, well, a warm tingly swim.
