Crysis 2 graphics analysis - shocking evidence of sequel's total failure on PC

Nice, that was a hilarious article thanks. :D

All jokes aside though, Crysis 2 is inferior in some way to Crysis graphically, but it's so negligable and the increased performance more than compensates for the minor loss in fedelity.

As far as shooters go, this is the best looking PC shooter since Crysis Warhead IMO.
 
Can someone please post the gist of the article......access blocked by evil corporate firewall :(
 
The point is not that the graphics are worse, it's that it could have been so much better considering today's hardware for PCs. But due to the age of current gen console hardware, games are restricted.The mere fact that there is almost nothing between the two highlights this point perfectly.
 
DenSweeP said:
The point is not that the graphics are worse, it's that it could have been so much better considering today's hardware for PCs. But due to the age of current gen console hardware, games are restricted.The mere fact that there is almost nothing between the two highlights this point perfectly.
Click to expand...

Really? Really?

I mean, really?

Have you looked at Crysis 2? The graphics are fucking incredible, even on console. How much better could they possibly be, without Crytek remaking the entire game as a live action feature?
 
Azimuth said:
How much better could they possibly be, without Crytek remaking the entire game as a live action feature?
Click to expand...

Guess we'll never know as long as console hardware is the limiting factor. Just look at the clips for the upcoming BF3, which is, supposedly anyway, being developed as PC game.
 
Honestly, I think more people should get over the fact that the game currently supports only DX9, and look at it instead.

As far as I'm concerned, entitlement attitudes and elitist platform snobbery are the only limiting factors here.
 
I'm yet to see C2 first-hand... waiting on my delivery...

From what I've seen, yes sure.
The graphics aren't that high.

I expected this, being that it's also being ported to consoles.

But in that department alone, C2 looks amazing (like I said, only screenshot judgement atm).

Kinda sad that they slouched on DX, but I'm sure it won't ruin the game.


Anyway, nice find Tarryn.
[so sad that it's actual point is lost on so many]
 
DenSweeP said:
The point is not that the graphics are worse, it's that it could have been so much better considering today's hardware for PCs. But due to the age of current gen console hardware, games are restricted.The mere fact that there is almost nothing between the two highlights this point perfectly.
Click to expand...
What ................. this game is amazing in detail there were points i just stopped to look around , compared to anything else this game is f*%ing beautiful i cant see how they can do much better ... the only reason I can think of that anyone would complain is that they arnt running this to its absolute or even 90% true potential , on my rig damn its great .
 
I didn't mean that the graphics are bad. I just feel that if they had included DX11 support, it could have been better. I have nothing against consoles or PCs. I just wish that developers would rather make a game to the highest ability and then scale it down accordingly to a platforms ability. Is that too much to ask?
 
Crysis 1 may have had the proverbial "graphical edge" but it's game play sucked, imo. Crysis 2 looks fantastic, runs on almost anything and the gameplay has been massively improved. All the shiny graphics in the world won't save a game with bad mechanics, but a game with great mechanics can be forgiven for not looking as great.
 
I think the point that a lot of people are trying to make here is - if it's really a great game, why the hell are you making a fuss about a perceived difference in graphics? I'm sure the game will look even better in DX10/11 - but are you honestly going to be paying attention to the pretty effects and shadows and stuff when the sh*t hits the fan.

(Ooh ... look, that little drop of blood that just whizzed past my face had reflections on it!!!)

I think not.

When you're in any FPS, you're there to kill things and sneak around, not check out the scenery. That gets a glance at the beginning of the game ... a wow if it's epic ... and then it's down to business, killing bad-asses and being generally more bad-ass than they are.

It's like the whole 3D fuss that started with Avatar - I thought the movie was utter bland, predictable crap (apparently I'm in the minority here) and my comments were dismissed because I didn't *gasp* watch the movie in 3D. Call me cynical if you like, but I don't think awesome visuals would have made the story any better. Unless maybe the point was to distract you from all the glaring plot-holes.

I'd like to quote Einstein: "A man who can concentrate on driving while kissing a girl is clearly not giving the kiss the attention it deserves." Same principle applies, really.
 
DenSweeP said:
I didn't mean that the graphics are bad. I just feel that if they had included DX11 support, it could have been better. I have nothing against consoles or PCs. I just wish that developers would rather make a game to the highest ability and then scale it down accordingly to a platforms ability. Is that too much to ask?
Click to expand...

As far as I know, that is what they did. Each instance of the game was developed independently....? Was it not?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top