Crysis 2 DirectX 11 patch is out, comparison inside

By Matthew
Jun 22, 2011
Post New Reply
  1. princeton

    princeton TechSpot Addict Posts: 1,716

    It looks inferior, end of story. The textures are half as large in both height and width. Which means they have 1/4 the pixels. Objects have less polygons, the shadows and foliage are substantially worse, the lighting is worse and the game employs an over the top amount of bloom.

    I thought it was a fun game to play the campaign in. It's definitely better than what passes for a game nowadays(think CoD and DNF) but it's certainly not as good of an experience as the first game. What many gamers enjoyed about the first game is that it was actually a really immersible experience. A lot of the time when I was younger I would notice little details and say to myself "How do they do that?" Stuff like POM where it makes textures look three dimensional or the lighting godrays, or the the slight spectrum of colors visible around objects when viewing them through water. It was more of a sight seeing tour than a shooter game, but I enjoyed it more than I've enjoyed many other shooter games since.

    Hope that clears up some of our "QQing" about the game. If you have any questions let me know.
  2. princeton

    princeton TechSpot Addict Posts: 1,716

    I think that's due to the bad multi gpu support the game had/has. Considering your two HD 6950 2GB's should be more powerful than a GTX 580 but you recieve substantially worse performance than it.

    Also I looked at the link and I'm not sure if you noticed but that benchmark is for a single HD 6950. Yes that specific card may require two to achieve higher than 60fps but other cards like the GTX 580 which also only have one gpu can achieve near 60fps at 1920x1200 and with some overclocking can meet/surpass 60fps, especially going from 1920x1200 to 1920x1080.
  3. I have been a PC gamer for a long time and over the 3-4 years it's the same BS from so many of you so called "hardcore" PC gamers.

    Whether it's Dragon Age 2, Civ 5, Crysis 1 (too hard on hardware - this game is unoptimized), Crysis 2 (console port, don't need a Tri-SLI GTX580 to max this out - Crytek sold out!), Mafia II, Cryostasis, Mirror's Edge (Oh PhysX won't run on AMD cards), Batman (oh AA won't work on AMD cards at release), SC2 (no AA support in the beginning, game will be split into 3 parts @ $60 each), Assassin's Creed II (DRM infested), HAWX 2 (optimized for NV's tessellation superiority) -- all I hear are just complaints and complains.

    Free high rez texture pack for Dragon Age 2 isn't good enough?
    Free DX11 and high-rez patch for Crysis 2 isn't good enough?
    Do you want $7.99 a month charge for "extra" features like in MW3 on the PC too?
    Games for $50-60 are too expensive? You still waiting for that $5 sale on Steam for a "AAA" title?

    No wonder PC game developers are jumping ship to consoles. It's so much work to cater to PC snobs which only make up 1/10th of the TOTAL gaming market. With this attitude, soon they'll forget about us altogether and stop making PC games with single player campaigns. All we'll get are WoW type of games and and endless supply of multiplayer only group team games like BF3.

    Developing games isn't a charity. It costs millions of dollars. Look how long it's taking Rage to be developed? We have seen how PC game developers get too caught up with making the best looking game and lose sight of deadlines (DNF). These people are in the business to make $$. If you aren't happy gaming at 2560x1600, using Eyefinity, using the superior keyboard and mouse setup, blasting away in UT2004 at 200 fps (despite your undying love for UT99), please stop your whining and just stop playing PC videogames altogether. You think these games are all console ports? Good, save $500 from not getting that GTX680 and get a PS4 or Xbox720 when they come out. The rest of us will enjoy superior controls and better graphics in our "console ports".

    You are worse than a bunch of 13 year old console kiddies. Honestly, based on the constant PC game bashing, you'd think nothing good has come out since Half Life 2 and Counter-Strike Force in 2004. Guess what, games like HL2 come out once every 10 years.

    If you think you can make a better game than Crysis 2, please go ahead. I'll give you $60 right now for my pre-order.
  4. did you not look at the chart? 38fps for ONE card. My framerate is fine with two cards which was my damn point. Do you even remember saying this game didnt warrant TWO cards? I just proved you wrong and you're talking about some crap that makes no sense.

    Do you usually start crap then try to talk crazy to try to get people to forget?
  5. princeton

    princeton TechSpot Addict Posts: 1,716

    Well you were actually making a very compelling argument until you said this.

    You do same/better is one of the the worst counter-arguments ever.

    No you didn't prove me wrong. You said it required two cards. But I pointed out the GTX 580 is one card and it can achieve 60fps, therefore it doesn't warrant two cards as a single GPU is available that can handle running the game at 60fps. Your argument also seems to be based around that a game must run at 60fps which is quite ridiculous considering many games on video game consoles run at less than that and nobody complains. So a single hd 6950 is running the game just fine maxed out. 30fps is the point where a sequence of images is perceived as fluent movement without motion blur. You seem to have decided to disregard part of my post.
  6. Princeton: The game doesn't look good enough to warrant using 2 GPUs :p

    Princeton a few moments later: Also I looked at the link and I'm not sure if you noticed but that benchmark is for a single HD 6950 (duh). Yes that specific card may require two to achieve higher than 60fps

    Cancel your account here.
  7. princeton

    princeton TechSpot Addict Posts: 1,716

    You're now arguing that the HD 6950 is the only card that matters when examining whether or not a game must use 2 gpus to run at 60fps on the highest settings.
  8. I bought crysis 2 at a discount of 20% in India and it costs me 18$ ( 800 INR) . But that is still way to high here. Crytek if you are concerned about piracy reduce the price of the game to the point where it actually tempt people to buy original.On Indian streets you can buy pirated game at 6$. On the other hand some original games sold for a price comparable to its pirated counterpart.example Half life : orange box. ( 11$ ) and GTA IV sold for only 10$ . Hence I bought these games because just by paying 4$ more I will get much more value.(pirated DVDs do not lasts long)
  9. Tamz

    Tamz Newcomer, in training

    Dragon Age 2 was a dumbed-down game aimed at consoles for making money. Crysis is NOT poorly optimized. Its more dependent on the GPU than the CPU. If it were unoptimized, it wouldn't run on a variety of hardware(just check YouTube and see for yourself). The other games you mention are BTW good games.

    In other words, if the game is good and worth playing, the technical issues surrounding it will be addressed gradually, and most people will not have any problems with that. An example? Take The Witcher 2. There are a host of issues of technical nature that surround it. But people still play it, because the game is great, even though the hardware requirements are quite high.The developers acknowledge these issues and are working on it. So what's the problem with that?

    As far as DRM is concerned, if it bothers you, just buy the game and get the crack( like I did for AC II). Nobody's stopping you from doing that.

    Its true that games cost too much these days, but I'm willing to accept that cost if the game is good enough. If the game makes me happy, then its fine. However if developers are half-hearted in making a game, not justifying the cost that goes into it, then they better be ready to face the heat.An example of this category being Dragon Age II. They cannot expect people to pay 60$ for a dumbed-down sequel, or for any other game whose core gameplay and graphics remain unchanged for 4 years like CoD.

    The problem with Crysis 2 is different. Its a watered-down sequel of a great game, and considering that CryTek's previous games were mainly aimed at PC gamers, its a slap in the face for them. Its at best an above average shooter, bearing no similarities to Crysis, aimed at console gamers with over-simplified controls and gameplay(with some aspects copied form other games, like the cover system from Killzone 2), linear levels and graphics nowhere close to the original. Moreover it still costs 60$ and now they're planning paid DLCs for it! If CryTek thinks that they will win over their main fan base with this patch, then they're very wrong. As someone said you cannot paint a rusty piece of machinery and pass it off as new and improved.

    The bottomline: AT THE END OF THE DAY, CRYSIS 2 IS A SEQUEL TO CRYSIS, AND IT WILL BE JUDGED ACCORDINGLY.
  10. I really never thought there was ever going to be a patch for dx11 support. Looks like i'll dust the game off after the patch for another run through. I bet anything though after the patch people will be on the net still crying it doesnt look good enough yet, or it now makes my pc slow lol.
  11. thanks princeton for taking my point
    I also unknowingly launching the game from crysis2.exe but now i will use launcher for autoupdate
     
  12. slamscaper

    slamscaper TechSpot Enthusiast Posts: 105   +10

    I'll admit that I'm interested to see the improvements this patch will bring as I've been thoroughly disappointed with the game up to this point.

    I just hope that I'll actually be able to patch my Steam version. I'm not sure how this is gonna play out being that Crysis 2 is no longer available via Steam.
  13. Can you run Crysis? will make sense again!!!!!!
  14. gwailo247

    gwailo247 TechSpot Chancellor Posts: 2,105   +18

    Cause the games are buggy. Its due to *****s who accept buggy games as the status quo and don't complain is what leads companies to keep putting buggy titles out. When all the customers have the same exact error when the game is released, what does that tell you? That the developers knew of the error and chose to not fix it.

    Would you buy a car in which there was a post it note saying that the AC will be delivered in a month or two?

    Games are released according to marketing schedules, not to when they're done. Not sure what "long time" means in your book, but it wasn't that long ago when games would just work out of the box. Its not as if these bugs are occurring in some random combination of obscure hardware. If they can make AA work on Nvidia cards, and are having issues with AMD cards, its ok just to let the game go gold?

    People have a right to complain and vent if they're upset, and there always is some ******* who comes in with his superior attitude of maturity. If everyone acted like a complaint sheep then games wouldn't even get patched. "Look at me, I'm so mature that I have to suck developer ****"
  15. T77

    T77 TechSpot Enthusiast Posts: 315

    Going by the GIF images I think DX11 tessallation,DX11 POM,SSR are worth it.They give the overall environment a more 3D feel.But,I feel the SSDO feature is pretty useless.What I see from the images is that it will only make the scene more darker(reduce the contrast).I can acheive that by just switching from the 'general' view to the 'game' view on my monitor.
  16. yRaz

    yRaz TechSpot Booster Posts: 852   +73

    Crysis 2 is a bad game because it represents everything that is going wrong with the PC gaming industry. Developers are not taking advantage of new hardware and at this point, with 360 and PS3 being out as long as they have, every game is just a remake with a slightly different story line. Enough time has gone by that it has all been done before and there is no one and no way to raise the bar. Games have reached a stand still as far as people going above and beyond what is possible. Crysis 1 went above and beyond what anyone had ever seen before.

    Crysis 2 was just more of the same, it didn't have the wide open areas to name one. The shaders are also a good bit over the top... I think Crysis 2 has been a big let down because a lot of gamers have a "special place in their heart" for Crysis. Everyone who knows anything about PC games (or has a decent graphics card) knows exactly what Crysis is and what it stands for. Crytek was one company that ALWAYS raised the bar and that's not what happened with the sequel. Crysis 1 was a "game changer." Everyone was expecting Crysis 2 to be a game that takes the industry in a new direction, to set a new standard for gaming. Crysis 1 not only had amazing and unique graphics, It had an entirely different style of gameplay.

    In a lot of ways Crysis 2 is a step backwards. No wide open areas, limited destructibility, and some uncomfortable controls. With that I'm going to leave on this, my favorite thing to do in Crysis. After I beat crysis 1 and did the second play through with unlimited ammo I would use explosives to blow up ALL the trees. Every map looked like a clearcut logging operation after I was done with it.
  17. dividebyzero

    dividebyzero trainee n00b Posts: 4,781   +638

    Not necessarily. What the Guest has said is that there a myriad of causes for broken/underperforming games in general-at least in this portion of the post.
    Cases in point:
    Saboteur: Did not work with any AMD card at launch. Cause: Either AMD forgot to contact Pandemic Studios prior to launch, or (more likely) the driver team forgot to profile the game.
    Batman:AA: No antialiasing for AMD cards. Cause: Eidos and Nvidia locked antialiasing to Nvidia cards to 1. optimise for Nvidia, 2. add a feature that Nvidia spent R&D developing (UE3.5 does not naturally support AA)
    Laying the blame at the feet of developers might be apropos in many cases. It does not exclude instances of driver team error/oversight, lacking hardware requirement, and shenanigans between the two main discrete graphics protagonists

    I'm pretty sure that qualifies as urban legend. Some of the most buggiest games in history weren't even released in the last ten years (Ultima IX:Ascension (1999), World War II Online/Battleground Europe (2001) andBattlezone II:Combat Commander (1999)...not to mention Hellgate:London, SimCity 4 etc.
    That kind of depends on degree of severity and how wide ranging the problem is. If a game works with Nvidia cards but not with AMD (or vise versa) and the issue is with the driver team then why have the game publishers twiddling their thumbs until the issue is sorted out? Likewise what if the graphics card manufacturer can't get their heads around a new OS ? Do you stop all game releases until such time as the vendor gets their **** sorted out?
    Yup. You get that right when you pay for a product that doesn't live up to it's advertising....unfortunately Crysis 2 at launch was everything it was expected to be- if you followed it's development (something I commented on a few times in the forums prior to launch). If however, you were unaware of how the game was (not) progressing, and it's continued delays- and just bought the game on PR hype and on the back of Crysis and Warhead then wail away. Personally I found the first game to be a very linear shooter with a Saturday morning matinee plot. Warhead lacked even that charm. Bringing Richard Morgan in as a big name SciFi author was never going to work miracles (Altered Carbon is a great book, his later efforts including Black Man, Broken Angels, Market Forces etc. are pretty derivative and one dimensional).
  18. IvanAwfulitch

    IvanAwfulitch TechSpot Enthusiast Posts: 239   +11

    Care to adjust some of those figures there, smarty pants? The true numbers say that the PC gaming market is actually closer to 62% of the total market. For every Wii, there are 4 PCs. For ever Xbox 360, there are 7 PCs. And for every PS3, there are 8 PCs. Developers would have to be out of their minds to jump the PC gaming ship for a market share that's nearly half that of the PC market.
  19. slamscaper

    slamscaper TechSpot Enthusiast Posts: 105   +10

    Yep, I did this as well. It's wicked fun... Did you know you can punch a tree into tiny little chunks as well? You have to be in strength mode and you also have to punch the tree repeatedly (can't remember exactly how many hits) before it will break.

    I love wreaking havoc with the drill press you can find in a hut on the first map. It's fun to toss it around in strength mode to destroy buildings and vehicles (even take down trees). The physics in the original Crysis can be very impressive. This is evident when you blow up a building and see every single piece of shrapnel react differently.
  20. Yes but it will. dx11 tessellation is absolutely gorgeous and will definitely enjoy having 2 (or more ;) ) gpu's to fallback on than one.

    pretty sick of you types acting like your so goddamn entitled.

    would really like to see you make something prettier. I finished cry2 on xbox and it was good fun, and crytek made the most of what they could squeeze out from the aging xbox and ps3 within the release deadline.


    take a slice of humble pie people.

    what a good portion of you dont seem to realise is that crytek engine 3 is the most sophisticated engine widely available for developers at this moment. and soon that technology (come august) will be available to the indie market.

    you seem so eager to knock down crytek with there 'too little too late' remarks, the engine is the big win here.
  21. Burty117

    Burty117 TechSpot Chancellor Posts: 2,470   +299

    Played it through the day it came out and thought the graphics where a bit of a let down and the game play was a definate let down, however, since i paid £35 for this, i guess i might as well go through it again with the new patches and high res textures, (only have a GTX260 so i doubt I'd be able to do that!)

    Kinda looking forward to this, even if it was supposed to be there from day one, better late than never.
  22. Princeton: "Well you were actually making a very compelling argument until you said this.

    You do same/better is one of the the worst counter-arguments ever."

    ^^^ You confused me with the other Guest. The performance argument is something you are discussing with another person in this thread.

    L.
  23. dividebyzero,

    "unfortunately Crysis 2 at launch was everything it was expected to be- if you followed it's development (something I commented on a few times in the forums prior to launch). "

    Exactly. From day 1, Crytek said they are making the game available on the PC and consoles. The fact that it was going to be based in New York clearly indicated that it will not be an open sandbox game like Crysis 1 was. Also, it was voiced on many occasions that Crysis 1 was too demanding on hardware so Crytek made sure that this game would run on a wider range of systems.

    The DX11 problems should have been a red flag if you heard the news that NV paid $2 million to Crytek to make sure it's "optimized" for DX11. At the time this likely foreshadowed that the DX11 patch will bring Tessellation (since NV would want its cards to perform better to increase sales).

    IvanAwfulitch,

    You are confusing available hardware on the market vs. sales of videogames. When I discuss the total gaming market I was referring to total game sales (because that's all developers care about). I am not going to dispute the ratio of PCs to consoles that you provided. However, how many of those PCs have capable graphics cards, and on top of that how many of those gamers actually go out and buy $60 games?

    Please go to VGChartz.com and check out some cross-platform games and see how well they sold on the PC. Look at Call of Duty games. Each game has sold 10+ Million copies. How many copies of Crysis 2 sold on the PC? Almost all cross-platform games sell far more copies on consoles than on the PC. So my point is not all developers are going to spend $5 million dollars extra so that you have DX11 features (since consoles can't run DX11 code). The Witcher 2 looks great, despite only being a DX9 game. Therefore, it's not even necessary to have DX11 features to have a great looking / fun game.

    L.
  24. You're now arguing that the HD 6950 is the only card that matters when examining whether or not a game must use 2 gpus to run at 60fps on the highest settings.


    It matters because that is what i have, yes. You quoted my comment saying the game didn't warrant 2 GPU's. That's a pretty general statement. All you had to do was ask what I had, before spouting off saying i said the 6950 was the only anything.

    You cancel your account yet?
  25. Burty117

    Burty117 TechSpot Chancellor Posts: 2,470   +299

    oooww stop crying already! just face the fact that the game runs at over 30fps at 1080P res on a single card OK!

    And Princeton was refering to the fact that the game graphics are pretty crap considering they were supposed to blow our minds yet a graphics card such as yours can run the game at full with ease.
    It doesn't deserve 2 GPU's because it was a let down of game!

    Sheesh!


Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.