Did Crytech deliberately gimp the PC version of Crysis 2 , by withholding the rumored maximum extreme setting from the PC version?
Typo Crytech should be Crytek
LOL this is just 2 funny. Do people really expect Crytek to add an extra detail setting via a patch? I can understand DX11 but the extra detail setting should have been available from the start. Looks like PC owners are just ticked that the game doesnt look as good as they were expecting it 2. From what i have seen it looks much better on the PC than the 360 and PS3 versions so i dont know what the fuss is all about.
The fuss is that Crysis 1 looks better. Why does a sequel with newer and way more powerful hardware to work on look worse than the first one? Even though it was promised the Pc version wouldn't take a hit due to consoles? Look I don't care personally but I can see where they're coming from.
Theres some parts of Crysis 1 that look worse than the second. Like for example the character models were horrid in the first one. I mean seriously the game looks and plays great on the PC so they should be happy for that.
The mods in crysis 1 look better than crysis 2 but the actual game crysis 1 does not look better.
wait are we saying it looks worse as in like omg it looks horribley worse than the first one or are we talking like console fanboy of recent multiplat games of hahaha your missing a shadow right here so my gme is better
Well the main thing from dx11 is displacement maps. If there were no displacement maps generated while the game was being created there really is no reason to use dx11. Also from the Kotaku video yesterday, the game is already almost photorealistic... Personally, I think C2 does look better than C1, they have chosen a better more realistic color gamut.
DX11 is about tessellation, not displacement maps. Displacement maps (parrallax mapping) was in Crysis 1. Even Splinter cell Chaos Theory on Xbox and PC used displacement maps.
I think PC owners are mainly annoyed at the lack of configuration options when the game was released, well that's partly why i'm annoyed in any case. The DX11 implementation is a minor annoyance personally. I think the game looks ok, but not as good as I was expecting, not as big a leap as Crysis was, and not as impressive as say Metro is right now. When going through some of the interior parts of the game, especially the sewers and subways, it looks like there have been definite shortcuts made. There's huge room for improvement in my books. I'm not playing the game any more until certain issues get resolved (although to be fair not all the problems are things that Crytek can fix, like the flickering crossfire issue).
This game would've looked much better if Crytek hadn't of had to dumb it down to fit in a certain console's tiny 256 meg of video RAM. Yeah, yeah it's got 512 meg TOTAL but only 256 for video. If they'd been solely developing for PC and a certain console that has an advanced UNIFIED RAM architecture it'd been much better. But when you have to program for the lowest common denominator (256 video RAM) it's tough. Over all I think that Crytek pulled off a technical feat with this game but at the same time it's true that the PC and xbox could've been much better had it not been for trying not to make such a difference in the graphics on a certain 256 video ram limited console with bottle necked GPU.
Imagine Uncharted 2 looking better than Uncharted 3!! & stripping away new tech to use older tech in the new version! That's what the fuss is about! From dx 10 to dx9 is a fail!
That would just be dx11. its not ready yet, honestly.im glad they didnt delay for dx11.
Microsoft paid off Crytek to delay the full amazingness of the PC Crysis 2 vs xbox
I'd rather they fixed the game first before they bother with DX11. But in the end, it should have been there from the start.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.