Crysis 2 announced, is multiformat

Sweeet. Now just be a little less buggy than last time please!

I just hope that it will look as good or even better than the original one.

The PC version better not be a crappy console port.

I just hope they don't ditch PC altogether.

Agreed am looking forward to this and more relieved to know that the PC reqs won't be higher than Crysis. Massively enjoyed the first one. After all if it can run on the 360 and PS3 then it should scale up to the PC no problem.

Cryengine 3 should be similar to Unreal Engine 3 in PC hardware requirements. We thats the hope anyway :shrugs:

Honestly, this being multiformat isn't surprising. As for Crytek being dismayed by the piracy of Crysis... there is no point opening that can of worms again.

I just hope the PC version doesn't have online activation. Note how well that didn't work for Spore?

oh god NO NOT MULTI FORMAT!

Originally Posted by quack
The PC version better not be a crappy console port.

Name me a single multi-platform game where the PC version was substantially superior to the console versions.

I really do hope Crytek buck this trend, but it seems to be an unfortunate fact of life given the consoles' lack of graphical horsepower :(

Originally Posted by smc8788


I really do hope Crytek buck this trend, but it seems to be an unfortunate fact of life given the consoles' lack of graphical horsepower :(

graphical horsepower has nothing to do with it, im more scared that its going to end up like fear 2, BIG SILLY INTERFACE, poor level design and the fact it treats you like an idiots, crysis was a sandbox game and who cant forget the lol that was farcry 2?

this is a sad day for real pc gaming :(

Well it has something to do with it from a technical standpoint, although this might be a positive if people will stop speccing up rigs just so they can play Crysis on very high @ 100 FPS.

But yes, as you say, many a console game is overly simplified compared to the some of the better PC games. Don't forget, though, that there have been plenty of terrible PC games over the years, and plenty of outstanding console games. This depends on the developer rather than what format it is released on, whereas how good the game is graphically will depend on what hardware is available (or in the case of Crysis, not available).

Unfortuneately this is the way things are going now, not just because of piracy, but because of the consoles' popularity now that many once-PC gamers are moving over due to the high costs of upgrades involved.

And the console wins again.

Originally Posted by smc8788
Name me a single multi-platform game where the PC version was substantially superior to the console versions.

Does the original Deus Ex count? :D (I know, I know, the PC version was the first one, the console versions were just dumbed-down nonsense... ;))

The PC conversion of Devil May Cry 4 wasn't half bad, either, really. A lot better port than I was expecting. Oblivion on the PC is superior for one reason only: the ability have mods.

Oh God, time for another upgrade :/

I will be interested to see the piracy numbers of the console versions compared to the PC version. Maybe after seeing how close they are likely to be, they might STFU.

lol crysis 2 multi-format , what ajoke.

low-mid range PC will be required to view all the crap graphics.

if the engine is designed with consoles in mind PC version is screwed and will be dumbed down massively (both playability and graphics)

EPIC FAIL = crysis 2

Multiplatform? Good, at least the developers will tone down on the graphics whoring and concentrate on making a better game instead.

How about next time they acctually make a good game theres only so far you can go with ooo doesn't that look nice.

boo multiport. The CE3 was designed mainly in min of consoles with their processing power so you can take a guess as to what this game is mostly geared towards :|

Are they gonna set the specs as quad core and 4 gpus and 32Gb of ram..? minimum ?
Like we'll be able to play it by 2020...?

Would probably get this for ps3 as its my best bit of hardware .. can zee germans pull off the multithreaded goodness?

Originally Posted by Gunsmith
who cant forget the lol that was farcry 2?

What was wrong with Far Cry 2? I much preferred it to the original. It had a more interesting environment (Africa, as well as the open world thing), better weapons, a better story, and you could burn an entire village to the ground! What's not to like?

Originally Posted by smc8788

Quote:

Originally Posted by quack
The PC version better not be a crappy console port.

Name me a single multi-platform game where the PC version was substantially superior to the console versions.

Deus Ex. Thief 3. No One Lives Forever. Red Alert 3. The ENTIRE Orange Box. I could go on....

Originally Posted by pimlicosound

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gunsmith
who cant forget the lol that was farcry 2?

What was wrong with Far Cry 2? I much preferred it to the original. It had a more interesting environment (Africa, as well as the open world thing), better weapons, a better story, and you could burn an entire village to the ground! What's not to like?

FarCry 2 wasn't even made by Crytek, why are you bringing it up?

As long as the engine can scale then all will be fine.... 720p on the console (internally rendered at 576p or whatever, then upscaled) whilst PC users can play with arguably better controls (mouse/keyboard.. and I did say arguably), plus resolutions of 1920x1200 if you have a half decent PC.

PC's vs Consoles...blah blah... its just the have's vs the have nots. No reason to begrudge either camp really. Not everyone can afford a decent PC, and not everyone wants to play their games sat at a desk in front of a monitor.

Both worlds win.... as long as Crytek actually deliver a version of this game for the PC which can scale..... graphically atleast, if gameplay remains the same.

Originally Posted by tejas
Agreed am looking forward to this and more relieved to know that the PC reqs won't be higher than Crysis. Massively enjoyed the first one. After all if it can run on the 360 and PS3 then it should scale up to the PC no problem.

GTA IV ? :D

Originally Posted by DragunovHUN
FarCry 2 wasn't even made by Crytek, why are you bringing it up?

Because I'm a rabid Far Cry 2 evangelist! It's underrated, in my book.

Here is the thing. Crysis is a dream game to play on the PC. The controls are divine, the pacing is such that the game is never too fast or to slow, for too long, it requires a certain level of intelligence and maturity to really get your head around (the gameplay, not the story; it's not a Call of Duty theme park ride), and it has as many options as you could dream of: config files, a huge list of console commands, graphics, audio and control options everywhere, perfect widescreen support that will scale to every resolution and monitor configuration available (even non-standard ones), and one of the best, full-featured editors to ever ship with a game (the exact same one they used to make it, in fact, right down to the typos in documentation, buggy half-finished scripting options, etc.).

The point is, Crytek is a PC gaming company through and through. They gave the PC community one hell of a game - even if you don't love it for its gameplay, story, etc. you have to admire their dedication towards providing a feature-rich package that truly did push the graphical boundaries in an age of increasingly stagnant, simplified, non-mod-friendly console ports. They wouldn't have done that if they didn't know their audience and if it didn't matter to them, and I doubt that will go by the wayside.

My real fear? Crysis 2 turning into a huge event for Microsoft at their E3 presentation... but on the Xbox instead of the PC. I called it, guys. It's gonna happen.

Originally Posted by lewchenko
As long as the engine can scale then all will be fine.... 720p on the console (internally rendered at 576p or whatever, then upscaled) whilst PC users can play with arguably better controls (mouse/keyboard.. and I did say arguably), plus resolutions of 1920x1200 if you have a half decent PC.

But it's not just about resolution...if the game is made with the hardware limitations of the console in mind then all manner of visual effects will have to be left out because of their limitied power....these can't simply be "put in" for the PC version as the engine was not be designed to accomodate them....so just turning up the resolution on the PC version of a ported game will only ever be a poor relation of a game designed for the PC exclusively.

I can see it now... Start up screen for Crysis 2 on my PC... Press 'A' (green) button to start.

Fail :-(

Bob

Originally Posted by Gunsmith
graphical horsepower has nothing to do with it, im more scared that its going to end up like fear 2, BIG SILLY INTERFACE, poor level design and the fact it treats you like an idiots, crysis was a sandbox game and who cant forget the lol that was farcry 2?

this is a sad day for real pc gaming :(

What he said. ^

Ooh, do let's have a console port!

- All sniper rifles laser-accurate out to the horizon
- Bad guys respawn in the time it takes to clear your throat
- Level design makes everyone a mime artist with liberal distribution of the Invisible Wall Mark One

Go here. Point gun. Press Button A. Do Not Pass Go. Do Not Collect 200 Microsoft Points.

Does this remind anyone of a certain Crytek-related sequel of our recent acquaintance?

This is bad news...... B A D !!

Any word on what the lead platform will be?

Please be PC... please be PC..... pleeeeeaaaase!!!

1st sequel to look worse than its predecessor? :P

^ It sure as hell has the potential!

Originally Posted by pimlicosound

Quote:

Originally Posted by DragunovHUN
FarCry 2 wasn't even made by Crytek, why are you bringing it up?

Because I'm a rabid Far Cry 2 evangelist! It's underrated, in my book.

It's not underrated, it's crap.

Agreed. It was fun at first, but is actually far linear than you are lead to believe. And the ****ing checkpoints! Who's brilliant idea was that?

It is also no where near as destructible as it looks.

Originally Posted by Skiddywinks
Agreed. It was fun at first, but is actually far linear than you are lead to believe. And the ****ing checkpoints! Who's brilliant idea was that?

It is also no where near as destructible as it looks.

Crysis was FAR more linear than FC2. In Crysis, you couldn't always choose your mission, you couldn't choose who to deal with, you couldn't just go where you wanted without getting shot by the helicopter of death that stands in for the Invisible Wall. In FC2, the game progresses how and when you want it to, with no arbitrary limitations other than the edges of the map. There are only a handful of moments when the game funnels you along a path, for maybe 3 or 4 plot-essential missions.

Then there are the other things to do, like assassinations and attacking arms convoys. It felt like a much more realistic environment too, with a whole ecosystem of wildlife and proper weather. All in all, it felt much more like a proper sandbox game than Crysis, which felt like a regular FPS but with large maps.

I didn't care that the checkpoints in FC2 refilled themselves in 5 minutes. It just gave me more things to enjoy shooting the heck out of while barrelling around the map in an assault jeep.

Linear is not the word i would use for FC2, i think tedious grind is more appropriate. Everything feels like it's just there to stretch gameplay hours, instead of entertaining the player.

Originally Posted by pimlicosound

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skiddywinks
Agreed. It was fun at first, but is actually far linear than you are lead to believe. And the ****ing checkpoints! Who's brilliant idea was that?

It is also no where near as destructible as it looks.

Crysis was FAR more linear than FC2. In Crysis, you couldn't always choose your mission, you couldn't choose who to deal with, you couldn't just go where you wanted without getting shot by the helicopter of death that stands in for the Invisible Wall. In FC2, the game progresses how and when you want it to, with no arbitrary limitations other than the edges of the map. There are only a handful of moments when the game funnels you along a path, for maybe 3 or 4 plot-essential missions.

Then there are the other things to do, like assassinations and attacking arms convoys. It felt like a much more realistic environment too, with a whole ecosystem of wildlife and proper weather. All in all, it felt much more like a proper sandbox game than Crysis, which felt like a regular FPS but with large maps.

I didn't care that the checkpoints in FC2 refilled themselves in 5 minutes. It just gave me more things to enjoy shooting the heck out of while barrelling around the map in an assault jeep.

I see your arguments, and maybe think that I should rethink my wording. Technically, Crysis is obviously less open than FC2, but when playing it, FC2 feels more linear. Sure, you can choose which missions to do, but at the end of the day, you are still driving across incredibly boring landscapes (after the first hour or two at least), constantly getting harassed by checkpoints that you cleared out 15 times already, and IIRC you ALWAYS end up needing to shoot something, regardless of which mission. You might be shooting something different, but you are still only shooting. Take, for example, the missions you complete to unlock more guns. Sure, you have a choice of how to destroy the convoy, but at the end of the day, AK47s will be fired, things blow up, people die, and you have to do the exact same thing again to unlock the next weapons. It may not be linear in the typical sense of the word, but I definitely would not call it "free". And while there may be a wide choice of missions, each type of mission is a copy and paste affair in a different location with a different person. It all feels very Assassin's Creed.

The helicopter in Crysis is easy to take out with the correct weapons, aiming and tactics, so is hardly an "invisible wall" in copter form. You can't choose your mission in Crysis, but in my eyes that is an advantage. Crysis felt far more fluid and immersive, whereas in FC2 I felt like absolutely nothing I did changed anything. The same can be said for Crysis, but Crysis wasn't aiming for a big open world. It is to be expected in FC2, but it doesn't matter who or how many you kill, or what you blow up, burn down or clear out, since it has no effect. Checkpoints respawn full of enemies, and life goes on just as it did when you first started playing. You say it feels more realistic, and I would agree if it had been pulled off. But the fact of the matter is that if you have no effect on this "realistic" world, then it really isn't realistic at all.

Basically, what I am trying to say, is that Crysis did what it set out to do much better than what FC2 achieved. And if that wasn't enough, Crysis was just more fun for me. And that's all that matters really. I don't care how open the FC2 world looks, since in practice it just really isn't enjoyable to play.

Nice, pity about multi platform though :(

Originally Posted by smc8788
Name me a single multi-platform game where the PC version was substantially superior to the console versions.

Devil May Cry 4.

Advent Rising.

Just sayin, they do exist.

Wow another chance to sell a million+ copies of a game and still announce that PC gaming is 'dead'?

I should add I have a grudging admiration for what FC2 tried to do, I'm just frustrated by the fact that it was so obviously hamstrung by the needs of the consoles. Can't make it too difficult for the little kiddies, can we? To wit, there was no reason to get the .50 cal sniper rifle, because, versus human targets, it was no more or less accurate or lethal than the dart gun - even at a mile's range. To wit, your elaborately-planned super-stealthy approach to the task at hand is frustrated by your inability to climb comparatively gentle slopes to the sniper's nest-o-doom. Because of an invisible wall. In a game you were promised was open. Bad developer. Bad!

The fact that the environment was so good just made it more frustrating that the whole thing had been consoled-down for screaming, seven-year-old brats named Jake whose hot-faced shrieking is the only way they know how to respond to the discovery that they can't dart gun people at more than a couple of hundred yards' range.

This is the sort of drivel I can do without. Games for grownups, people.

Crysis 2 is coming..... That all matters

After that I cannot understand what's the point of DX11 or DX10 for the same matter, while all the games are ported from consoles with current generation trying very hard to get DX9c quality working!

Bit-Tech seem to have missed something.

http://ve3d.ign.com/articles/news/47558/Crysis-2-Announced

Loads more details on there.

Mycrysis disscusion here.

http://www.mycrysis.com/thread.php?threadid=41709&threadview=0&hilight=&hilightuser=0&page=1

lol I still need to find time to finish Crysis so I can move to the next before I can move to Crysis 2

Will there be a Wii version? :p

just when i was thinking that amd and nvidia had fast enough cards (the upcoming GTX300 series and Radeon 5000 series) to beat crysis at 2560 x 1600 8xAA 16xAA this comes along

I am looking forward to this and my new 5870x2 !!!

Originally Posted by Star*Dagger
I am looking forward to this and my new 5870x2 !!!

exactly, if you want the best experience, go for the PC version, as always.

examples of PC games that are superior than crapsole:
-GTA 4
-Halo 1
-Fallout 3
-and of course all Source engine games.

btw when you buy a console, you have to PAY for FREE updates, just ask valve, microsoft and sony said they had to sell updates not give them out free like valve does with Team Fortress 2

and you also got that consoles are not cheaper than PC gaming, why? console games cost more than pc games, so it adds up to be same cost ;)

"Name me a single multi-platform game where the PC version was substantially superior to the console versions. "

Any First Person Shooter game that has mouse and keyboard controls! :(

I didn't hate FC2, I hated the concept and the advertising that it was "realisitic" but everything about it made no sense.

Still best on PC.

If they make it "look at my ass for 5 levels" third person. I will personal destroy all consoles I see in my surrounding. I will be like a Terminator only this time its the horror version of a T-1000...

Although CryTek have written arguably the most advanced game engines (iD Tech engines are also impressive) IMO that's the only thing they're good at doing. Their games lack depth and are only worth playing if you can afford a nice PC that can run the game decently on maximum settings. That's why nobody wanted to shell out ~$50 for a game that wasn't guaranteed to run great on their machine. So I don't think the PC gaming community will lose a lot if CryTek switched to console exclusive development.

Originally Posted by wuyanxu

Quote:

Originally Posted by Star*Dagger
I am looking forward to this and my new 5870x2 !!!

exactly, if you want the best experience, go for the PC version, as always.

examples of PC games that are superior than crapsole:
-GTA 4
-Halo 1
-Fallout 3
-and of course all Source engine games.

GTA4 and Halo? Really? GTA4 was a slow, buggy mess, and Halo was, well, about 3 years late. If it didn't run any better by then, there'd be something terribly wrong.

Originally Posted by pimlicosound
GTA4 and Halo? Really? GTA4 was a slow, buggy mess, and Halo was, well, about 3 years late. If it didn't run any better by then, there'd be something terribly wrong.

GTA4 is only said to be slow because those who whine are those who get noticed. apart from crappy Games for Windows Live system (which should be blamed), it's a brilliant port, especially after 1.1.2 patch. even in its original release state, it's not buggy at all.

i only put Halo 1 in because Halo 2 was such a mess, the FOV and not centred crosshair is only good for consoles only.

After playing games in my PC for the last 20 years I finally decided to convert my faith to console. The upgrades are just too fast for my wallet and will. And you know what? I don't regret it a bit.

I have the same fun and the same gaming experience playing COD4 and GRAW2 in console as with my PC (and the smooth action took my attention from the slighty less screen resolution). I even don't have to think about the hassles of frame rates, drivers, or any hardware/software conflicts. Of course the controls need some adjusting and keyboard+mouse combo is still the best, but as long as I can still make a headshot, I'm a happy man.

Piracy is also an understandable reason for CryTek. I'm from a country where 80% of PC sotware used are pirated copies. So it's better for them to sell games for console (PS3 especially) that is still free from this crime.

on FPS games Mouse > Joypad.
Fact!

Originally Posted by technogiant
But it's not just about resolution...if the game is made with the hardware limitations of the console in mind then all manner of visual effects will have to be left out because of their limitied power....these can't simply be "put in" for the PC version as the engine was not be designed to accomodate them....so just turning up the resolution on the PC version of a ported game will only ever be a poor relation of a game designed for the PC exclusively.

depends, hopefully what they've done in cryengine 3 is take cryengine 2 and add/modify so that it will work well on consoles too
thus the nice shiny bits from CE2 that were build for PC will still be there
i hope :(

Originally Posted by wuyanxu
GTA4 is .. a brilliant port

lmao, funny guy :D

Originally Posted by smc8788
Name me a single multi-platform game where the PC version was substantially superior to the console versions.

I really do hope Crytek buck this trend, but it seems to be an unfortunate fact of life given the consoles' lack of graphical horsepower :(

Mirrors Edge!