crysis 2

hi guyz its been a while since ive visited these forums....i'll get straight to the point: any info on the system requirements for the new crysis game? is there a thread dedicated to it? cuz ive searched the forums and came up with nothing??? well thanks

 

if i rember correctly there was a press realses that said if you can run Crysis warhead then youll be able to run crysis 2

 

I heard that it will actually run better than crysis and crysis warhead because of cryengine 3.0 being better in some way, but I don't think it will look much better visually than crysis on the same graphics level. I sure am excited for it! I loved the first 2 crysis's so this one should be equal and better! looks like they're adding some cool things like the suit customization I don't know much about but seems great.

 

it should be better, crysis 2 is also available in consoles so that's a good head start, it is really interesting how cryengine 3 looks and you are using a heavy pc.

 

i got an email about 2 months ago signing me up to the beta but not heard anything since. they had better hurry up as its released in march unless the date has changed again.

 

I will buy your key for

• 1 internet hug
• nothing else

 

Because it is being dumb downed for the console so does the requirement

 

is it being made on PC then ported to console or vice versa?

 

From videos I have seen of pc, I have doubts that it is the same on console, so I would assume that it is just being lowered graphics a ton for console.

 

^^ Thats why I love being a PC gamer.

 

I hope crytek would know better than to develop it for console then port it to PC, iirc the cryengine 3 development environment work with all three or something like that so you get a propper non-ported version on every system.

 

sorry but its already going to someone else.

unless you can come up with more than a measely hug

 

My impression is that it doesn't need to be ported to PC. The CryEngine 3 has already been nerfed so it can run on consoles. There are certain features that just look better and are better in CryEngine 2. For PC they may do the same thing as 4A Games did for Metro 2033. Add junk that don't make any difference but difficult to run just to say this is PC version. But for lighting, shadowing, physics, motion blur, etc, seems CryEngine 2 is better. The things that actually matter.

They keep saying fidelity never seen before. Maybe on consoles. But all the trailers etc I've seen so far, personally think pales in comparison to what I've seen on Warhead. When you go invisible in Warhead, it just looks better. In Crysis 2 what they have shown it looks clear plasticky. Actually everything has that shine plastic look to it from lower quality games. Crysis and Crysis Warhead were great because objects looked realistic and the lighting was realistic. Not the crappy lighting you see in 99% of games where lighting just makes everything reflect like polished plastic.

Also the 3D they boast about is even more fake 3D. Which I think is hilarious. It's a 2D to 3D conversion and it's not a full effect, using an algorithm to fill in gaps. It is completely post-processing. So the boast of little performance impact is utter BS. It's the same crap we hear from Nvidia and AMD saying oh you can now do this with little performance impact. But we see Ambient Occlusion, lighting, shadowing, any high depth shader effects, etc have massive performance hit. And post processing like MLAA does also.

Here is a post that goes in depth of what 3D cheat Crysis 2 will use, not impressive after you read it, it's like hyping the hype: http://imagequalitymatters.blogspot.com/2010/07/tech-report-3d-behind-crysis-2.html

 

Can't wait for Crysis 2! Better graphics and better gameplay. What more could you want?

 

Crysis 2 looks terrible on consoles vs the PC, I saw video's of Cryengine running on the PC, PS3, 360, and it goes in that order of graphic quality aswell. Cant wait for the game though, its been too long since I've played Crysis .

 

Id be quicker to assume what the other poster above said about things being dumbed down to console quality. The money is on the consoles for sure, and to say they've made their engine more console friendly means they've put more work into their DX9 support than dx10 or 11. Now im not saying the pc version won't look better because it will.... slightly. Resolution is always better on pcs most console games are locked to something lower than 720 mosts times, then is expanded into 720 or 1080p, while the pcs will render in that resolution selected. Still will be one of those games you buy on pc rather than consoles, and that actually depends on if you have more friends who will play online on consoles. The differences in the end will make most people say the pc version isnt worth buying new hardware for.

 

Thats ok, I was kind of messing with you as I know nobody would trade the awesomeness of crysis 2 beta key for a mere internet hug...

 

<param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/CbtcH1lXHmE?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/CbtcH1lXHmE?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width='640' height="390"></object>

 

Is the game seriously another Urban Warfare shooter? I guess we can kiss the sandbox goodbye. You're biggest decision will be which side of the road to walk down. No wonder this game will run on consoles, there is almost nothing difficult to render. They did a good job drawing that flaming car though.

And we kiss another wonderful PC only franchise goodbye...

 

Crysis 2 Minimum System Requirements

* Intel Core 2 Duo or AMD Athlon 64 X2 2GHz or better
* Nvidia 8800 GT or higher
* 2 GB RAM
* Windows XP/Vista/7
* 9 GB free hard disk space
* Internet connection

Source

 

That's actually exactly what's happening. An article I read in either PC Gamer or Game Informer a while back mentioned that Crysis 2 on consoles has the visual quality of Crysis or Crysis Warhead on "medium" settings on PC. The PC version should be even more attractive than Crysis/CW was, as CryEngine 3.0 is even more optimized.

Kind've like how Crysis Warhead ran better than Crysis did.

 

The 2.26 (before I upgraded it) Core2 and GeForce 9800m GS 512MB with 4GB RAM (from mid to late 2008) runs Crysis and Crysis Warhead on medium-high pretty well, actually. I'm hoping the M15x I have in production will handle Crysis 2 at least somewhat well.

 

CryEngine 3.0 support DX9 so I think notebooks going to be fine.

 

At CES we had reports of Crysis 2 running on a M17x R3 which is a single card machine (460m GTX) it was also running in 3d which as we all know cuts frame rate into half. Apparently it was running fluid so it seems that it is reasonably optimised.

 

^^Maybe you ran it on Intel graphics.
It was the first crysis which was resource hungry.
Warhead was preety much optimized and playable than the first one.
Looks like I will be missing humans in this second installment.

 

The first Crysis was resource hungry, but we also forget it came out over three years ago. It's still a commendably tough game to run, but you don't need a supercomputer to do it.

 

They're using a botched 3D poser which basically just analyses a single image (like how they transform old films to 3D), supposedly it looks almost as good as the real thing but only has something like 2% performance loss.

 

Was it ever a sandbox in the first place?

 

I'm with you, I would not call it a sandbox.

 

Then what term would you like to use given the fact that every other FPS out there is a corridor shooter?

I'm not sure how experienced you guys are with this game, or with the FPS genre, but Crysis was the only shooter where you could approach objectives from 360* and had MILES of room and terrain to do it from. Compared to every other shooter where you have only a few yard in either direction.

 

It was partially a sandbox, you couldn't go anywhere on the island as soon as you started.

 

It wasn't a true sandbox, but the game still let you approach objectives and deal with enemies however you wanted to. Was definitely funner, than most of today's corridor shooters.

You could flank and sneak around without firing a single shot or burst in a blaze of glory rambo style.

 

Maybe I was playing it wrong but I always felt like I could not roam freely, there was always somewhere I had to go. And at some parts it even felt like I was in a corridor (in the mine area or whatever it was, underwater with those aliens, places like that).

And everytime you get to a boss you get stuck, can't just walk away from him.

The maps were big, but it didn't really feel like a sandbox to me.

It really seemed like linear gameplay, everyone had to do the objectives in the same order.

But yeah, I guess I can agree that it was a partial sandbox.

 

Agreed!

But, still, some of my xBox fanboyfriends says it is 'awsum' grapichs and xBox version is much better etc. etc.

I love when we can enjoy the beautiful grapichs on very high, while they have to play it on medium/low compared to us

 

In regards to the whole sandbox thing - Far Cry (1 and 2) and Crysis have been somewhat of a tropical island sandbox-y deal.... until 1/3 of the way through the game when crazed monkeys/aliens attack you, anyway, and ruin it.

 

If you can run the previous game well in your PC you might play it well again too. They're using the same engine. I saw your specs and it will run smoothly, if not, lowering your AA and some details will still give you a good graphics.

 

CRYSIS 2 MINIMUM SPECS: Courtesy of DigitalBattle.com
• OS: XP/Vista/Windows 7
• CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo at 2Ghz, AMD Athlon 64 x2 2Ghz or better
• 2 GB RAM
• 9 GB hard drive space
• DVD ROM: 8x
• NVidia 8800GT 512Mb RAM, ATI 3850HD 512Mb RAM graphics card
• DirectX 9.0c-compatible audio controller
• Keyboard, mouse, or Microsoft Xbox 360 controller for Windows
• Internet connection for activation and online mutiplayer

Not only is it Optimized but it can run in both 2D and 3D! I run Crysis like a dream =P I will murder this game when it gets here, =D Why didn't we get the demo first? ={

 

Optimized? Well, I wouldn't say that as these are the minimum requirements and not the recommended ones. Crysis had a lower minimum requirements. Considering the fact that it is being released on the consoles, the minimum requirements shouldn't have changed much at all. Unless of course it turns out to be a really poor console port. Which is what is implied looking at the minimum requirements.

 

The Crysis DEMO/BETA on the Xbox 360 did not impress me. However, I will wait for the PC demo and/or reviews before I make my final purchasing decision.

Even at 1080P, the Crysis 2 graphics sucked on the Xbox, I only hope they're up to par or better than the original Crysis on the PC. Otherwise, no buy.

 

Crytek & EA officially stated that Crysis 2 will be better optimized than both Crysis & Warhead and even better graphically. Granted the minimum requirements do sound a bit high (who knows, maybe these are recommended requirements and not minimum?) but look at where tech is at atm?
I know that my R2 will handle the game on max settings at 1200p and that's really all I care about in regards to this.

You said that Crysis had lower specs than Crysis 2 but really look how long ago that was. I understand what your trying to say but tech back then was well tech back then I am willing to bet that the game will look phenomenal on PC and not be poorly ported!

Honestly, that's like comparing apples to tomatoes, the Xbox 360 displays games at a max resolution of 1080x720p and has to be stretched to fit bigger tv's that support 1080p. So the graphics are indeed going to look horrible compared to PC.

I wouldn't worry, the game will look amazing on PC and should look better than both Crysis & Warhead!

 

I thought it has been stated already that the graphics were a step back, Cryengine 3, a step back from cryengine 2?

Maybe this was just something I read on the H forums, but swear I saw a video or post expressing that cryengine 3 had been dumbed down so much, for the consoles, that even when scaled to a powerful PC, the graphics were sub-par to those of cryengine2.

Must do some searching.

 

I honestly didn't know of this but imo I wouldn't say that it is a step back. For consoles maybe but not for PC. Cryengine 3 is just better optimized not necessarily a step back from Cryengine 2. I think that Cryengine 3 uses DX8 for consoles which would mean that max settings in Crysis 2 for consoles is like medium settings for PC.

 

CryEngine 3.0 is using Deferred Lighting to possibly achieve flashier lighting on a tighter resource budget. Call that better optimisation, or simply efficient design choice. In my view, it is improving upon the previous forumla where lighting would sometimes come at a heavy cost.

Many of the so-called 'good lookers' on the consoles look good because of the post-processing and the lighting. Crysis on medium lacked lighting. I am going to assume that this time around, it'll still manage to handle more post-processing, even at medium settings.

In the larger scheme of things, I doubt it'll be such a drastic step backwards or forwards -- probably even out in the end and run slightly better because of the efficiency elements.

 

I would have to agree, the consoles are substantially scaled back not only because they have a difficult time depicting draw distance and the special lighting and shadow effects but because of the immense detail that makes Crysis what it is. The PC version will be optimized to be about on-par or a bit better in terms of faster processing than Crysis or Warhead.

One thing to remember, is that were no longer in the jungles of asia but rather the city streets of New York. The need for lush vegetation and superb motion blur will not be needed as much in Crysis 2 as it were in Crysis/Warhead

 

I agree with the person who said that the lighting was too glossy. I played the new demo on xbox 360 and the graphics look the same as CoD, just much brighter. It has a BFBC2 feel to it. Sorry if I'm comparing too much. There's too much of that white/gray lighting effect for dramatic feeling.

I know that I only played a demo on a console, but I expected more depth like exploding concrete and flying glass rather than cool glares. And, I hate the debriefing at the beginning of each game. It's the stereotypical, "We've located hostile targets. Kill the opposing force/take the objective."

 

it was a step back as others imply, but i think its more of an improvement, a much stable, yet still great in details, and that's speaking in the pc version where pc can comply with such requirements and better visual compared to consoles.

so the bottom line is, Crysis games (and maybe 2 of course) is initially meant for pc, then ported to consoles.

 

Honestly from watching someone else playing the demo for 5 minutes, it doesn't seem very entertaining at all. It is literally just COD with a cloak; its as simple as that. At least in the demo there were no vehicles; do any modes have them? The 4 suit modes are now essentially 2, while strength has bee replaced with gimmicky ground pounding (this isn't Donkey Kong, come on) and stupid sliding on your back as well. Does it even have the on the fly weapon customization anymore?
On top of all of this, it has KILL STREAKS. Really, how much more obviously do they need to copy COD? Come on Crytek, Crysis 1 was never that kind of game. Just because the COD games had them does not mean you need to dirty the crysis franchise with such blatant mimicry. Crysis multiplayer is supposed to rely on the nanosuit abilities and on the fly weapon customization, not silly "perks" and kill streaks.

 

Let's go by this point by point.

1) I wouldn't really take for granted whatever game developers say about their own game. Perhaps they are right, but until I see it...

2) It is that thought that most developers have when making a PC game or porting a console port. No point in optimizing when raw power is available, yes? But I do agree that the minimum requirements seem a a tad high, and it's not really official or anything, might be the recommended specs for all that.

3) Because Crysis 2 look worse than Crysis by a whole lot. I was thinking maybe a tad bit higher than call of duty min requirements, or just the same. Because it looks and feels just like most recent CODs. I don't call that a step forward.

4)Tech way back then was still better than what most consoles have now. What makes PC games so great is the fact that it's so scalable, the graphics setting. I doubt the lowest setting would look as good as the console, but if a 8800 GT is required to play on the lowest setting, well...

5) Not saying it wouldn't. I'm just saying that based on the minimum requirements posted that it is funny that one comes to the conclusion that it is optimized. We'll see.

 

I am actually inclined to agree on the last two points about the 'minimum requirements', and how that implicates the so-called 'optimised' status of Crysis 2.

 

I played this demo at gamescom. It was kind of boring, when you know all the other multiplayer games. I would not buy Crysis for multi, but only for the grapics