Crysis 2 Gameplay (on 360)

Full EP:
<classid='clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000' codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=8,0,0,0" id='gtembed' width='480' height="392"> <param name="allowScriptAccess" value="sameDomain" /> <param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /> <param name="movie" value="http://www.gametrailers.com/remote_wrap.php?mid=100751"/> <param name="quality" value="high" /> <embed src="http://www.gametrailers.com/remote_wrap.php?mid=100751" swLiveConnect="true" name="gtembed" align='middle' allowScriptAccess="sameDomain" allowFullScreen="true" quality="high" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width='480' height="392"></embed> </object>

Gameplay only:
EDIT: Viacom blocked the original video. Bastar*s!
<width='640' height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/AoTb_JhuWAM&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/AoTb_JhuWAM&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width='640' height="385"></embed></object>

<width='640' height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/gRYakiA-y-A&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/gRYakiA-y-A&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width='640' height="385"></embed></object>

 

I really don't care if it's going to be on console.

What I do care is that they are trying to make this game look just as good on PC but rune smoothly on console.

What will suck and I suspect will happen. It will run awesome on 5 year old technology on 360 and PS3 and it's going to crush 2010 hardware on PC.

I hope that's not the case, but this is the #1 reason why I think PC Gaming industry is terrible. They just don't care about making games run well on mainstream technology across the board, only for the high end or whatever card nvidia pays them to make it run on.

Really sucks.

 

It's more likely going to be the opposite way round, with it not being able to take advantage of the power PC's have to offer.

I'm all for good looking games, but they should be scaleable (like source games). So if you have the top of the line hardware, then you can put it to good use and get your moneys worth, but on the other hand if you have a lower end PC (not specifically bad, trying to game on a terrible computer is pointless) then you can simply lower the settings down and then still have a playable game.

Developers should optimise their games too, however crysis was a very bad culprit, it wasn't very scaleable at all. From what I gather, crytek are trying to correct this mistake in crysis 2 although they also seem to be aiming a bit low. What I don't get is why people moan when they have a middle class computer, can't max out the settings and then complain that the game runs badly, that's the whole point of max settings, they max out top of the line technology.

 

Well I hope you are right, but I disagree, I don't see that happening. I see this game looking fantastic, with incredible physics on 360 and then crushing i7 Quads and HD5770s.

I believe PC Game developers need to adopt a new mindset. They need to create games using the latest technology to run well on mainstream at the highest settings with STEADY 30 FPS.
- And use new technology to improve gameplay not as a tech show. I don't think anyone thought tessellation should be used on everything. When people are playing in a game they aren't looking to see if a rock or leaf is tessellated. Just close details, maybe their gun, sword, possibly faces. Or maybe as DICE will, just make some things that should be round with tessellation. We aren't going to go zoom in a tire and see if it's tessellated.
- Whenever new GPU come out, it's not the HD5870 that gets the most sale, it's the middle ground. If PC Gamer wants to spend $1,000 on GPU, let them, but don't shaft 80-90% of the PC Gamers because the 10% want e-peen.

I don't see why more developers don't see who have the most successful titles and most profit per game. Without doubt, undaunted, Valve and Blizzard. And then look at what kind of games they are making. What is wrong with the other developers? Where in game development does it say, games that run and look awesome on mainstream with scalability is a bad looking game? That to be technology advanced it must require the latest egg fryer from Nvidia?

Also where in game development does it say, for a game to be good we must push Gamers to spend an addition $500 per year on upgrades? How did this stupid stupid stupid mindset develop? Do Game Developers see PC Gamers as rich losers who have no responsibilities and do nothing but sit on their but and have no other aspiration for their hard earned money but to just buy a new GPU every year?

And then developers complain they don't make enough on PC gamers. Bunch of morons, wonder if they are even using half their brain when developing games.
- I see that as #1 reason for piracy. What PC Gamer with a mainstream rig wants to pay for a game only to discover it's another typical PC Game where it runs garbage unless you have SLI or Cross-Fire $1,000 GPU setup? Of course piracy is up, there is no return policy on these horrible games.

 

Looks like the gameplay will be better.

 

Scalability implies that the game should adapt to work with the hardware that it's provided with - not that it runs best on any one platform or that it just looks horrible. The whole point of scalable technology is to allow it to run best at every level.

@ ziddy - I don't think this is going to be like Splinter Cell Conviction or GTA4 in that it isn't a console port to PC. It's a game developed simultaneously with all platforms in mind. The requirements to develop on the engine are gtx260/280/295 with a 64-bit quad core processor and this setup is "eating the engine for breakfast". The requirements for development are always higher than the requirements to game, so we can probably expect to max the game out with 57xx and the nvidia 4xx equivalent and an i5. I would be really pissed in the game runs on PC without looking miles better than the console version, but I honestly don't think that's going to happen.

 

Eh, personally I no longer care if it looks better than console

I just want to play on my native settings.

There are very few games now with good gameplay and compelling stories. There are many games that look good. Making a good looking game seems to be par for the course and uninteresting for me.

If Crysis 2 brings on an excellent story and great gameplay and runs on PC awesome, I'll be happy, even if it looks no better than console, that is not something I care about anymore.

 

Right on. I think I stopped caring about how games look after a point. Below that point the graphics begin to interfere with the game experience, and that's bad. But as long as game maintain a certain level of visuals, it stops mattering and the gameplay dynamics and story become more important.

Anyway, Crysis 2 is above that point for me and I'll be getting it on PC and I'm sure that the game will look great. Hope I can say the same about the gameplay.

 

I hope that the screen tearing in the crysis parts was just my computer.

 

Its just flash + refresh rates

 

For a start, if it's running well on consoles but crapping out on top spec PC's then that's no fault of the hardware, that's pure and utter lazy programming. Making something look as good on consoles as they do on top spec computers is impossible unless they do a terrible job of making the PC version, it's jst raw processing power that it comes down to in the end if both versions are optimised to the same level. Love it or hate it, that's just the nature of the beast. The same goes for how you think that you should be able to run games at highest settings on mid range computers, there is only so much optimising one can do, eventually it just comes down to basic fill rates and specs, blaming the developers for what is actually a limitation on your side is silly, I agree most developers don't do enough optimising but if, for example, you said that to DICE they'd probably say something like "well we are sorry that you don't have a very powerful PC, but we've done about as much optmising as is physically possible, so in other words, live with it and stop winging about having old tech".

Secondly, you don't seem to understand my point about scaleability. It means that it runs well on all systems so that no comuters are out of their depth yet at the same time the powerful new computers aren't sitting there twiddling their thumbs for most of the time as the textures are too low. How I see it, the point you're trying to make is that people who have average computers feel like they have their egos hurt by people who have the power to max out current games. Sulking because you can't play a game won't run on your computer at all is fair enough (provided you don't have some old relic PC running on caveman tech, in which case you should just get a new computer and stop living in the past in a small bubble of antiqueness), however getting frustrated because you're mid range computer can't max out a game designed with top of the range tech in mind is just silly and childish.