Crysis 2 multiplayer trailer

Looks meh

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xum8OgAIOWs&feature=player_embedded

width='640' height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/xum8OgAIOWs?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US&amp;rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/xum8OgAIOWs?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US&amp;rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width='640' height="385"></embed></object>

 

I like it~

seems like it will have a decent competitive scene

 

lame...environment isn't destructible like BFBC2.

 

Of course, not having destructible environments makes a FPS lame. BFBC2 has everything, destructible environments, vehicles, stealth suits, kicking cars to opponents face oh wait...

 

6v6...worse than the original Crysis. Looks like Crytek sold out to the console crowd. What's new? At least we still have Valve.

 

In all honesty that looks pretty stupid, at least if MP is really only 6 players. As A PC gamer I want AT LEAST 32 player multiplayer in my FPS's, preferably 64 (which hasn't really been done since BF2142). Everything is getting dumbed down for consoles...

Also, the sliding seems pretty gimmicky especially given how prominent it was in the video, like it was the only new feature they added.

 

Is that really Cry Engine 3?

 

Well, they had to nerf it for the consoles. You didn't actually think the consoles were capable of original (2007) Crysis like graphics did you?

Console's where the money's at.

 

ALSO the MP demo started today. 360 exclusive.
Lol.

 

Exactly, console's where the money's at.

Plus the new engine is designed to be cross-platform. Economic efficiency at its best.

 

That song is overused.

 

It's sad but true. Many PC-only developers have sold out to the console crowd. Sadly, console gamers have a very poor perception of PC-gaming and consider it to be a dieing system. Which really isn't the case because the PC offers so much more when it comes to gaming.

So far Blizzard and Valve are the only two developers I can think of who have not completely sold out to the console crowd. So I do believe it's possible for a developer to succeed without selling out to the consoles, it's just that greed gets the best of most developers.

What I consider selling out to be is when a developer starts talking more and referring more often to the console versions of a game while largely ignoring the PC version. Especially when it comes to demos/patches/support/etc. Current examples: Black Ops, Bad Company 2, etc.

Which is actually kinda funny, because when DICE had the competition to unlock that fifth map for BC2 Vietnam, the PC beat BOTH consoles DAYS before. Goes to show the strength of the PC community some see as a dieing breed.

 

I know right? It's used on just about every damn trailer these days.

Oh well... at least it's as bad 009 Soundsystem - With a Spirit... I swear that song's on every second video I watch.

It's pretty much much one of the official themes of Youtube.

 

Yeah I can see the wisdom in this. Programmers need to make the best use of current hardware with better programming techniques that can deliver blazing performance on the systems we have now, instead of always upgrading to more expensive hardware just to run the game adequately.

If Crysis 2 were to have destructible environments and physics similar to BFBC2 the game would push current hardware beyond it's limits and framerates would be horrible, making it unplayable.

They need to think out of the box and develop a new way of programming code from the ground up instead of using what has already been built upon.

For instance back in 1991 I got into PC gaming just because I wanted more than what Atari, Nintendo and Sega consoles could deliver, but I realized that even though the PC had better graphics the hardware at that time couldn't generate adequate framerates to immerse you in the virtual world, even with the latest state of the art intel 486 CPU.

As time went by the GPU was invented to help relieve the CPU with graphics processing, and this was the key. Parallel processing was the stuff of supercomputers, this was the solution! I was studying and following the computer and gaming scene as it was being pioneered. Being a hardcore gamer, I opted out of PC gaming when Sega came out with the Dreamcast, a console that was ahead of it's time, a true multimedia box that could also deliver internet on your television.

Anyway going back to what I said about game developers needing to rethink how they program, Sega came out with the Saturn to compete against the Sony Playstation. Sega had the idea going with 2 CPUs and a GPU compared to Sony's 1 monster CPU and GPU. Sega was thinking supercomputer Parallel Processing!

Although we know the story, Sony Playstation, won market share because game developers were to lazy to relearn how to code for the Saturn and opted to stay with the easy to develop for Playstation, but evidence had shown that Sega's inhouse development teams had pushed the Saturn hardware further and came out with stunning new graphics programming techniques that surpassed what could be performed on the Playstation.

Then we see the same principle develop on the PC side with SLI and crossfire products, again supercomputer parallel processing. And Nvidia has the idea with Physx, but the caliber of today's developers are not up to par and they don't want to break the chains, and not move out of their comfort zone by rethinking how they can program software from the ground up to run on current hardware and utilize every once of performance. Unless there comes a genius who develops a different way of doing things we'll have to keep on spending money we can't afford for hardware just to play games with new special effects.

 

Graphics and console material aside, this actually looks pretty promising. It looks like a mixture of Halo and CoD with some sick Crysis elements added into it. I just wish the teams could be a bit bigger and I kind of see a lot of unbalanced gameplay at work. For example, popping a team of like people from behind, smashing your fist into the ground and killing everyone. And the invisible feature seems like it might get annoying and at times abusive. But we won't know until it's released and I hope the game will be run well on PC.. Even if the graphics aren't Crysis 07 material, I hope the game won't be as buggy and crappy as Black Ops.

 

I don't want to get flamed or anything, but I gotta admit I game on my 360 more than my PC (used mostly for Valve games). Anyways, I got up to rank 10 tonight playing the MP Crisis 2 demo and it was pretty fun. I never played the first Crisis' MP so I had no idea what I was doing for half an hour but once I started getting the hang of it I thought it played a lot like CoD and a small amount of Halo:Reach. Overall it was a good experience.


-Oatmeal

 

what song is it?
er what is it called.

 

This is stupid.

 

Just played the multiplayer demo on the 360, it's not Crysis in the slightest. It's CoD mixed with Halo, and feels clunky and slow. The graphics aren't rendering quick enough in places too.


It's a far cry from Crysis. (lol pun totally intended) Will not be getting this.

 

My XBOX fanboy class mate however says it is better then earlier Crysis games...

 

I also tried the demo/beta on the Xbox 360. The graphics (obviously) paled in comparison to the original Crysis and the Xbox 360 was STILL having some issues displaying everything smoothly on screen.

The gameplay seems to have been made more melee rather than gun based as well. From the feel of it, it plays worse than the original.

 

@tunay
You might want him taste 2007 Crysis in PC.
Crysis should have been PC exclusive demonstrating true power of gpus but

 

I think it won't help at all! In this little head his Xbox with 256MB video memory beats everything out there... He even belive that GTA IV looks better on Xbox then PC