Started playing Far Cry 2 and so far it sucks!

Well there is one more game using the Dunia 2.0 engine and that is Avatar. Put up screenshots of Just Cause 1 and Avatar side to side and tell me what engine looks the best will you Far Cry 2 is dull, well that doesn´t mean the game looks bad in Ultra High settings. They didn´t made it that colourful since what they said themselves in interviews the setting is in Africa not on some Hawaiian looking island a la Crysis

Avatar takes the graphics engine to a more colourful environment overall. Dunia 2.0 craps on both Just Cause graphical engines.

 

All points taken, but the engine critique I must address since I never compared Dunia to the CryEngine 2.0. Hell, my point was directed against the dude who claimed that Dunia couldn't even compare to a 2005-2006 game, which is a bloody joke. And of course, this was the same guy repeatedly taking references to PhysX, for a game that is actually designed for ATi hardware. Lawl.

CryEngine 2.0 is by no means a 2005-2006 engine and no game--even today--exactly compares to or matches this engine's pure grunt. Not for any practical discussion or purpose anyway. I understand you might not mean to say that, but I just had to reaffirm this point as one of the other guys who had the face to compare Dunia to Just Cause 1 in pursuit of implying that the engine looks like something from 2005-2006; needless to say he couldn't establish his argument on a single leg and I am not convinced.

CryEngine 2.0 will remain a pinnacle engine. I don't even think CryEngine 3.0 will be as technically demanding because it will be using deferred lighting like Dunia; Killzone 2; Dead Space; X-Ray Engine. I guess it is for the better, since the game will still scale nicely on good PC hardware and run better.

Dunia engine is still very nice, and some of the aspects of lighting are in fact better because of the deferred rendering. It's just a shame that we don't have enough games using this engine. Avatar is a great example by Magnus, showing what other areas the engine can be used. Again, it is sad that the game isn't all that great.

 

All these comparisons of game engines using graphics of different games is making me cry. What game engine a game uses is most irrelevant with how good looking the game is, the art content is true the determining factor in how good looking the game is. The only effect game engine have is what art content they support, as long as the game engines are in the same generation, the art content they support will mostly be there, the rest is just performance difference and some differences in easy of use etc for the programmer. Even if a game is using a crap game engine, if the art content is very well done and detailed, it will still look much better than a crap game using cryengine 1000.0.

In the game development community, comparing how good a game engine is using screenshots or describing how good a game using a certain game engine looks, is generally a taboo and you will just be ignored.

 

Far Cry 2 didn't even deserve the Far Cry name. All of the gameplay mechanics were abysmal. The graphics and sound systems were excellent, but that can't save a game if the gameplay is absolutely terrible. So much potential and yet FAIL.

I found it so funny that Ubisoft had the nerve to release and charge for DLC too. To think they would just give it away after the huge failure the whole game was.

Now if there was one thing I enjoyed about FC2 was the map editor. It was so easy to use and so awesome. I had more fun with that making my own maps than playing the actual game.

 

Couldn't agree more ! Should have kept Crytek on board too

 

I must say that Crysis dynamic fire mod is not impressive at all. At least in Far Cry 2 branches catch fire and the grass burns definitely better than Crysis fire effects.

Anyway the Dunia Engine is impressive itself and damn good optimized. Crysis looks better no doubt abou that (though not fire effects).

 

You also forgot to mention that Crysis is a horribly optimized POS. It might look great but under the hood it is a clusterf**k. Far Cry 2 on the other hand runs like a dream comparatively. I would never even bother with Crysis or Warhead on my M1530 (I have tried and it sucks) but I have enjoyed FC2 plenty on it.

 

IMO, FC2 is at least a game, al beit a boring one, crysis is just a tech show, only a bit better than a benchmark tool in that you can control the character while benchmarking.

 

I don't like to get into a jerk-contest over how a game looks. But when someone steps in and gets all "Oh, that's so 2005." Damn it, I'll have something concrete to say, if not, then I'll certainly tied a note and fling a brick across the face of the community. Points have to be made sometimes, even if we don't like 'em, because then an uneducated opinion becomes gospel truth in the eyes of others. Fary Cry 2's Dunia engine is a beast, and has very solid potential for current and future games to come. You know, games that not only look good, but actually run well on even mainstream hardware.

And I also concur on the stability and scalability of the Far Cry 2 engine. It did run on a larger range of hardware, and didn't compromise the HDR and lighting under lower settings.

 

Run flawlessly in high settings on my studio15 (HD3450 256mb). Graphically it's great , gameplay and story sucks.

 

I enjoyed Crysis as a game in itself. Voice acting was decent, the action was good, the story premise was far fetched but it was more refreshing than another let's fight terrorists crap.
- I enjoyed using the various modes of the nano suit and it was well implemented.

Overall I'd give Crysis an 8/10 as game in itself separate from the CryTek 2 showing.

 

i thought crysis was decent. gameplay wise it was very similar to far cry 1.
1st half was sandbox gameplay in a tropic resort, 2nd half was more linear and feature creatures that are really out of place.
you could say crysis was the true sequel to far cry 1.

 

It's hard to say what I think about it's optimization, though I do think in the end it lacks much of what users did themselves. Though the optimization issue really crept up with DX10 implementation. The 8800GTS 320 MB I had a while back in my first custom desktop ran the game just fine at mostly high settings in DX9 mode @ 1440 x 900. At that level, the game was already the best looking game of it's kind, and still is at those settings. The 9800M GS 512 MB in my lappy ran even better at high DX9 mode (probably thanks to having more VRAM) at 720p. However, once you start implementing DX10, very high graphics settings and pumping up the game's render resolution, things start to require exponential amounts of graphics power. It's hard to say whether I think smooth framerate at 1080p is worth the amount of money people have dropped for just Crysis, as I was pretty damn impressed and happy back in Fall of 2007 on my system equipped with an 8800GTS 320 MB, 2 GB DDR2-800, Athlon x2 5600+ and Windows XP.

I think I've mentioned it before, but I really am enjoying FC2 this time. I make sure to use the bus system alot to skip having to deal with so many enemy patrols and checkpoints. Also I purely focus on missions that are required. My first play through (which went uncompleted) I didn't know what was required or not. I do now as only missions from the two main factions are required to advance the game (thank you Gamefaqs!). Basically, by streamlining my experience, I've cut out much of the crap and bothersome material. The game is already pretty comprehensive before all the extra stuff is added in. Playing the game maxed out graphically at 1080p with 2xAA and getting 60 FPS helps too One other thing I did to help take care of the bland-ness of the game is to turn up the color saturation some on my computer. It helped out alot when it came to everything computer related, especially gaming. Everything is alot more pleasing to the eye.

It's only too bad there isn't a modding SDK for Far Cry 2, so much of the crap in the game could be fixed.

 

*update*

I finally beat FC2. Enjoyed it up to the last hour or so, as it's kind of anti-climatic. But overall, I'm happy to have it finished and out of the way so I can on to the rest of my games collection. Current game on track to be finished next: Halo 2 PC.

 

i'd give crysis 10/10... nice gameplay and all but the aliens freaked me out so i stopped lol

LOL ur so slow.. i finished Halo 2 ages ago and am halfway through it but i can't get myself through all those lvls with the flood like i did last time.. i hate aliens!

 

I'd give Crysis a 7/10. Since I've long lost the ability to appreciate good graphics (used a gma 950 for about 4 years) I judge it based only on the gameplay. It was an ok shooter and the suit abilities were pretty cool but I got bored after a while.

Time to finish the Witcher.

 

I guess it's the same for me, I've played too many games in my life, and too many games with fantastic graphics such that i'm already numb to any game with great graphics, I will just go into the gameplay/story, and crysis fails in these aspects for me, or maybe it's just that I'm too picky.