Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Crysis 2 Multiplayer PC Demo Arrives in March

Last response: in News comments
Share
February 17, 2011 4:46:01 PM

So basically what they are saying.... the system requirements have not changed since Crysis 1 and the game has ultimately been dumbed down for the consoles and the PC gamer gets the shaft yet again....

Crytek used to be the ones that put out the new engines or implemented new feature sets in games to show case the capabilities.

FarCry set a new bar.... Crysis established a new one.... Crysis 2 is taking 5 years back.... WTF Crytek! Another good PC developer gone turncoat.
Score
-3
February 17, 2011 4:49:43 PM

Video cards up to 3-4 generations old can play Crysis 2??? WTF!!! And it is not even 64-Bit native??? They established a 64-Bit for FarCry ffs....

Sorry for the double post but this really pisses me off....
Score
-2
Related resources
February 17, 2011 5:03:30 PM

People complain when the specs are too high. People complain when the specs are too low. Simply dont play the game if it pisses you off that much. But we all know that you will play the game and complain all the way to the end.

You shouldnt have to have 1500 bucks invested in a triple sli setup to run a game at a respectable fps with all the candy on period.
Score
2
February 17, 2011 5:07:04 PM

Comparable system specs to Crysis 1 does NOT mean the game will be dumbed down. Crytek developed an entirely new engine for this game (that looked amazing in the demo btw). Better coding = better performance with lesser hardware
Score
6
February 17, 2011 5:07:23 PM

Well, the requirements are not very high, but most of the laptop owners, myself included will not be able to play it. The game however doesn't look much improved from the original Crysis. Yes, they have made an achievement by developing a cross platform engine, but visually, the game doesn't break any new ground.
Score
1
February 17, 2011 5:15:37 PM

its made for fucking consoles in mind of corse its get lower standards how did ppl not c this comming i already realised this the secong they anounsed it for consoles.
Score
-1
February 17, 2011 5:15:47 PM

This game doesn't work great on consoles. I've tried it and played the 360 demo. This belongs on PC. Honestly, they are hoping the consoles would be money-makers for them. Will they probably sell a million? Yes. They need to get controls fixed before this game releases on Xbox 360.

I dunno, after playing Crysis 1 and Crysis Wars, Crysis 2 looks like an abomination. Pretty grahpics but its gameplay is hurting.
Score
0
February 17, 2011 5:16:54 PM

kiddagoatVideo cards up to 3-4 generations old can play Crysis 2??? WTF!!! And it is not even 64-Bit native??? They established a 64-Bit for FarCry ffs.... Sorry for the double post but this really pisses me off....


Have you been living under a rock for the last 6 months?!?!!? Everyone knew this the moment they announced its was going to the PS3 and Xbox. Anytime a game goes to the consoles it guarantees it will not be breaking any new ground graphically.
Score
0
February 17, 2011 5:22:02 PM

I'll need an Xbox 360 controller to play the demo on my PC??

That's what the system requirements say.
Score
-1
February 17, 2011 5:22:28 PM

I will hold my judgment until I play the Demo....my hopes are high.
Score
0
February 17, 2011 5:25:59 PM

I like how everybody is saying how much the games graphics will be toned down when they forgot one important detail:

The game was developed on all systems at the same time, the game has GRAPHICS SETTINGS on PC and that no company is going to purposely go BACKWARDS in graphics on PC after so many years of development.

Sure, consoles have limited how many missions we get and stuff (I blame the 360 with it's limited storage) but the game will still look great on PC.
Score
4
February 17, 2011 5:32:51 PM

I really don't understand why the people are pissed off 'cause a Core 2 CPU and a 8800 series GPU would play the game with solid FPS on medium-high settings. Would you be happy if the game required an i5 and a HD 5800 for low settings?? Surely NOT! And as someone already pointed out, CryEngine 3 is a whole new engine.

And what is really important to me is the gameplay. Serious gamers would worry more 'bout the gameplay than the graphics (which will obviosly be perfect in Crysis 2)
Score
0
February 17, 2011 5:47:51 PM

I thought that 'demo' already got out :face:
Score
0
February 17, 2011 5:51:45 PM

"Note: There's indication that this list of minimum hardware requirements many not be final."

Even if these are the final-final minimums, that does not mean you cannot crank up the settings for higher-end machines.
Score
0
February 17, 2011 5:52:29 PM

All those idiots are whining about a game that has not been released yet, what the hell...

They probably pirated the buggy leak which is locked at DX9 and medium gfx settings, and thought that's maxed out.
Score
0
February 17, 2011 6:08:03 PM

kiddagoatVideo cards up to 3-4 generations old can play Crysis 2??? WTF!!! And it is not even 64-Bit native??? They established a 64-Bit for FarCry ffs.... Sorry for the double post but this really pisses me off....

Guess they actually wanted people to be able to play their game... damn you Crytek for not requiring that I buy a new computer just to play your game!
Score
1
February 17, 2011 6:30:18 PM

From what I've seen, you can play the beta version with an 8800gt 512 at 1080p without any noticeable slowdowns.
Score
0
February 17, 2011 6:56:31 PM

I understand that enthusiasts get upset that many games developed nowadays aren't worth enough to be played on your 10k setup, but do realize that video game development is now a business and not an art. Don't let the word "Studios" in the company name fool you.
Score
0
February 17, 2011 7:25:43 PM

iNiNe5I understand that enthusiasts get upset that many games developed nowadays aren't worth enough to be played on your 10k setup, but do realize that video game development is now a business and not an art. Don't let the word "Studios" in the company name fool you.

Although there are a number of games that play on 400$ systems maxed out while the 1k systems are losing what potential they had. There are times when developers and publishers shouldn't exclude those who spent more then the norm, but base off of the enthusiasts and degrade from that.

I'm happy that Crytek and EA decided to release a multiplayer demo after the leak, I though Crytek would have to redo certain parts of the game and make a later release date. Could still happen, but so far there's no news of delaying the game.
Score
0
February 17, 2011 8:12:43 PM

Guess they figured since the game has already been leaked to PC players that they might as well finally release a DEMO !
Score
0
February 17, 2011 8:16:32 PM

Quote:
Note: There's indication that this list of minimum hardware requirements many not be final.

^Is from the article...
Score
0
February 17, 2011 8:16:58 PM

I am ready for the whole game not just a demo.
Score
0
February 17, 2011 9:22:24 PM

Well I see I came off like an ass but being an engineering student and a tech enthusiast, I like to see stuff evolve and become more advanced.

Crytek is known for setting the bar high and keeping that evolution going. We've had 64-Bit CPUS and OS for how long now?? DirectX 11 has caught on really well. I feel they are really taking a step back. Yes I spent about $2000 on a computer and yes I expect to get the value out of my box. Don't call me an idiot like I made a bad decision because some people don't invest that much into a system.

Every 3-4 years a developer makes a game that is amazing and it in return causes people to upgrade and get better systems. I am sorry but the current life cycle on most systems is about 3-4 years. If you are holding onto a C2D with a 8800GT and still expect to play the newest and greatest games on high, there is something wrong.

If the new engine scales well, awesome hope it does.

Should everyone be able to play a game, sure, within reason. But looking at how far the PC hardware has come and the software lagging because it is being made to fit the console hardware that is now 5 years old, come on, be realistic.
Score
0
February 17, 2011 11:25:37 PM

kiddagoatWell I see I came off like an ass but being an engineering student and a tech enthusiast, I like to see stuff evolve and become more advanced.Crytek is known for setting the bar high and keeping that evolution going. We've had 64-Bit CPUS and OS for how long now?? DirectX 11 has caught on really well. I feel they are really taking a step back. Yes I spent about $2000 on a computer and yes I expect to get the value out of my box. Don't call me an idiot like I made a bad decision because some people don't invest that much into a system. Every 3-4 years a developer makes a game that is amazing and it in return causes people to upgrade and get better systems. I am sorry but the current life cycle on most systems is about 3-4 years. If you are holding onto a C2D with a 8800GT and still expect to play the newest and greatest games on high, there is something wrong. If the new engine scales well, awesome hope it does.Should everyone be able to play a game, sure, within reason. But looking at how far the PC hardware has come and the software lagging because it is being made to fit the console hardware that is now 5 years old, come on, be realistic.


crysis was simply put, poorly coded. engine wise.
from what we see now, no one can deny it.

i can write a game that takes a 2000$ rig to its knees and it will only look as good as an atari 2600 game. does that mean it has the best graphics? HELL NO

now there is an upper bar for how good games can look, and dont kid yourself thinking there isn't. that limit is ((time x graphics) money) and we are hitting a BIG WALL HERE. there is only so much graphically, that can be canned and not made new for every game. crysis 1 is currently the upper limit on what we can do graphically and still make a profit. now, crysis 2 takes that upper limit and brings it down to real world systems while still looking as good as the first, with a highly scalable engine, which surpasses the first graphically.

if you want a tech demo instead of a game, GET A DAMN TECH DEMO
if you want a game... there is no way crysis 2 running at playable frame rates on lesser hardware is a bad thing.
Score
0
February 18, 2011 1:01:36 AM

They DO have 64bit mode to run this game, according to leaked buggy thing...
Score
0
February 18, 2011 3:12:25 AM

silky salamandrPeople complain when the specs are too high. People complain when the specs are too low. Simply dont play the game if it pisses you off that much. But we all know that you will play the game and complain all the way to the end. You shouldnt have to have 1500 bucks invested in a triple sli setup to run a game at a respectable fps with all the candy on period.


Exactly, well said. What I don't understand is why more people aren't "voting" with their dollars, so to speak and refusing to buy the game. The requirements for the game maxed are ridiculous. This is an FPS, not an RTS. Anything less than 60 fps (with all the eye candy on) is unacceptable.
One, highest-end graphics card from either AMD or Nvidia (Radeon 6970 or Gtx 580) should be all that is required to play the game at the native resolution of one's monitor with everything maxed. Having more than one graphics card to max out a game is ludicrous.
Score
0
February 18, 2011 4:03:35 AM

Excited. Time to prove what my computer has left in it!
Score
0
February 18, 2011 4:34:45 AM

8800 GT is OK for minimum requirements. Remember, Crysis basically had the 8800GTX in SLI as the best it could go back then.
THe 8800 was quite revolutionary and for about 2 years there was nothing better to buy that was worth while. So, I think it will be ok for minimum requirements.
It will probably push my 5870 and i7 to its limits and will probably have to upgrade my gfx for smooth "Very-High" performance.
Score
0
February 18, 2011 7:26:09 AM

alidancrysis was simply put, poorly coded. engine wise. from what we see now, no one can deny it. i can write a game that takes a 2000$ rig to its knees and it will only look as good as an atari 2600 game. does that mean it has the best graphics? HELL NOnow there is an upper bar for how good games can look, and dont kid yourself thinking there isn't. that limit is ((time x graphics) money) and we are hitting a BIG WALL HERE. there is only so much graphically, that can be canned and not made new for every game. crysis 1 is currently the upper limit on what we can do graphically and still make a profit. now, crysis 2 takes that upper limit and brings it down to real world systems while still looking as good as the first, with a highly scalable engine, which surpasses the first graphically. if you want a tech demo instead of a game, GET A DAMN TECH DEMOif you want a game... there is no way crysis 2 running at playable frame rates on lesser hardware is a bad thing.


What part of Crysis was poorly coded? It was a demanding game, obviously, because it was meant for computers with specs not even released yet. It ran and still does run decents on my 8800GT, high settings, x2 AA at 1650 x 1080, and apart from dx9 blocky rocks, it still to this date rivals any game released 4 years after it was released.

I can crank up the shadows and still find the game playable at a bit under 30fps.

Also, an 8800GT will still perform with better graphics better than any console. I'm looking forward to Crysis 2 with max settings, and a new rig.

Score
0
February 18, 2011 8:45:06 AM

kiddagoatVideo cards up to 3-4 generations old can play Crysis 2??? WTF!!! And it is not even 64-Bit native??? They established a 64-Bit for FarCry ffs.... Sorry for the double post but this really pisses me off....


Where have you been?

You can play C2 with old cards, but only on super low settings.

If you want to max out Crysis2 then you need a new gen card that supports DX11. Crysis 2 uses DX11 in the PC version for hardcore settings.

Crytek produced Crysis and got stick cos only the latest and greatest PCs could run it, so this time they made a game that still looks stunning (at least as good as Crysis 1 - which is still the best looking game out there), but can run on lower spec machines. Now they get stick for not producing a game that brings the most powerful machines to their knees.

PC version will still look 10x better on PC than console, as long as you have the latest hardware. If you have an older machine, you can run the game at "console" settings.

Everyone wins.
Score
1
February 18, 2011 8:52:34 AM

iNiNe5I understand that enthusiasts get upset that many games developed nowadays aren't worth enough to be played on your 10k setup, but do realize that video game development is now a business and not an art. Don't let the word "Studios" in the company name fool you.



Not much Enthusiasts are upset, but mainly companys which produce hardware for enthusiasts, because Crysis 1 was moving gaming enthusiast rigs forward, countless people were going to shop and buying comps with Crysis in mind "Will it run Crysis" and that forced people to buy better and better and better rigs just to get better and better performance. And now if they stop it then theres is really no point to buy high end video cards, CPU's for gaming rig.
Score
0
February 18, 2011 11:15:58 AM

directx 9 ? Will it support directx 11 ?
Score
0
February 18, 2011 11:32:47 AM

With all the talk of the 8800 card line, I am actually interested in trying the game out on my secondary system too. It uses two 8800GTS cards and a FX-62. Be very interesting to see how it performs.
Score
0
February 18, 2011 2:29:48 PM

I can tell you first hand that a Geforce 8800GT paired with a Core i5 760 or Phenom II X4 can barely handle Crysis 2 with DX9 settings on "Gamer" which are the lower settings for the game at 1920 X 1200. System averages about 30FPS and once you encounter the enemy the frames start dropping drastically. It makes it difficult to play because of all the slow downs and video lag. That being said I think a lot of people are going to be pleasantly surprised to find that the game looks stunning even on the lower settings. For those with higher end rigs you'll probably find that your system isn't capable of running the game as well as you thought, especially those who have DX11 video cards and plan on running the game in full spec. For those interested, using "advance" graphically settings, which are medium settings on an 8800GT yields less than 20FPS, and once you encounter the enemy its impossible to play because the frames can drop down to as little as 4 or 5 FPS. The minimum settings are for the minimum enjoyment in my opinion and Crytek hit it right on the head. Of course if you scale back the resolution it'll give you better FPS, but I found that Crysis 2 being played at low res looks awful and I doubt anyone really wants to go back to 1024 X 786 or 1280 X 1024, I know I certainly don't.
Score
0
February 18, 2011 2:42:48 PM

There is a 64-bit compiled version in the wild rgith now, but that doesn't mean the final released game will be 64-bit.
Score
0
February 20, 2011 11:56:10 AM

Yes that is true about people getting anoyed about the pc specs, but if you want to be able to play a game without any trouble of specs, then you should go to console.
it isnt very good that there using old graphics tho and still should move on to higher specs.
Because of this, People are baisicly getting ripped off more.
If people dont want to spend lots of money on High Spec systems then i say that thhey should go to console.
Score
0
!