Koki on 19/12/2010 at 09:12
Well obviously it will have lower reqs. How else would they put it in those silly consoles?
EvaUnit02 on 19/12/2010 at 09:34
The bottomline is that the PC version of Crysis 2 will be far more scalable/sport better optimisation than the previous game, supporting a wider range of hardware configurations that vary in power. So no Sulphur, you won't need a computer from the future to run Crysis 2 smoothly (nor did you require one for Crysis 1).
Sulphur on 19/12/2010 at 12:20
Quote Posted by EvaUnit02
God forbid that a game and its engine be future proof. Come on Sulphur, you're normally much smarter than this.
Quote Posted by EvaUnit02
The bottomline is that the PC version of Crysis 2 will be far more scalable/sport better optimisation than the previous game, supporting a wider range of hardware configurations that vary in power. So no Sulphur, you won't need a computer from the future to run Crysis 2 smoothly (nor did you require one for Crysis 1).
That's my inner graphics whore talking. Since it's being developed for the consoles as well, the PC version can run it at equivalent settings much better; I get that. What I'm not a fan of is future-proofing the game so much we're only going to be able to see how the it should be played like years after release.
I only played Crysis earlier this year, because I knew I had a system capable of playing it on Super Duper Ultra High settings. True, I didn't
need to, but apart from AA, I'm used to setting everything I get on max. It's the way I play.
I don't see why Crytek couldn't develop the game to look as beautiful as possible here and now, and release a patch later when the hardware's available to dial things up.
Bakerman on 19/12/2010 at 22:44
From what I've seen of this game, I think I'm going to miss the jungle. I'm going to assume, though, that the gameplay shown thus far is to get people excited about how epic and awesome it is. I don't remember Crysis's marketing, but hopefully 2 will feature the same tactical combat and stuff, especially at higher difficulties. You just don't show that in a trailer unless you're going for a niche market :P.
I'm also not that enthused about the alien designs... ah well.
Quote Posted by Sulphur
I don't see why Crytek couldn't develop the game to look as beautiful as possible here and now, and release a patch later when the hardware's available to dial things up.
I don't really see any problem with Crytek making the game as beautiful as possible here and now, and not worrying if people don't want to lay out the cash for the hardware needed to experience it on maximum yet. (Sorry, I know that sounded snarky.) I'm certainly not going to play this game at release, and even when I do get around to it I doubt I'll have a system specced to run it at full detail. But I reckon the awesome thing about Crysis, which I picked up about a month ago, was that it cost me $20 and it's the best-looking thing I own. There's something to be said for future-proofing.
Quote Posted by CCCToad
Just about any console game with a cover mechanism allows you to lean around a corner or barricade, which achieves the same functionality as leaning.
Do we count cover systems? Though I guess they're just a console-friendly means to the same end. For reference: (
http://www.giantbomb.com/leaning/92-2675/)
Volitions Advocate on 19/12/2010 at 23:10
Nobody made this much fuss over Doom 3 when it released and gave a detail level that required 3d hardware that literally wasn't even on the market yet.
Gimping software OR hardware until something is more convenient to be released is called sandbagging. Something, as a consumer, I abhor.
Neutering a game to make somebody feel better about their experience is something I would find really insulting. I played many games on medium or lower settings before having the money to upgrade to a computer that could handle nearly everything at full.
In fact it helps me re-enjoy a game over again in all its glory at a later date.
Sulphur on 20/12/2010 at 20:30
Yeah, this caused the reactions I was expecting.
1) Octo-core CPUs aren't even in the market right now, unless you were to point at the Intel Xeon server CPUs. AMD's releasing Bulldozer sometime next year, and if Intel hasn't fired a volley by then, they'll likely have the market at their mercy. Moral? New tech, premium prices, just like they did with the 58xx GPUs. Hardly 'mainstream' mainstream at that point.
Plus, games and software in general barely take advantage of 4 cores right now, let alone 8 -- and four core processors have been out for quite a while.
2) I'd expect 'sandagging' to be a problem if Crytek were charging you for later tech upgrade patches. It certainly didn't seem to be a problem for people when they patched HDR into Far Cry months and months after release, so I don't see why it should be a problem now.
3) The argument centred on 'if you can't afford the hardware don't expect to play it on max' doesn't qualify here, because I bloody well can afford a DX11 chipset GPU - but I'm not going to do it if the game only barely breaks 30 FPS on that bleeding edge hardware on max, like Crysis at the time.
At the end of the day, I will be getting Crysis 2 if a) it's a good game and b) once the specs and quality settings are concrete and we don't have to speculate. That's common sense. But if its performance runs itself ragged on the bleeding edge at those 'maximum' settings, the game will have to wait until I get hardware that it doesn't commit to the Great GPU Graveyard in the Sky, complete with the belch of smoke and sparks puffing into a cushion of flame as it launches itself into the electronic afterlife.
Sometimes, if I blink hard enough when I look at the clouds, I think I can see the glint of my old Riva TNT, 9800 pro, and 6800GT, all of them staring down at me from on high, afloat on their wings; and I can imagine the look of disapproval scrawled across their PCBs, and the chorusing plaint of their fans descending to my ears in soft, sussurrant whispers. And if I listen hard enough, I can just make out what they're singing -- 'You shouldn't have overclocked us that hard, bitch.'
Aja on 20/12/2010 at 20:32
9800 Pro was such champ
gunsmoke on 21/12/2010 at 02:55
It was the greatest video card ever made. Hands down.
Bakerman on 21/12/2010 at 11:30
@Sulphur: to me, your argument just seems to boil down to 'I won't be able to play it on maximum yet', which I don't find to be a compelling reason to complain. I don't really mind if Crytek want to expend time and effort on creating top-notch art assets that we won't be able to see in their full glory for years... obviously to them, the increased development cost (I assume) is worth it for the prestige of being able to say 'yeah, we're really targeting 8-core space-computers, but you can play it now on medium.' :p
The downside is when this comes at the expense of time and effort expended on gameplay, and I'll be interested to see what 2 plays like after all this. I'd be happy with more Crysis though, to be honest. No need to go developing entirely new systems.
Sulphur on 22/12/2010 at 20:32
You don't understand, how am I supposed to cater to my e-peen's craving for instant gratification when 'instant' means 'satisfaction in a year or two, most likely'? I like foreplay, but that's a bit much. :(
