I had to restart it like 10 times, and then it worked. Now it has been stuck on decrypting at 15% for like 8 minutes...
[QUOTE=GunFox;28786332]It isn't graphics, it is level size and how much the game remembers.
If I push a crate over, a PC is going to have the RAM and available space to remember that indefinitely.
The level size itself can be MASSIVE without any sort of issue. Crysis supported huuuge levels that 2 simply can't begin to hope to compete with.
Desktops are also getting substantially better at modeling physics when compared to consoles. My favorite moment in Crysis was when I came to the conclusion that the best way to assault a particular North Korean camp involved driving a jeep straight through a building filled with North Koreans and using the ruined husk of the building as cover while I tossed frag grenades into the other buildings.
You are going to have a hell of a time processing the kind of destruction that I wrought over the course of a few seconds on a console. My desktop was doing that years ago, I can only imagine the mess it could do today.
Physics, unlike graphics, really can add to gameplay and make a game much more interesting.
In short, I don't give two shits about graphics. My favorite game in the history of games is Dwarf Fortress. But the power of the desktop isn't all about graphics. It is about memory, hard drive access times, memory access speeds, ease of physics calcuations, and CPU speed.[/QUOTE]
The chaos of physics can add a detriment to your experience as well. As I remember in Crysis Warhead after destroying the final walker boss, it exploded in a spectacular shower of fire and debris. Truly a stunning moment, which was cut short seconds after when a piece of debris hit and killed me, restarting me at the beginning of the boss fight.
I'll pause for a moment so you can reflect on how cheated I felt.
Crysis 2 appears to be addressing issues like this by providing more narrow, focused experiences. It stands to reason that a larger world is also all the more complex. This is why the CoD series is so successful, they don't care for providing these "invisible" experiences (like the one you had), they want to make you a game that takes you for a ride. And a billion dollars for activision says that people love that.
For good or bad Crysis 2 is trying to do this. But there are still these extra experiences to be had, for example, I had to be forced out of cover because I was behind a concrete barrier that was being chipped away by enemy fire.
I don't think that Crysis 2 is trying to compete with itself, it's trying to be a solid game. Yes vastness is being sacrificed, but tighter controls, less harsh system specs, and improved cinematic moments are being gained.
It's trying to be different, and in an era where people moan about every CoD game being a regurgitating cash cow, I wondering why the bottom line from people here is "It's not Crysis 1, so it's bad".
[QUOTE=Major.Dump;28792504]The chaos of physics can add a detriment to your experience as well. As I remember in Crysis Warhead after destroying the final walker boss, it exploded in a spectacular shower of fire and debris. Truly a stunning moment, which was cut short seconds after when a piece of debris hit and killed me, restarting me at the beginning of the boss fight.
I'll pause for a moment so you can reflect on how cheated I felt.
Crysis 2 appears to be addressing issues like this by providing more narrow, focused experiences. It stands to reason that a larger world is also all the more complex. This is why the CoD series is so successful, they don't care for providing these "invisible" experiences (like the one you had), they want to make you a game that takes you for a ride. And a billion dollars for activision says that people love that.
For good or bad Crysis 2 is trying to do this. But there are still these extra experiences to be had, for example, I had to be forced out of cover because I was behind a concrete barrier that was being chipped away by enemy fire.
I don't think that Crysis 2 is trying to compete with itself, it's trying to be a solid game. Yes vastness is being sacrificed, but tighter controls, less harsh system specs, and improved cinematic moments are being gained.
It's trying to be different, and in an era where people moan about every CoD game being a regurgitating cash cow, I wondering why the bottom line from people here is "It's not Crysis 1, so it's bad".[/QUOTE]
I agree with this.
Also: It's an awesome game. But I recommend waiting for a sale or something.
[QUOTE=Major.Dump;28792504]The chaos of physics can add a detriment to your experience as well. As I remember in Crysis Warhead after destroying the final walker boss, it exploded in a spectacular shower of fire and debris. Truly a stunning moment, which was cut short seconds after when a piece of debris hit and killed me, restarting me at the beginning of the boss fight.
I'll pause for a moment so you can reflect on how cheated I felt.
Crysis 2 appears to be addressing issues like this by providing more narrow, focused experiences. It stands to reason that a larger world is also all the more complex. This is why the CoD series is so successful, they don't care for providing these "invisible" experiences (like the one you had), they want to make you a game that takes you for a ride. And a billion dollars for activision says that people love that.
For good or bad Crysis 2 is trying to do this. But there are still these extra experiences to be had, for example, I had to be forced out of cover because I was behind a concrete barrier that was being chipped away by enemy fire.
I don't think that Crysis 2 is trying to compete with itself, it's trying to be a solid game. Yes vastness is being sacrificed, but tighter controls, less harsh system specs, and improved cinematic moments are being gained.
It's trying to be different, and in an era where people moan about every CoD game being a regurgitating cash cow, I wondering why the bottom line from people here is "It's not Crysis 1, so it's bad".[/QUOTE]
Haha a more "focused experience". I've seen that used several times to refer to the reduction in choice. Such a thinly veiled attempt to document a problem and call it a feature.
"Cinematic experience" is another word I see used a lot. I don't want a cinematic experience. I would go to the cinema, if I desired such a thing. I would like a video game. CHOICE is what separates video games from movies. Farcry and Crysis have always been about choice on a tactical level. You are given an objective and a general area of operations, and then left to your own devices about how you approach that objective. Changing that is a ridiculous and pointless endeavor.
Face it. The console cut their engine flexibility off at the knees. You are eating up every last scrap of bullshit they feed you. Sequels always compete with their predecessor. Releasing a new version of something that is inferior to the predecessor is almost universally looked down upon.
Again, my original statement was that the game may be good when viewed by itself, but when viewed compared to its predecessor, it is an inferior installment in the series.
[QUOTE=GunFox;28793181]Haha a more "focused experience". I've seen that used several times to refer to the reduction in choice. Such a thinly veiled attempt to document a problem and call it a feature.
"Cinematic experience" is another word I see used a lot. I don't want a cinematic experience. I would go to the cinema, if I desired such a thing. I would like a video game. CHOICE is what separates video games from movies. Farcry and Crysis have always been about choice on a tactical level. You are given an objective and a general area of operations, and then left to your own devices about how you approach that objective. Changing that is a ridiculous and pointless endeavor.
Face it. The console cut their engine flexibility off at the knees. You are eating up every last scrap of bullshit they feed you. Sequels always compete with their predecessor. Releasing a new version of something that is inferior to the predecessor is almost universally looked down upon.
Again, my original statement was that the game may be good when viewed by itself, but when viewed compared to its predecessor, it is an inferior installment in the series.[/QUOTE]
I would then ask what CHOICE do I have in Half Life 1? or Half Life 2? Two of the highest rated pc games in history. Choice is merely a gameplay element that has its roots in RPG's. What separates games and movies is INTERACTION.
I can't really rebuttal your later points because they're highly opinionated: What am I facing? Why do you think I'm eating up scraps of bullshit? I'm primarily a pc gamer, just because I express my thoughts this way should not make you think I'm some kind of console fanboy.
I don't agree that the sequel is an inferior game, and you should not assume the world is looking down on Crysis 2. The game does have it's own flaws just like the first one did. I'm just glad I don't see Koreans running out into the ocean to drown, or tripping on each other, or shooting me from their boat half a mile away.
[QUOTE=Major.Dump;28793896]I would then ask what CHOICE do I have in Half Life 1? or Half Life 2? Two of the highest rated pc games in history. Choice is merely a gameplay element that has its roots in RPG's. What separates games and movies is INTERACTION.
[/QUOTE]
Half life 1 liked puzzles. It also used the background as a means to pit you against unusual enemies with even more unusual tools. Half life 2 did the same thing, but focused on physics a lot more.
However, Half life 2 forgot that Half life 1 saw the story and "cinematic experience" as secondary to making a game that was entertaining and has suffered as a result. Not only did they not produce a game that was as entertaining as the original, but by focusing on the story they have only managed to produce a sci fi universe full of gaping plot holes.
[QUOTE=OutOfExile2;28769091]Sounds like you're just jealous because people are better off than you. DX11 support is in almost every new card, many of which are budget cards.[/QUOTE]
Well GTS 250 is from early 2009, I don't understand how that doesn't have DX11 if DX11 was announced in mid-2008.
This sucks.
[QUOTE=SoaringScout;28795635]Well GTS 250 is from early 2009, I don't understand how that doesn't have DX11 if DX11 was announced in mid-2008.
This sucks.[/QUOTE]
Wasn't the GTS 250 just a rebranded 9800 anyway?
Ive just been playing it, and the original Crysis is [b]ALOT[/b] more fun.
[QUOTE=SoaringScout;28795635]Well GTS 250 is from early 2009, I don't understand how that doesn't have DX11 if DX11 was announced in mid-2008.
This sucks.[/QUOTE]
Most modern ATI cards run DX11.
[QUOTE=rampageturke 2;28799180]Wasn't the GTS 250 just a rebranded 9800 anyway?[/QUOTE]
Could have been considering how people compare the 9000 series to the GTS 200 series a lot.
I wouldn't recommend getting this if you want to use it as a graphical trophy like Crysis 1, or if you like the open world style of Crysis 1.
Otherwise it's good.
This game isn't open world.
There's invisible walls everywhere.
it's unlocking right now, but it's stuck at 15% :(
[QUOTE=Coffee;28803624]This game isn't open world.
There's invisible walls everywhere.[/QUOTE]
It was never advertised as open world. It is a linear game with open-ended combat options.
[QUOTE=I_Forgot;28785745]But how are you posting if you have no net access?[/QUOTE]
Mobile.
Hahah I can't believe they got rid of the graphics options
The advanced graphics options are still there, just not as available as they used to be. You can still change texture, model, post processing levels, etc, just not with the GUI of the menu.
[QUOTE=Leintharien;28810287]The advanced graphics options are still there, just not as available as they used to be. You can still change texture, model, post processing levels, etc, just not with the GUI of the menu.[/QUOTE]
And that sucks
[QUOTE=Major.Dump;28792504]
It's trying to be different, and in an era where people moan about every CoD game being a regurgitating cash cow, I wondering why the bottom line from people here is "It's not Crysis 1, so it's bad".[/QUOTE]
It's actually trying to more of the same compared to Crysis 1 soo...
[QUOTE=Leintharien;28810287]The advanced graphics options are still there, just not as available as they used to be. You can still change texture, model, post processing levels, etc, just not with the GUI of the menu.[/QUOTE]
but why would they do this, what's the fucking point
[QUOTE=Coffee;28803624]This game isn't open world.
There's invisible walls everywhere.[/QUOTE]
When Crysis 2 was first announced to be in the city I imagined gigantic set pieces where you could jump across rooftops, through windows, basically use every cubic inch of the city to your tactical advantage.
Instead we got corridors disguised as a city
Put a roof on the maps and change some of the textures and the game could essentially have been in a giant factory or something
[QUOTE=Zeke129;28820229]When Crysis 2 was first announced to be in the city I imagined gigantic set pieces where you could jump across rooftops, through windows, basically use every cubic inch of the city to your tactical advantage.
Instead we got corridors disguised as a city
Put a roof on the maps and change some of the textures and the game could essentially have been in a giant factory or something[/QUOTE]
I'm sure all of that would have been possible if this game was focused for the PC and the PC alone.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;28820229]When Crysis 2 was first announced to be in the city I imagined gigantic set pieces where you could jump across rooftops, through windows, basically use every cubic inch of the city to your tactical advantage.
Instead we got corridors disguised as a city
Put a roof on the maps and change some of the textures and the game could essentially have been in a giant factory or something[/QUOTE]
I think that if the game was really like that, it would be too advanced for anyone's computer to run effectively. That, and the diskspace would be massive. Not to mention people would probably not want to get lost going through multiple stories of the same copy-pasted floors until they get to the top of the building.
[QUOTE=Generic.Monk;28820043]nut why would they do this, what's the fucking point[/QUOTE]
Hey, I use them. I'm glad they had the audacity to at least sneak in these advanced options for the more technically adept.
This game is terrible in every way except for graphics. Very disappointed. The first game was much better.
[QUOTE=Biotoxsin;28820931]This game is terrible in every way except for graphics. Very disappointed. The first game was much better.[/QUOTE]
Glad to see you thoroughly explained your opinion, and your post doesn't sound like a poorly based one.
[QUOTE=Kab2tract;28824666]Glad to see you throughly explained your opinion, and your post doesn't sound like a poorly based one.[/QUOTE]
Why? So that the fanboys can gang up on him as they do with everyone else that has a negative opinion? Face it. The game truly doesn't live up to the first one. No patches can fix this. They would have to rebuild the game from the ground up to fix the issues with it. I've been playing it myself, and I have to admit that I'm disappointed with it just as much. It did not deserve the hype it got.
[QUOTE=Leintharien;28820738]I think that if the game was really like that, it would be too advanced for anyone's computer to run effectively. That, and the diskspace would be massive. Not to mention people would probably not want to get lost going through multiple stories of the same copy-pasted floors until they get to the top of the building.[/QUOTE]
I assumed the Nanosuit 2 would have a mode which let you walk vertically up walls
Kind of a throwback to the zero-g segments in Crysis
[QUOTE=Zeke129;28825976]I assumed the Nanosuit 2 would have a mode which let you walk vertically up walls
Kind of a throwback to the zero-g segments in Crysis[/QUOTE]
The Zero-G part of Crysis must be AMAZING while stoned.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
