Crysis 2 PC edition OT

Got about 3/4 of the way through the game. Very enjoyable, despite all it's shortcomings. I think I'll forgive Crytek the crap textures and the consolization of the game if they release a 5GB texture pack and an awesome DX11 path that all hardcore Crysis 1 fans deserve.

I am with you totally on this one.
 
I still haven't played the first Crysis (or Wars) so I'm sure all those things will be in place by the time I get around to Crysis 2. :)
 
if they release a 5GB texture pack and an awesome DX11 path that all hardcore Crysis 1 fans deserve.

unprecedented and unlikely. In the Far Cry days with Ubi they put more support into their game but that all changed when they got snuggly with EA for Crysis and Warhead.

Undoubtedly this would hinge on EA funding the effort and fat chance of that. I wouldn't be surprised if EA required them to not waste time (money) on superfluous PC extras when they would benefit only a small fraction of the audience.
 
The Crysis 1 PC scene had a huge marketing impact for Crysis 2 ... calling supporting the game and giving it legs superfluous is rather short sighted.
 
The Crysis 1 PC scene had a huge marketing impact for Crysis 2 ... calling supporting the game and giving it legs superfluous is rather short sighted.

hey I'm not saying that's what I personally think. We shall see what EA thinks. They didn't bother to give Crysis or Warhead much support and those were even PC exclusives.

FarCry on the other hand got tons of patches and technology enhancements.
 
calling supporting the game and giving it legs superfluous is rather short sighted.
It isn't shortsighted if you're a penny-pinching, money-grubbing, suit-wearing, stock options-holding company exec.
 
I can't wait to see sales numbers of this game and budget/ROI comparisons between the first and second Crysis, if that ever gets publicly revelead. Will it end up like UT3, a high-end PC-only franchise going consoles which was a comercial failure compared to what previous installment did on PC. And FC2 which sold less/on par with the first Crysis. Multiplatform development strategy (vs. dedicated one) isn't always the cure-all that suits want it to be.
 
Will it end up like UT3, a high-end PC-only franchise going consoles which was a comercial failure compared to what previous installment did on PC. And FC2 which sold less/on par with the first Crysis. Multiplatform development strategy (vs. dedicated one) isn't always the cure-all that suits want it to be.
It's the usual problem of trying to predict what the fickle masses want to buy. The safest route is of course to try to duplicate the aspects of a recently successful title (or genre). But by the time games come out a fad may have passed.

I'm not sure that I'd call FarCry 2 an obvious Crysis clone. It's more like STALKER than Crysis. It was sort of a FPS/RPG hybrid in some ways and rather unique. It's too bad that the team behind it apparently didn't have a clue how to make a fun game.

UT3 seemed like the classic example of "the fad was over and a new one had come along". Sci-fi/fantasy shooter had been thoroughly replaced by team-based WW2/modern combat stuff.
 
UT3 seemed like the classic example of "the fad was over and a new one had come along". Sci-fi/fantasy shooter had been thoroughly replaced by team-based WW2/modern combat stuff.

Well, there is NS2 and Tribes: Ascend. They better not design the successor to one of the best multiplayer games of all time around thumbstick-centric playtesting and instead go Quake Live -> Quake Arena Arcade route
 
Last edited by a moderator:
UT3 seemed like the classic example of "the fad was over and a new one had come along". Sci-fi/fantasy shooter had been thoroughly replaced by team-based WW2/modern combat stuff.

I don't think the problem is that there isn't room for a sci-fi shooter, it's just that Epic made too many console compromises in the PC game, stripped out many of the things that the PC players wanted and had in the previous games, and delivered a game that still needed lots of polishing.

Epic made one game they wanted to sell to both PC players and console players, and like a lot of compromises, ended up pleasing no one and alienating their previously loyal fanbase.

A good example of what was mentioned above ie going multiplatform and losing a previously successful franchise that was better because of it's intrinsic focus on the advantages of a single platform, rather than the common denominators of all three.
 
I don't think the problem is that there isn't room for a sci-fi shooter, it's just that Epic made too many console compromises in the PC game, stripped out many of the things that the PC players wanted and had in the previous games, and delivered a game that still needed lots of polishing.

Epic made one game they wanted to sell to both PC players and console players, and like a lot of compromises, ended up pleasing no one and all.
Maybe but unlike apparently everyone else, I thought UT3 was fun. Most of my former UT buddies wanted to play WOW or just some other shooter. But hey I didn't even mind UT2003 which had similar supposed consolitis due to Unreal Championship influence.

Anyway, Epic found out how to make people happy - make a new IP. Gears of War. No preset expectations. Delete said supposed loyal fans. Gears was originally Unreal Warfare, AFAIK.
 
Thanks for the answers. I don't what to keep derailing the thread from graphic cards vendors and music disscusion.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
AMD and NVIDIA, selling cards to play DX11, but the market only push DX9 titles... a BIG shame!!!!

This is a good point for me to again throw the idea in which AMD and nVidia should establish their own gaming studios churning out 2-3 demanding titles per year, those would works as a proper marketing tool for their cards and have a potential to be net gainers on their own too. Perhaps some other studios would pick up their "game" in such an environment too.
 
I'm not so sure NVIDIA is pushing their semi-sponsored developers to support DX11 at all, not unless they push tessellation.
 
This is a good point for me to again throw the idea in which AMD and nVidia should establish their own gaming studios churning out 2-3 demanding titles per year, those would works as a proper marketing tool for their cards and have a potential to be net gainers on their own too. Perhaps some other studios would pick up their "game" in such an environment too.
...and then chances are you'll end up with titles that either:

1) Only work on one vendors cards.
2) Are highly optimized for their own but will run - at significantly reduced detail and performance - on their competitors offerings.

One of the great downsides to consoles is the fight for exclusivity, with great titles being available only one one console. I don't want that to come to the PC.
 
Yes that is one very possible problem, but maybe that could be solvable, even if it would take something completely out of this world behaviour like these two companies working together a bit for a common goal , but maybe it's asking too much?
 
Also we'd still be getting high end titles that we wouldn't otherwise so it's a win for pc gamers either way. I'd rather an nvidia produced high end game runs more slowly on my ati gpu than said game not exist at all. Especially if ati are producing games where the opposite is true. As long as they run on both vendors gpus it should be okay. And I'm sure they would simply to hit a larger target audience.
 
Back
Top