# Crysis 2



## JLuchinski (Mar 25, 2010)

I wish they showed more PC footage, but none the less it's going to be a damn good game. Definitely looking forward to it. Time to start a new build.  

http://www.break.com/game-trailers/game/crysis-2/crysis-2-gdc-2010-trailer


----------



## joh06937 (Mar 25, 2010)

to tell you the truth, i hated crysis 1. i never really got into it. but that setting in the city looks awesome. i hoped they changed the things i didn't like because that looks like a cool game. any word on requirements?


----------



## JLuchinski (Mar 25, 2010)

No, I can't remember where I read it but apparently it's optimized to run really well on even the most modest systems, but time will tell. I guess if the 360 can run it that well then maybe there's a light at the end of the tunnel. The facial animations are incredible.


----------



## joh06937 (Mar 25, 2010)

i couldn't really see from the video, but hopefully that is true


----------



## 1337dingo (Mar 25, 2010)

i dident like the first one... yes the graphics were awesome.. but thats not why i buy a game i buy it for gameplay.. and the game play sucked


----------



## Ryeong (Mar 25, 2010)

JLuchinski said:


> No, I can't remember where I read it but apparently it's optimized to run really well on even the most modest systems, but time will tell. I guess if the 360 can run it that well then maybe there's a light at the end of the tunnel. The facials animations are incredible.



This will not be a console port, keep that in mind.. The requirements for this game will be VERY high..

GTX 480 in sli for 60+
i7
8Gb ram++ (much as possible)

etc etc...

The console version of this game won't requre much.. PS3 runs on a 5-6 year old GPU lmao..


----------



## linkin (Mar 25, 2010)

But if the game can run on current consoles, wheras the first could not (same concoles) then it must be less intensive. Crytek admitted that CryEngine 2 was horribly unoptimised and poorly coded, like GTA IV, but only because of the DX10 addition at the last minute...


----------



## Gooberman (Mar 25, 2010)

I don't know where you got those requirements the GTX480 hasn't even come out so how can they just pop that onto a game requirement lol
From what i've heard it's going to have a lower System Requirement than the original which is good


----------



## Ryeong (Mar 25, 2010)

Gooberman said:


> I don't know where you got those requirements the GTX480 hasn't even come out so how can they just pop that onto a game requirement lol
> From what i've heard it's going to have a lower System Requirement than the original which is good



Optium recuirements from Metro 2033 is:

    *  Core i7 CPU

    * NVIDIA DirectX 11 compliant graphics card (GeForce GTX 480 and 470)

    * As much RAM as possible (8GB+)

    * Fast HDD or SSD

Nuff' said... If Crysis 2 is aiming for a better look than this game, it will need specs like those. The game is highly optimized for Nvidia harware.. I know and feel then when playing. looks 1000x better than crysis 1 and anything i've ever seen before and i can't even run in DX11 with tesselation becouse i dont have a DX11 card yet ^^


----------



## joh06937 (Mar 25, 2010)

Ryeong said:


> Optium recuirements from Metro 2033 is:
> 
> *  Core i7 CPU
> 
> ...



uh, no that game is poorly coded. i have played it and quite frankly the graphics aren't all that great. on 1440x900 everything gets stretched out which actually makes me laugh.


----------



## Gooberman (Mar 25, 2010)

yeah crysis was poorly coded that's why you needed monster machines to run it max 
crysis 2 system requirements is less than the original which is good even though i still need to get the first crysis which i can run on lowest of the low and get a nice 20-40 fps(from the demo)


----------



## Twist86 (Mar 25, 2010)

Crysis was a 1 time play through for me but I did like the storyline so can't wait for that 
Also I agree Metro 2033 really does suck...poor coding and graphics don't meet the requirements of the game. If specs made the game then it would be the best game ever and luckily it don't.


----------



## Ryeong (Mar 25, 2010)

Twist86 said:


> Crysis was a 1 time play through for me but I did like the storyline so can't wait for that
> Also I agree Metro 2033 really does suck...poor coding and graphics don't meet the requirements of the game. If specs made the game then it would be the best game ever and luckily it don't.



---> XFX GTX 260 868mb 192 Core  standalone<--- what do you expect lmao! to run smooth? lMAO!

I run this game maxed 50-55 fps average (Very High, 4msAA, advanced physix and 1080p) that's 5 fps less than i have average in crysis maxed without any mods. And the game looks 10x better on this settings compared to anything seen, which makes it greatly optimized. if you dont see that then you have done soething wrong, playing on console or cant play on high lmao.. the ****? you blind?

---

Also, those who play on 1440x900 don't consider yourself gamers anymore and please leave this thread


----------



## StrangleHold (Mar 25, 2010)

This is starting to get really (OLD)


----------



## Matthew1990 (Mar 25, 2010)

Ryeong said:


> ---> XFX GTX 260 868mb 192 Core  standalone<--- what do you expect lmao! to run smooth? lMAO!
> 
> I run this game maxed 50-55 fps average (Very High, 4msAA, advanced physix and 1080p) that's 5 fps less than i have average in crysis maxed without any mods. And the game looks 10x better on this settings compared to anything seen, which makes it greatly optimized. if you dont see that then you have done soething wrong, playing on console or cant play on high lmao.. the ****? you blind?
> 
> ...




From what I can see you are a douchebag, no offence. Slagging off everyone, everywhere, get out more or play your god damned Metro whatever year it is....jezzz


----------



## Ryeong (Mar 25, 2010)

Matthew1990 said:


> From what I can see you are a douchebag, no offence. Slagging off everyone, everywhere, get out more or play your god damned Metro whatever year it is....jezzz



A douchebag is a person who does nothing about a situation... A douchebag is a person who is consistently indirectly trying to agitate another person..

I resond to people who is consistently trying to agitate me.. I say one thing, they say something else.. i recheck if i was correct, and i was.. they keep rejecting me.. thats agitating.

If you can't comprehend that, then maybe you're the douchebag siting on the side doing nothing about the situation..

a douchebag, such a weak word..

(this is going off-topic, back to crysis 2 people..)


----------



## StrangleHold (Mar 25, 2010)

Douchebag

An individual who has an over-inflated sense of self worth, compounded by a low level of intellegence, behaving ridiculously in front of colleagues with no sense of how moronic he appears. 

or
Vaginal cleaning apparatuses

Both of these seem to fit.


----------



## Ryeong (Mar 25, 2010)

StrangleHold said:


> Douchebag
> 
> An individual who has an over-inflated sense of self worth, compounded by a low level of intellegence, behaving ridiculously in front of colleagues with no sense of how moronic he appears.
> 
> ...



"An individual who has an over-inflated sense of self worth" that's egoism..

"compounded by a low level of intellegence" that's stupidity

"behaving ridiculously in front of colleagues with no sense of how moronic he appears" That sounds like my teacher..

Ah, oh ok..

Have a nice day  ^^ ... (...)


----------



## Dystopia (Mar 25, 2010)

joh06937 said:


> to tell you the truth, i hated crysis 1. i never really got into it. but that setting in the city looks awesome. i hoped they changed the things i didn't like because that looks like a cool game. any word on requirements?



I didn't care much for Crysis either. Big dissapointment. PC gamer scored it like 98% or something. But they were all hyped up on the graphics, they forgot to score the gameplay. I think that again, a $500 system will be able to run crysis 2. 

One reason I will want crysis 2 is because the first one had a decent story line, and I want to know how they continue it.


----------



## Ryeong (Mar 25, 2010)

Elimin8or said:


> I didn't care much for Crysis either. Big dissapointment. PC gamer scored it like 98% or something. But they were all hyped up on the graphics, they forgot to score the gameplay. I think that again, a $500 system will be able to run crysis 2.
> 
> One reason I will want crysis 2 is because the first one had a decent story line, and I want to know how they continue it.



I didn't even notice crysis had a storyline (.. lol? ) you're here, then you shoot a bit, then you're there and shoot some more (sarcasm ftw?..).. Yea, i get your point.. it's a 3/6 game becouse the story is weak. 

a 500 dollar comp wont run the pc-version of cryengine 3.. Maybe on low, 600x800 or something lol.. Cryengine 3 will most likely be demanding the top hardware to max it out. Yet, very playable and enjoyable at lower res with lower settings, or hopefully for those who can't afford better systems.

I personally wont be statisfied before i can max that game, even if i need to spend another 2000 dollars on my comp to do so..


----------



## Dystopia (Mar 25, 2010)

Ryeong said:


> I didn't even notice crysis had a storyline (.. lol? ) you're here, then you shoot a bit, then you're there and shoot some more (sarcasm ftw?..).. Yea, i get your point.. it's a 3/6 game becouse the story is weak.
> 
> a 500 dollar comp wont run the pc-version of cryengine 3.. Maybe on low, 600x800 or something lol.. Cryengine 3 will most likely be demanding the top hardware to max it out. Yet, very playable and enjoyable at lower res with lower settings, or hopefully for those who can't afford better systems.
> 
> I personally wont be statisfied before i can max that game, even if i need to spend another 2000 dollars on my comp to do so..



Well...hmmm...yeah if I think about it, there is not much of one...


----------



## Ryeong (Mar 25, 2010)

Elimin8or said:


> Well...hmmm...yeah if I think about it, there is not much of one...



You still have the aliens, and the nano-suits... 

Plot for Crysis 2 = Aliens with nano-suits xd..


----------



## Dystopia (Mar 25, 2010)

Ryeong said:


> You still have the aliens, and the nano-suits...
> 
> Plot for Crysis 2 = Aliens with nano-suits xd..



haha, yeah...right. But I did read that you (the player) will be able to use 2 functions at one time  invisible and super strength/speed ftw


----------



## Twist86 (Mar 25, 2010)

Ryeong said:


> ---> XFX GTX 260 868mb 192 Core  standalone<--- what do you expect lmao! to run smooth? lMAO!
> ---
> 
> Also, those who play on 1440x900 don't consider yourself gamers anymore and please leave this thread


Well firstly where did I say I played this game on my system or even at all? I made a FACT about the coding vs the system specs. So you suck at basic reading skills congrats.

Secondly a gamer is not based off the specs of the system its anyone who enjoys the gaming world from PC to consoles.
Thirdly where the hell do you get off insulting so many members of this forum? You come into a forum insult members who actually know what the hell they are saying and belittle anyone and everyone you can.


----------



## Dystopia (Mar 25, 2010)

Twist86 said:


> Well firstly where did I say I played this game on my system or even at all? I made a FACT about the coding vs the system specs. So you suck at basic reading skills congrats.
> 
> Secondly a gamer is not based off the specs of the system its anyone who enjoys the gaming world from PC to consoles.
> Thirdly where the hell do you get off insulting so many members of this forum? You come into a forum insult members who actually know what the hell they are saying and belittle anyone and everyone you can.



Well, you did say that you played it. But I agree with you, he is rather insulting.


----------



## Twist86 (Mar 25, 2010)

Elimin8or said:


> Well, you did say that you played it. But I agree with you, he is rather insulting.



Actually I made a remark that the game/coding/specs sucked I never openly said I played it or even on my system Q6600 system. But that is unimportant the point was he judged a system and insulted its owner like normal without reading the actual post.

Your right though I did play it but on my buddies system (as I wasn't buying it myself) as he has a I5/5850 as I was more curious about DX11.


----------



## Ryeong (Mar 25, 2010)

Elimin8or said:


> haha, yeah...right. But I did read that you (the player) will be able to use 2 functions at one time  invisible and super strength/speed ftw



 nice



Twist86 said:


> Well firstly where did I say I played this game on my system or even at all? I made a FACT about the coding vs the system specs. So you suck at basic reading skills congrats.
> 
> Secondly a gamer is not based off the specs of the system its anyone who enjoys the gaming world from PC to consoles.
> Thirdly where the hell do you get off insulting so many members of this forum? You come into a forum insult members who actually know what the hell they are saying and belittle anyone and everyone you can.



You insulted me before i insulted you, that's a fact. Oh, and that makes it one member. I sincerely apologize if i have insulted anyone else than you, thus so far i can't remember anyone else than you.. Maybe because i just came home after 32 hours without sleep?.. A real gamer cares for graphics, therefore a higher than high-end system is often required in the newer games (exeption of older. you know what i'm talking about.) 

Or we can split games into some more parts..

Casual gamer      (Just for "fun")
hardcore gamer      (spending cash on hardware to play new games)
Enthusiastic gamer   (Spends thousands of dollars every year to maintain the possibility to max out games in 1080p or beyond)

(look how nicely those words increase compared to eachother ..)


----------



## Aastii (Mar 25, 2010)

Ryeong said:


> ---> XFX GTX 260 868mb 192 Core  standalone<--- what do you expect lmao! to run smooth? lMAO!
> 
> I run this game maxed 50-55 fps average (Very High, 4msAA, advanced physix and 1080p) that's 5 fps less than i have average in crysis maxed without any mods. And the game looks 10x better on this settings compared to anything seen, which makes it greatly optimized. if you dont see that then you have done soething wrong, playing on console or cant play on high lmao.. the ****? you blind?
> 
> ...



Riiiiiight, so someone that plays on a certain resolution can't be a gamer? When I was still on my 8600gt's in SLI I couldn't handle 1080p in most games, so on my home TV when playing games I would have it at that resolution, including in clan matches and raids, so I am a gamer, I am a hardcore gamer, so well done at making yourself look like somewhat of a dick by saying that.



Ryeong said:


> I didn't even notice crysis had a storyline (.. lol? ) you're here, then you shoot a bit, then you're there and shoot some more (sarcasm ftw?..).. Yea, i get your point.. it's a 3/6 game becouse the story is weak.
> 
> a 500 dollar comp wont run the pc-version of cryengine 3.. Maybe on low, 600x800 or something lol.. Cryengine 3 will most likely be demanding the top hardware to max it out. Yet, very playable and enjoyable at lower res with lower settings, or hopefully for those who can't afford better systems.
> 
> I personally wont be statisfied before i can max that game, even if i need to spend another 2000 dollars on my comp to do so..



A $500 system will easily run it, not on high, maybe 1280x1024, maybe on low/medium, but I can see it easily playing it. Crysis would play quite happily on an 8500gt, hell my 8600gt (when I had only had 1) without overclocks in my system would handle it in DX10 on medium settings at 1280x1024. To get the "best" out of it you need higher yea, but that doesn't make it look bad.

You seem like one of those that think you are the best, so rage quit and in games call people noobs because when people prove that you aren't the best, which I imagine would happen fairly often, it does with those like you, because it could never POSSIBLY be you that is playing badly, it must somehow be them, and you go for graphics over gamplay, so would claim that crysis is better than the older, classic, amazing games, simply because they don't look as good



Ryeong said:


> You insulted me before i insulted you, that's a fact. Oh, and that makes it one member. I sincerely apologize if i have insulted anyone else than you, thus so far i can't remember anyone else than you.. Maybe because i just came home after 32 hours without sleep?.. A real gamer cares for graphics, therefore a higher than high-end system is often required in the newer games (exeption of older. you know what i'm talking about.)
> 
> Or we can split games into some more parts..
> 
> ...



I don't think your idea of a gamer works...at all. I am a casual gamer because I play just for fun, otherwise I would care about acchievements and being the best and such and I would never spend my life savings on a computer just to play a game.

I am a hardcore gamer because I spend cash on hardware to play new games and because I play games competatively with clans.

I am not an idiot (or as you put it "enthusiast gamer") because I realise for that money I could go outside with real people, rather than virtual people, in my car, while out I could buy us all a round of drinks, I could then return to my home that I own with my friends/family that I have because I don't sit infront of a screen all day, all because I didn't piss money down the drain on bits of silicon, I spent it on the real world.

I am not big headed and don't mean to brag, but look at my specs in my sig. No, it isn't an overclocked i7, crossfired 5970's, 24GB memory, RAID0 SSDs system, but I still sit at the top of the scoreboards in just about every game, I still top healing/dps in WoW, I still complete any game in respectable times, I am better than the "average" gamer or the "casual" gamer.

You don't have to be some middle/upper class tw*t (not twit) that thinks they are better than everyone because mummy and daddy have money, you can be working class, like me, with debt, like me, with what is really a mid range system, which I have and that I worked damn hard to get, and still game properly.

Where the hell do you get off telling me I am not a gamer and shouldn't call myself that? I enjoy playing games with friends, with my girlfriend, with my family, be it with them in the room having a laugh on the xbox, be it playing on my own, be it in a scrim, no I'm not fortunate to have more money than braincells, so ****ing what, if you think that makes you better than anyone else, you will say that to the wrong person one day and they will give you a ****ing good hiding and I so wish I am there when it happens.

while you are sitting there being a pretensious moron, how about we look up the deffinition of "game" and see if it has the word "graphics" or "overpriced, uneeded system" in it:

# a contest with rules to determine a winner; "you need four people to play this game"
# a single play of a sport or other contest; "the game lasted two hours"
# an amusement or pastime; "they played word games"; "he thought of his painting as a game that filled his empty time"; "his life was all fun and games"
# animal hunted for food or sport
# (tennis) a division of play during which one player serves
# (games) the score at a particular point or the score needed to win; "the game is 6 all"; "he is serving for the game"
# the flesh of wild animals that is used for food
# plot: a secret scheme to do something (especially something underhand or illegal); "they concocted a plot to discredit the governor"; "I saw through his little game from the start"
# the game equipment needed in order to play a particular game; "the child received several games for his birthday"
# your occupation or line of work; "he's in the plumbing game"; "she's in show biz"
# crippled: disabled in the feet or legs; "a crippled soldier"; "a game leg"
# bet on: place a bet on; "Which horse are you backing?"; "I'm betting on the new horse"
# frivolous or trifling behavior; "for actors, memorizing lines is no game"; "for him, life is all fun and games"
# willing to face dange


To get more ON TOPIC THOUGH and away from some stuck up plank:

Crysis 2, much like Crysis was, will go for looks over gameplay. Sure, it will look sweet and be worth playing just for that, once, but it will have near 0 replayability, it will have crap gameplay, it will be bugged as hell because they will try to do too much, it will have a weak storyline, it will be in history simply for "being the best looking game of the time", not for anything good like having the great storyline, having characters you can relate to and get attatched to, having inovative gameplay etc etc


----------



## speedyink (Mar 25, 2010)

Ryeong said:


> Also, those who play on 1440x900 don't consider yourself gamers anymore and please leave this thread



Douchiemcdoucherton.

Lmao, seriously, why?  I game in both 1080 and 720p and honestly, either way the game is still fun.

In all seriousness though, stop f***ing arguing people.  There's so much shit going on in todays world and you guys are arguing on what considers you a gamer?  How about you get a f***ing life and keep games in the lighter side of life.

On topic, I can't wait for Crysis 2, solely because of the graphics.  I know it will be like Crysis and I won't even get 1/4 through it before I get bored but at least it will be nice to look at while I play


----------



## Dystopia (Mar 25, 2010)

speedyink said:


> Douchiemcdoucherton.
> 
> Lmao, seriously, why?  I game in both 1080 and 720p and honestly, either way the game is still fun.
> 
> ...



I agree, on everything, which is why I did not even start to argue about what "real" gaming is, because gaming is so diverse.


----------



## JLuchinski (Mar 25, 2010)

Yeah, it's all a personal choice just like music and movies. I can't wait, I really hope that we can play online against consoles like Shadow Run, that would be cool. And mixed Nano Suit powers? Hell yeah.


----------



## Drenlin (Mar 25, 2010)

I have to run old games like Tribes 2 and Quake 3 at a max of 1024 x 768, because I can't afford a new rig just yet. And when I can, I'll still be using an Hybrid Crossfire rig. Does that mean I'm not a real gamer? Hell no, it means I'm a poor college student.


----------



## Ryeong (Mar 25, 2010)

Aastii said:


> Riiiiiight, so someone that plays on a certain resolution can't be a gamer? When I was still on my 8600gt's in SLI I couldn't handle 1080p in most games, so on my home TV when playing games I would have it at that resolution, including in clan matches and raids, so I am a gamer, I am a hardcore gamer, so well done at making yourself look like somewhat of a dick by saying that.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's the common definition of gaming.. dude?.. You wrote that in vain. it's all about opinions and personal preferences. You do not look at a gamer the same way i do. The reason why i said Enthusiasts care fore graphics and buy expensive harware etc etc is becouse the requirements for running a game maxed is increasing every month. And reviewers focus on some main parts such as Story,Graphics,sound effects etc etc.. Just check IGN or gamespot. Therefore, a "enthusiast" would lay a lot more passion into those spots..

chill. that's it :I


----------



## Ryeong (Mar 25, 2010)

Drenlin said:


> I have to run old games like Tribes 2 and Quake 3 at a max of 1024 x 768, because I can't afford a new rig just yet. And when I can, I'll still be using an Hybrid Crossfire rig. Does that mean I'm not a real gamer? Hell no, it means I'm a poor college student.



why not just get a job? :I .. i know that sound harsh but are you over 18? if so you can earn a shit-load of cash if you work at times other people usually wouldn't... Or some chill jobs with very nice payment.


----------



## Drenlin (Mar 25, 2010)

The job market in my small town sucks...I've been trying for one for over a year now. Having to work around a college schedule doesn't help.

Besides, even if I did have a job, I'd have more important things to spend money on...like food...


----------



## Ryeong (Mar 25, 2010)

Drenlin said:


> The job market in my small town sucks...I've been trying for one for over a year now. Having to work around a college schedule doesn't help.
> 
> Besides, even if I did have a job, I'd have more important things to spend money on...like food...



Yea, studying and working can be difficult.. summer work ftw..

Well, the day you get a real job after your study is done. that's when life becomes chill.. atleast that's what i've heard..


----------



## Dystopia (Mar 25, 2010)

Ryeong said:


> *why not just get a job? *:I .. i know that sound harsh but are you over 18? if so you can earn a shit-load of cash if you work at times other people usually wouldn't... Or some chill jobs with very nice payment.



You deserve a big '**** you' for that. Even if he would have a job, he needs money for clothing, car insurance, gas, the next year of college, food, car repairs, the list goes on. The last thing he has to worry about is having a computer that will make games look pretty.



Drenlin said:


> The job market in my small town sucks...I've been trying for one for over a year now. Having to work around a college schedule doesn't help.
> 
> Besides, even if I did have a job, I'd have more important things to spend money on...like food...



You should have said what I told him...my brother is in college and works part time. He can't really afford to buy a graphics card so I can get mine back. The money is there, yes, but he needs it for other stuff...like I mentioned.


----------



## joh06937 (Mar 26, 2010)

i wonder if we can start a petition to get this f***** ryeong banned. would be nice. by the way, i said before that i game at 1440x900 (probably the one you were mentioning). how does that make me not a gamer? oh, i see, a different aspect ratio :/ 


Aastii said:


> You seem like one of those that think you are the best, so rage quit and in games call people noobs because when people prove that you aren't the best, which I imagine would happen fairly often, it does with those like you, because it could never POSSIBLY be you that is playing badly, it must somehow be them, and you go for graphics over gamplay, so would claim that crysis is better than the older, classic, amazing games, simply because they don't look as good



aastii, you nailed it right on the head.
also, i have dual 1440x900 monitors, so, someone help me put down my four outer fingers.


----------



## 1337dingo (Mar 26, 2010)

haha id sign


----------



## mep916 (Mar 26, 2010)

Settle down fellas. No one will be banned, there will be no petition and I'd like everyone to stop flaming. Thanks. 

Also, easy on the language. We have a language filter for a reason. Back on topic...


----------



## joh06937 (Mar 26, 2010)

mep916 said:


> Settle down fellas. No one will be banned, there will be no petition and I'd like everyone to stop flaming. Thanks.
> 
> Also, easy on the language. We have a language filter for a reason. Back on topic...



oooooo kkkkkkk... :kick rock with hands in pocket:


----------



## mep916 (Mar 26, 2010)

joh06937 said:


> oooooo kkkkkkk... :kick rock with hands in pocket:



lmao


----------



## ScottALot (Mar 26, 2010)

Hell, Crysis on the Xbox? Sounds good to me.

Not flaming, but I must say, Rye, you're a little aggressive for someone who has just recently joined the forum.


----------



## linkin (Mar 26, 2010)

Also, cannot wait for crysis 2 IF IT IS OPTIMISED AND RUNS ON CURRENT HARDWARE.


----------



## JLuchinski (Mar 26, 2010)

linkin said:


> It would get filtered.
> 
> Also, cannot wait for crysis 2 IF IT IS OPTIMISED AND RUNS ON CURRENT HARDWARE.


 
 I'm curious to see that to. There's so much speculation on it nobody really knows for sure. I guess we can hope for a beta version?


----------



## Ryeong (Mar 26, 2010)

ScottALot said:


> Hell, Crysis on the Xbox? Sounds good to me.
> 
> Not flaming, but I must say, Rye, you're a little aggressive for someone who has just recently joined the forum.



i sincerely apologize if anyone feel insulted. i did never intend to insult anyone..

I know this might be old.. but here are some pics..











Source:  Gamespot..

In-game, or not?


----------



## linkin (Mar 26, 2010)

****ing awesome screenshots!

I'm gunna buy the game when it's released, if it doesn't use ubisoft-type DRM.

And they do look like ingame screenshots, and renders. It's hard to tell.


----------



## f.i.t.h (Mar 26, 2010)

I would say they are renders, look at the muzzle flashes, I could swear they are worse than any game in history.

@Ryeong
Is it really your opinion that Graphics > Gameplay?


----------



## Archangel (Mar 26, 2010)

I liked the first Crysis game (and Warhead for that matter)
simply just to try stuff out it was good fun.
true, the enemies could see you much too easy, and the coding could've been better.   imo, it was a fun game to play nevertheless.  and the plot was good too.  (also loved the 0-gravity bit. the whole feel of that bit when you're floating around alone in that alien ship the first time, excellent.)

Cant wait for this one to be released, and I'm definately going to buy it.
(and as usual, I don't really care what other people think of a game.   as long as its fun to play, its a good game imo.  )

I really hope they put co-op campaign in it.   its one of the most fun aspects I like about console shooters.
will definately buy it for the xbox if it does.


----------



## Aastii (Mar 26, 2010)

Archangel said:


> I liked the first Crysis game (and Warhead for that matter)
> simply just to try stuff out it was good fun.
> true, the enemies could see you much too easy, and the coding could've been better.   imo, it was a fun game to play nevertheless.  and the plot was good too.  (also loved the 0-gravity bit. the whole feel of that bit when you're floating around alone in that alien ship the first time, excellent.)
> 
> ...



I think that would be the only thing that would redeem it from the the first Crysis to be honest, because a co-op of any kind is always so much fun. Not splitscreen though, can't stand that, I prefer co-op online, like how they had it on GOW on PC .


----------



## just a noob (Mar 26, 2010)

Ryeong said:


> ---> XFX GTX 260 868mb 192 Core  standalone<--- what do you expect lmao! to run smooth? lMAO!
> 
> I run this game maxed 50-55 fps average (Very High, 4msAA, advanced physix and 1080p) that's 5 fps less than i have average in crysis maxed without any mods. And the game looks 10x better on this settings compared to anything seen, which makes it greatly optimized. if you dont see that then you have done soething wrong, playing on console or cant play on high lmao.. the ****? you blind?
> 
> ...



Crysis got laggy for me with gtx 285 sli, so it's definitely not his gpu...


----------



## Archangel (Mar 26, 2010)

Aastii said:


> I think that would be the only thing that would redeem it from the the first Crysis to be honest, because a co-op of any kind is always so much fun. Not splitscreen though, can't stand that, I prefer co-op online, like how they had it on GOW on PC .



Splitscreen on a console is great.   but the option splitscreen or system link would be best.  splitscreen to have a bit of a laugh without having to prepare anything.   and system link if you want to put a bit more effort in it.  (put 2 tv's next to eachother etc.)


----------



## ScottALot (Mar 26, 2010)

New Ghost Recon or Crysis 2? Choices.... also factor in Halo Reach


----------



## Aastii (Mar 26, 2010)

Archangel said:


> Splitscreen on a console is great.   but the option splitscreen or system link would be best.  splitscreen to have a bit of a laugh without having to prepare anything.   and system link if you want to put a bit more effort in it.  (put 2 tv's next to eachother etc.)



I think split screen is deffinately fun, especially if you are against each other and can look at where they are, gets to be a right good laugh because nobody can hide, but if playing properly I hate it because I can't work on a small area like that, even if it is a huuuuuuge screen it always seems too small


----------



## Archangel (Mar 26, 2010)

can't wait for Halo Reach either.


----------



## Ryeong (Mar 26, 2010)

f.i.t.h said:


> I would say they are renders, look at the muzzle flashes, I could swear they are worse than any game in history.
> 
> @Ryeong
> Is it really your opinion that Graphics > Gameplay?



Back in 07' and earlier no.. Today, they fill eachother.. They go togheter hand in hand. Bad graphics ruing the"good" feeling a nice sun can give. a bad story makes the game boring.. so well, they fill eachother..



just a noob said:


> Crysis got laggy for me with gtx 285 sli, so it's definitely not his gpu...



I can run crysis very high 1080p 59-63 fps average, so you must get like 70+ ?? Dowloaded the newest patches etc?


----------



## Aastii (Mar 26, 2010)

Ryeong said:


> Back in 07' and earlier no.. Today, they fill eachother.. They go togheter hand in hand. Bad graphics ruing the"good" feeling a nice sun can give. a bad story makes the game boring.. so well, they fill eachother..




so you would rather play a game that has amazing graphics but a crap story, characters you can't relate to at all, terrible physics, sounds, AI, voice acting and items, and prefer it over one with the best characters ever devised, the most amazing plot, physics that perfectly resemble real life, sounds exactly like they would appear in real life and complete immersion, but doesn't look as good?

As for Halo reach, after Halo 2 I can't say I like the Halo franchise, just the same stuff but reskinned. Hell they even tried to go off the track making an rts and look how well (or not I should say) that went


----------



## Ryeong (Mar 26, 2010)

Aastii said:


> Ryeong said:
> 
> 
> > Back in 07' and earlier no.. Today, they fill eachother.. They go togheter hand in hand. Bad graphics ruing the"good" feeling a nice sun can give. a bad story makes the game boring.. so well, they fill eachother..
> ...


----------



## Drenlin (Mar 26, 2010)

^ Went pretty well if you ask me...Ensemble did a good job. Halo wars is a good game and still has a strong online community. Statistically it's among the most popular RTS's out right now. (as in daily playtime, not units sold)


----------



## Dystopia (Mar 26, 2010)

Ryeong said:


> Bad story, good graphics = bad game..
> 
> *Good story, bad graphics = bad game..*
> 
> Graphics adds to the feeling.. i love when i can gasp to the views of certain games. But they become dull and lame if the story is crap ..



I really disagree there.


----------



## joh06937 (Mar 26, 2010)

^ +1


----------



## Ryeong (Mar 26, 2010)

Elimin8or said:


> I really disagree there.



Yea, you do.. but objectivity does not.

If we was to be objective we would need to weight all those parts togheter and form a total judgement.

Graphics
Story
Gameplay
Sound/musc

etc..etc.. If one of those parts are much weaker than the other, then those parts will simply drag down the entire structure..

Think of Mozart.. He believed that if one single note in the entire play was weaker (misplaced/wrong/weaker) than the other, then it would destroy the structure.


----------



## joh06937 (Mar 26, 2010)

Ryeong said:


> Yea, you do.. but objectivity does not.
> 
> If we was to be objective we would need to weight all those parts togheter and form a total judgement.
> 
> ...



that really comes down to personal opinion and how you personally weigh those. some might not even put any thought towards how the graphics affect game experience while others put graphics before anything else.


----------



## Aastii (Mar 26, 2010)

Ryeong said:


> Bad story, good graphics = bad game..
> 
> Good story, bad graphics = bad game..
> 
> Graphics adds to the feeling.. i love when i can gasp to the views of certain games. But they become dull and lame if the story is crap ..



I read exactly what you said, see you thought I sound ridiculous for putting what you just have: 



> good story, bad graphics = bad game



let's say then that somebody has never played any of the half-life games, and you introduce them to the series. Yes, it was made before 2007, but it is 2010, they have only JUST heard of and played them.

They play HL1, which by todays standards has terrible graphics, however it still has one of the best stories, one of the most relatable characters, some of the best maps, some of the best physics for the time, it took alot of the good parts of games and put them together to make a great game that is still considered as one of the best games ever made.

But, all of that would be worthless in your opinion, just because the graphics are bad? So we should forget every single game that came out pre 2007? You are in such a minority there and from a gaming perspective I pity you because you are limiting yourself to the pile of crap that is coming out now, it is such a stale market, everything is the same as everything else, nothing is revolutionary any more, it is just sequals, pretty pictures and remakes of the same old stuff over and over.

Drenlin, you can quote facts and figures, but you look at the "great" rts games, I'm talking C&C, I'm talking starcraft, I'm talking Warcraft, they are still remembered and still played extensively now, you can go on b.net and still find so many players in so many games of Warcraft, that was nearly 8 years ago and it is still going strong, you look at Halo wars 8 years after release and there will be nobody on, not just beacuse the 360 will be outdated, but because nobody will care any more and it will be "just another game" if you get me. Obviously not every game reaches the height that they have, but I would put money on it that it will not be anything other than a game that was known because it rode off the sucess of the original Halo games. It is all opinion, I know, but it doesn't deserve any kind of merit I think because it doesn't do anything that makes you go "that is a great game"


----------



## Ryeong (Mar 26, 2010)

joh06937 said:


> that really comes down to personal opinion and how you personally weigh those. some might not even put any thought towards how the graphics affect game experience while others put graphics before anything else.





Aastii said:


> I read exactly what you said, see you thought I sound ridiculous for putting what you just have:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Objectivity consists of facts :/ not much to argue or discuss about that. If a bird can fly, then the bird can fly..


If a game has good story (5/6) and bad graphics (2/6) then it's a 3.5/6. That's just a fact. Sure, you don't need to agree with that.. but it's still a fact. Heck, i often think differenly compared to the facts i know are facts because i have another personal opinion. Yet, it's still a fact.

So how can one judge those scores? easy.. a circle is a circle.. that's how you do it. A black rock is black what so ever. that's how you're being objective. You don't think the rock is black because you think it, but because it is.. 

Obectivity is lame, but the only fair way..


----------



## joh06937 (Mar 26, 2010)

no, that is not a "fact." there is no set standard rubric for grading games. if so then EVERY game reviewer would be exactly the same. a games rating consists of weighted scores from different aspects of the game. you might think that your way of doing it is a "fact," but unfortunately i guarantee you that you are the minority and that more people weigh the different aspects differently, which unfortunately makes your thinking not a "fact."


----------



## Aastii (Mar 26, 2010)

that is like saying you are going off the lowest mark though, if you rated something as

5/5
4/5
4/5
3/5
1/5

would it then get a 1/5 because that is the lowest value?

If you were to meet a girl and she was the nicest person to ever walk this planet but didn't look good, would you not bother? If so, you will get nowhere because, unless you are seriously lucky, nobody will ever be good enough for you, even though *you* are nowhere close to perfect (that isn't having a go, I'm not either, nobody is).

I think graphics have a part to play, but it is the lowest priority, so you could take an average, fine, but because the graphics carry much less weight than gameplay, characters, environment, immersion etc that average would be useless, graphics could get 1 and drag that average down, even if everything else was perfect, but the "bad" graphics wouldn't matter in the slightest to the overall thing when the game is actually played.

Crysis 2 could look better than any game ever and bring you to tears beacuse of the graphics, but once you are used to it and realise that the AI is terrible, it is buggy as hell, the sounds are appauling, the story, there isn't one, you will see it for what it is - a pile of turd with a pretty painting nailed to it.

Oh, and I know it isn't out yet, I know I can't say it will be bad, it is an "if it is bad and if the graphics are good" statement


----------



## Ryeong (Mar 26, 2010)

joh06937 said:


> no, that is not a "fact." there is no set standard rubric for grading games. if so then EVERY game reviewer would be exactly the same. a games rating consists of weighted scores from different aspects of the game. you might think that your way of doing it is a "fact," but unfortunately i guarantee you that you are the minority and that more people weigh the different aspects differently, which unfortunately makes your thinking not a "fact."





Aastii said:


> that is like saying you are going off the lowest mark though, if you rated something as
> 
> 5/5
> 4/5
> ...



Everything mentioned so far is based on personal aspects.. here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/objectivity

http://changingminds.org/principles/objectivity.htm

I like milk..

You must consider everything when being objective and reviewing. Thus, everything matters.. EVERYTHING!


----------



## joh06937 (Mar 26, 2010)

Ryeong said:


> Everything mentioned so far is based on personal aspects.. here:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity
> 
> ...



ok, yeah everything should be considered, but not in equal proportions.


----------



## ganzey (Mar 26, 2010)

dude, have you EVER played counter strike, or TF2, or ANY valve game? the graphics SUCK, but they are amazing games, and TONS of people still play them


----------



## linkin (Mar 26, 2010)

Are you telling me that Star Wars the force unleashed sucks, jsut because it has no support for anti-aliasing? 

I thought it was awesome. the PC version is way better than the PS2/PS3 versions too.


----------



## Ryeong (Mar 26, 2010)

ganzey said:


> dude, have you EVER played counter strike, or TF2, or ANY valve game? the graphics SUCK, but they are amazing games, and TONS of people still play them



CS was and is so bad i don't even want to discuss it... TF2, oh no.. no no no.. that cartoony thing lol.. No ty! CS was something back in its days.. but, err. no ty.. no.. i.. I keep vomiting when i hear that people play that game, becouse it's not.. yea, its not..

Well, i do get your point. Games such as FF7 (and many of the others), silent hill 1,  resident evil 1 etc.. yea.. but oh wait! NO! WRONG!,

FF7 had top-notch graphics back when it was released. was the first RPG in realitme 3D!.  so well.. there you go ^^


----------



## Ryeong (Mar 26, 2010)

linkin said:


> Are you telling me that Star Wars the force unleashed sucks, jsut because it has no support for anti-aliasing?
> 
> I thought it was awesome. the PC version is way better than the PS2/PS3 versions too.



WORST PC PORT EVERRRRRRRR!

FPS was capped to 30 OMG OMG OMG you couln't even unlock it. the devs couldn't patch it!! haha worst port in history.. 

Yet, ignore that and the game was awesome! i enjoyed it a lot.


----------



## Dystopia (Mar 26, 2010)

ganzey said:


> dude, have you EVER played counter strike, or TF2, or ANY valve game? the graphics SUCK, but they are amazing games, and TONS of people still play them



Yeah. I just finished Portal. No amazing graphics, but a great game. Half life 2 is OK, but I just started it. Anyone remember the original Red Alert? Great game, IMO, but real shitty graphics. A lot of people like Diablo 2. Shitty graphics. NFS: MW, NFS:Underground 2, all don't have great graphics. But still good games. Battlefield 2. Black hawk down Delta force. BIA: HH, FEAR, Splinter Cell, Splinter Cell 2, MX Vs. ATV Unleashed, SOLDAT (!!!!!!!), the list goes on. All good games. Not good graphics though. Graphics do not make a game.


----------



## Aastii (Mar 26, 2010)

Ryeong said:


> CS was and is so bad i don't even want to discuss it... TF2, oh no.. no no no.. that cartoony thing lol.. No ty! CS was something back in its days.. but, err. no ty.. no.. i.. I keep vomiting when i hear that people play that game, becouse it's not.. yea, its not..
> 
> Well, i do get your point. Games such as FF7 (and many of the others), silent hill 1,  resident evil 1 etc.. yea.. but oh wait! NO! WRONG!,
> 
> FF7 had top-notch graphics back when it was released. was the first RPG in realitme 3D!.  so well.. there you go ^^



but NOW it has bad graphics, so is it a bad game?

Using your logic it should, but also shouldn't be. You are so full of contradictions it is unreal


----------



## Ryeong (Mar 26, 2010)

Aastii said:


> but NOW it has bad graphics, so is it a bad game?
> 
> Using your logic it should, but also shouldn't be. You are so full of contradictions it is unreal



When you judge a game objectively you consider how it was when it was released. So what you're doing now is wrong..

FF7 will forever be the first best looking RPG game ever. Can't change that..


----------



## Aastii (Mar 26, 2010)

Ryeong said:


> When you judge a game objectively you consider how it was when it was released. So what you're doing now is wrong..
> 
> FF7 will forever be the first best looking RPG game ever. Can't change that..



what about FF13 though? That looks amazing right now, and it looks better than FF7, so how does that work?

I am only asking because no game reviewer on the planet works like you are saying and I think there is a damn good reason for that...


----------



## Matthew1990 (Mar 26, 2010)

aastii said:


> but now it has bad graphics, so is it a bad game?
> 
> Using your logic it should, but also shouldn't be. *you are so full of contradictions it is unreal*



+1


----------



## joh06937 (Mar 26, 2010)

this is like saying that ALL movies that aren't available on bluray are horrific and should never be watched again.


----------



## Matthew1990 (Mar 26, 2010)

Leave him alone, he clearly puts graphics in front of everything, there are hundrerds people like that. However, he shouldn't be calling himself a gamer. Gamers are people who play games because they are fun, some do it for money. Counter Strike is still one of the most played game online and there are hundreds of tournaments.


----------



## just a noob (Mar 26, 2010)

Elimin8or said:


> I really disagree there.



I agree, see pokemon, mario brothers, starcraft, they all have terrible graphics by today's means, but they are way better than most of the crap that gets put out today


----------



## Ryeong (Mar 26, 2010)

Aastii said:


> what about FF13 though? That looks amazing right now, and it looks better than FF7, so how does that work?
> 
> I am only asking because no game reviewer on the planet works like you are saying and I think there is a damn good reason for that...



FF 13 has the best graphics of the final fantasy series so far. But, this is now. you can't compare a game from the 90's to a game from 2010.. that's not right.

FF 7 was top-notch then, and if it was to be reviewed now then the person who reviews must go back and gain knowledge of how the other games was doing at that time. Of course, that's only if it's going to be an objective review (aka good) ..


----------



## Aastii (Mar 26, 2010)

Ryeong said:


> FF 13 has the best graphics of the final fantasy series so far. But, this is now. you can't compare a game from the 90's to a game from 2010.. that's not right.
> 
> FF 7 was top-notch then, and if it was to be reviewed now then the person who reviews must go back and gain knowledge of how the other games was doing at that time. Of course, that's only if it's going to be an objective review (aka good) ..



FF13 has good graphics now though I mean. And ofcourse you can compare:

both are of the Final Fantasy franchise
both are RPG games
both are JRPGs

both are very similar in many ways, ofcourse they can be compared. Saying they can't is like saying you can't compare half life 1 to half life 2 and all of the episodes. HL1 came out in the 90s (1998), episode 2 came out in in 2007, they can be compared beacuse they are both fps games, they are both of the same franchise, they both follow similar patterns. HL1 doesn't look as good though, does that make it worse?

Crysis was released in 2007, when Crysis 2 comes out, can *they* be compared? I can understand not being able to compare an rts game to an rpg game to an fps game to a puzzle game, but not what you are saying. Do you even know what you are on about?


----------



## Ryeong (Mar 26, 2010)

Aastii said:


> FF13 has good graphics now though I mean. And ofcourse you can compare:
> 
> both are of the Final Fantasy franchise
> both are RPG games
> ...



You can compare the story.. but it will be wrong to compare the graphics.. especially considering the fact that crysis 1 is DX9 and DX10 whilst Crysis 2 will be DX10 and DX11 with tesselation. also, it's up to date. pretty unfair. 

Sure you can compare and say how much better crysis 2 are. but you can't really make those two figh eachother.. that would just be wrong.. very wrong.. .. ..  (V)(o.o)(V)


----------



## Aastii (Mar 26, 2010)

Ryeong said:


> You can compare the story.. but it will be wrong to compare the graphics.. especially considering the fact that crysis 1 is DX9 and DX10 whilst Crysis 2 will be DX10 and DX11 with tesselation. also, it's up to date. pretty unfair.
> 
> Sure you can compare and say how much better crysis 2 are. but you can't really make those two figh eachother.. that would just be wrong.. very wrong.. .. ..  (V)(o.o)(V)



You can compare the story
You can compare the sounds
within sounds you can compare:
gunfire
environment
vehicles
characters
voice acting
explosions
many more...
You can compare the AI
You can compare the gameplay
Within gameplay you can compare:
the aiming and weapons
the immersion
the replayability
the "realism" of it (obviously it is aliens and you are in a super suit, but I assume you know what I mean by that)
You can compare how the graphics have developed, if it at all
You can compare the engines to each other
You can compare characters
You can compare physics
You can compare lighting
You can compare atmosphere
The list can very easily go on and on and on

You can't compare:
graphics directly

That is more than enough weight to be able to compare the 2 games and any other 2 games in the same regardless of age or looks. Yea, you can compare graphics, say one has better than the other, one is different to the other, but look at what you would be ignoring if you JUST focused on graphics


----------



## Ryeong (Mar 26, 2010)

Aastii said:


> You can compare the story
> You can compare the sounds
> You can compare the AI
> You can compare the gameplay
> ...



[1] i mentioned that earlier in this thread..

It just doesn't justify anything. you already know that Crysis 2 will look better than crysis 1 becouse crysis 1 is 07 and crysis 2 is 2010.. jupp..

You can compare GTX 260 with GTX 285.. but hey, it's kinda expected that 285 will be better.. It's just not right.. It's better to compare XFX 285 with Gainward 285 or something.. 

Sure, you can compare anything. But it wont justify anything if it's older.. Objectivity is all about justice both ways.. whats the most fair solution to compare?.. 

I'll go and get drunk or something..


----------



## Aastii (Mar 26, 2010)

the gtx400 series cards are coming out very very soon.

You can compare them to the 200 series cards, because you can compare performance difference, price/performance ratio from when the 200 were first released, taking inflation into account, power consumption, how they handle modern games compared to how 200 series handled modern games of the time. Hell, you can compare the 400 series cards to the 8000 series and how the 8000 handled being the first dx10 cards, and how the 400 series compares being the first DX11 cards. Just bceause you can't do raw speed doesn't mean you can't do other things. Qualitative results are just as worthy of being taken into account and quaantitative, even if you can't put exact figures to it

Every game is different, yes, that doesn't mean you can't compare, otherwise every game would be the best game ever made, every game would also simultaneously be the worst game ever made, no game would have a genre, developers would not be able to take possitive and negative points from games to further develop the games and optomize them and make them funner and more revolutionary (which doesn't happen  )


----------



## PabloTeK (Mar 26, 2010)

Ryeong said:


> [1]It just doesn't justify anything. you already know that Crysis 2 will look better than crysis 1 becouse crysis 1 is 07 and crysis 2 is 2010.. jupp..



Defien looking better; I think that games pallettes should be made of colours that would make a hippie van look understated. Modern games are getting closer to being grey and brown.

In any case, graphics and DX whatever shouldn't matter because when a dev team focuses on those the gameplay, story etc *really* suffer. Crysis was lovely to look at (apparently) but the gameplay and story could easily be from Halo and it wouldn't make a fat bit of difference.

More games like Saints Row 2, GTA VC, Portal et al please. Crysis 2 will still have a horrid story line I can pretty much guarantee.


----------



## Ryeong (Mar 26, 2010)

Aastii said:


> the gtx400 series cards are coming out very very soon.
> 
> You can compare them to the 200 series cards, because you can compare performance difference, price/performance ratio from when the 200 were first released, taking inflation into account, power consumption, how they handle modern games compared to how 200 series handled modern games of the time. Hell, you can compare the 400 series cards to the 8000 series and how the 8000 handled being the first dx10 cards, and how the 400 series compares being the first DX11 cards. Just bceause you can't do raw speed doesn't mean you can't do other things. Qualitative results are just as worthy of being taken into account and quaantitative, even if you can't put exact figures to it
> 
> Every game is different, yes, that doesn't mean you can't compare, otherwise every game would be the best game ever made, every game would also simultaneously be the worst game ever made, no game would have a genre, developers would not be able to take possitive and negative points from games to further develop the games and optomize them and make them funner and more revolutionary (which doesn't happen  )



That's right.. you can compare my shades to Horatio Caine's shades from CSI Miami..


----------



## Archangel (Mar 26, 2010)

Ryeong said:


> Yea, you do.. but objectivity does not.
> 
> If we was to be objective we would need to weight all those parts togheter and form a total judgement.
> 
> ...



I agree to a certain point.  I mean, whats the definition of good and bad,
where do you draw the line?
Music for exam0ple is really underrated in games imo.
take the original Halo on the xbox for example.  the game was pretty good.  gameplay was fun, enemies were (relative) smart, and the grafics were amazing for then.   but its the music that really gave it the epic feel at some points.
But even without the music, it would've been a good game, because it was/is fun to play.   it would jsut have been less good.


----------



## Ryeong (Mar 26, 2010)

Archangel said:


> I agree to a certain point.  I mean, whats the definition of good and bad,
> where do you draw the line?
> Music for exam0ple is really underrated in games imo.
> take the original Halo on the xbox for example.  the game was pretty good.  gameplay was fun, enemies were (relative) smart, and the grafics were amazing for then.   but its the music that really gave it the epic feel at some points.
> But even without the music, it would've been a good game, because it was/is fun to play.   it would jsut have been less good.



100% totally agree'd. A game that dedicates much work on the background music etc is the silent hill series with the composer Akira Yamaoka..


----------



## lubo4444 (Mar 27, 2010)

When is Crysis 2 coming out?


----------



## ganzey (Mar 27, 2010)

lubo4444 said:


> When is Crysis 2 coming out?



december 2010.

this thread has gotten REALLY OT


----------



## ScottALot (Mar 27, 2010)

Aastii said:


> As for Halo reach, after Halo 2 I can't say I like the Halo franchise, just the same stuff but reskinned. Hell they even tried to go off the track making an rts and look how well (or not I should say) that went



Jetpacks? Doesn't seem reskinned to me


----------



## BigSteve702 (Mar 27, 2010)

Ryeong said:


> nice
> 
> 
> 
> ...



NO NO NO!
a REAL gamer cares about playing games. if all you care about is maxing the GRAPHICS in games, then you are called a real POSER


its like people who have a lifted truck, and all these motorsports stickers... but they dont go out and have fun in the desert/mud/ go to motocross races. they have the equipment, but only care about how it looks. its called being a poser.


----------



## Dystopia (Mar 27, 2010)

Matthew1990 said:


> Leave him alone, he clearly puts graphics in front of everything, there are hundrerds people like that. However, he shouldn't be calling himself a gamer. Gamers are people who play games because they are fun, some do it for money. Counter Strike is still one of the most played game online and there are hundreds of tournaments.



Well said, although some people just play for graphics.



BigSteve702 said:


> NO NO NO!
> a REAL gamer cares about playing games. if all you care about is maxing the GRAPHICS in games, then you are called a real POSER
> 
> 
> its like people who have a lifted truck, and all these motorsports stickers... but they dont go out and have fun in the desert/mud/ go to motocross races. they have the equipment, but only care about how it looks. its called being a poser.



:good:

Lets try to get this back to Crysis 2, ok? If you wish to keep debating what makes a game good/bad, take it to PM/IM/VM. Thanks


----------



## linkin (Mar 27, 2010)

Well let's face it, Far Cry, Far Cry 2, Crysis and Crysis warhead have all been about GRAPHICS over gameplay, but they do have above average stories as well, and you need a good mixture of both to have a good game.

Can't forget physics and sound too, they are important. and last but not least, enemy or friendly AI.

I can't count how many times i've bun run over by my own team in ArmA II by a friendly tank...


----------



## Ryeong (Mar 27, 2010)

BigSteve702 said:


> NO NO NO!
> a REAL gamer cares about playing games. if all you care about is maxing the GRAPHICS in games, then you are called a real POSER
> 
> 
> its like people who have a lifted truck, and all these motorsports stickers... but they dont go out and have fun in the desert/mud/ go to motocross races. they have the equipment, but only care about how it looks. its called being a poser.



That, or being jealous? Because i get a certain feeling when watching over a beautiful environment in the middle of the night when i'm tired and want to chill etc.. Does that make me a poser? .. I worthship complexity!



linkin said:


> Well let's face it, Far Cry, Far Cry 2, Crysis and Crysis warhead have all been about GRAPHICS over gameplay, but they do have above average stories as well, and you need a good mixture of both to have a good game.
> 
> Can't forget physics and sound too, they are important. and last but not least, enemy or friendly AI.
> 
> *I can't count how many times i've bun run over by my own team in ArmA II by a friendly tank..*.




Ah, lol! xD


----------



## f.i.t.h (Mar 29, 2010)

Ryeong said:


> CS *was *and is so *bad* i don't even want to discuss it... TF2, oh no.. no no no.. that cartoony thing lol.. No ty! *CS was something back in its days*.. but, err. no ty.. no.. i.. I keep vomiting when i hear that people play that game, becouse it's not.. yea, its not..


... Wait what?

And how can you say CS is bad, sure, it lacks insane visuals (1.6 is 10 years old ffs), and accurately modeled sound, but it has *GAMEPLAY*, which, to many of us is the most important part of the game.


----------



## PabloTeK (Mar 29, 2010)

Lets look at some games that were generally accepted to be good:

Any OLD adventure game by Lucasarts (i.e. Grim Fandango);
Call of Duty 4 - not the best graphics of the time but still one of my favourite games;
Goldeneye for the N64;
Zelda;
Final Fantasy VII;
Portal;

None of these have/had top of the line graphics but were all very good fun!


----------



## Ryeong (Mar 29, 2010)

PabloTeK said:


> Lets look at some games that were generally accepted to be good:
> 
> Any OLD adventure game by Lucasarts (i.e. Grim Fandango);
> Call of Duty 4 - not the best graphics of the time but still one of my favourite games;
> ...



Wrong, FF7 was the first RPG in 3D and was therefore considered the best looking game at it's time ^^

I don't know about the others, i've played them all .. But i can't recall them compared to other Nintendo 64 releases at that time etc..


----------



## Dystopia (Mar 29, 2010)

This thread is about Crysis 2, please stop arguing about the other games.


----------

