There've been quite a few actually (OP's not doing a good job updating with links to them either), latest one shows off Lighthouse: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHsxxKfFG3Awenis said:Are there any video previews of the multiplayer maps out there?
LovingSteam said:Does anybody remember if the NVidia website for Crysis 2 said it was receiving DX11 support? Someone from the Crysis 2 forums just said that statement is no longer there.
http://www.geforce.com/#/GamesandApps/games/crysis-2/overview
JoeBoy101 said:Saw that over there a couple of days ago. Don't know if it was a change, but definitely not listed for DX11 now.
Well you know the saying: expect the worst and ... that's it.LovingSteam said:=/ I am trying to not jump to any conclusions because I KNOW that Crytek wouldn't do such a thing but at the same time =/
Regardless, the game still looks good. Not sure how much better they could get it to look with a free DX11 patch, anyway.
JoeBoy101 said:Saw that over there a couple of days ago. Don't know if it was a change, but definitely not listed for DX11 now.
LovingSteam said:A lot better?
Ickman3400 said:Then it would be the first game that uses DX11 to look a lot better than without it, instead of just marginally better for half the framerate.
pixel monkey said:I've got the PC version pre-ordered since I have the rig to run it, but am still undecided on which console version. Hell, the only reason I'm even picking up the console release is to finally have Crysis on the couch.
I was slightly leaning X360 because I prefer the controller. After seeing those direct feed shots, that may have sealed the deal. I'm not saying the PS3 version is running at a lower res, but it certainly looks blurrier.
felipepl said:
Is this true?
-bakalhau- said:Yes... They changed all 3 settings. It's now good, very good and extreme. It's not a new setting.
Damn it all.-bakalhau- said:Yes... They changed all 3 settings. It's now good, very good and extreme. It's not a new setting.
-bakalhau- said:Yes... They changed all 3 settings. It's now good, very good and extreme. It's not a new setting.
Uhh what? Have you been following this thread the past several pages?Amir0x said:A true shame about Crysis II. I will be picking it up once they get DX11, but it sounds roundly unappealing now so I hope some hands on impressions can at least make it sound like a compelling linear shooter :O(
Corky said:good
because ; gamer - advanced - hardcore - extreme - brutal - enthusiast, does'nt make any sense.
-bakalhau- said:Yes... They changed all 3 settings. It's now good, very good and extreme. It's not a new setting.
Heavy said:Uhh what? Have you been following this thread the past several pages?
-bakalhau- said:Yes... They changed all 3 settings. It's now good, very good and extreme. It's not a new setting.
pixel monkey said:I don't care if they call it "shiny, sparkly, and unicorn jumping over a fucking rainbow"...the game is beautiful. Take my money.
Ickman3400 said:Then it would be the first game that uses DX11 to look a lot better than without it, instead of just marginally better for half the framerate.
As others have said, with other games DX11 offers a little improvement for a massive framerate hit. Is it really a deal breaker? As long as it arrives eventually, what does it matter?LovingSteam said:If the files are encrypted
If the DX11 doesn't arrive
If the editor isn't supplied
Then as good as the game may look for many of us it still doesn't justify the $60 price tag. Crytek truly has been one of the worst companies in terms of communication that I have seen in a very long time. Its absolutely ridiculous how little information they have supplied regarding the PC version. Shameful.
adelante said:There've been quite a few actually (OP's not doing a good job updating with links to them either), latest one shows off Lighthouse: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHsxxKfFG3A
And the campaign looks really fun!pixel monkey said:I don't care if they call it shiny, sparkly, and unicorn jumping over a fucking rainbow...the game is beautiful. Take my money.
LovingSteam said:lol. Wow.
It is, at the very least, bizarre that Crytek of all companies is shipping a game with less graphical options and an older DX API than what World of Warcraft supports these days.Heavy said:As others have said, with other games DX11 offers a little improvement for a massive framerate hit. Is it really a deal breaker? As long as it arrives eventually, what does it matter?
Heavy said:As others have said, with other games DX11 offers a little improvement for a massive framerate hit. Is it really a deal breaker? As long as it arrives eventually, what does it matter?
Based off the new PC footage, even without the custom settings and even with it using DXnegative47, it's the best looking game ever made and it's out in 3 days. It's also, arguably, the best looking looking console game as well, or at least top 3. BF3 might change that but it's a long ways off.
By the way, check out Amazon to get it for $57 + a $10 gift card or Direct2drive to get it for $47 with the 20% off coupon code.
-bakalhau- said:Yes... They changed all 3 settings. It's now good, very good and extreme. It's not a new setting.
LovingSteam said:If the editor isn't supplied
They could ship it with DX0.003 for all I care as long as it looks like that new footage. It's the results that matter.Sciz said:It is, at the very least, bizarre that Crytek of all companies is shipping a game with less graphical options and an older DX API than what World of Warcraft supports these days.
Massa said:A problem with Crysis is that even if the game looked amazing at "Medium" people were still unsatisfied that it wasn't running at "max settings". This is a common problem with graphics whores and it's not surprising in the least to see Crytek use different words that do the exact same thing.
pixel monkey said:And if Crytek is squeezing that performance out of DX9...holy larry. Good for them.
I run DX11 titles at max and honestly, the only practical difference I see is a fucking framerate hit on most titles.
Metro 2033 would be the exception to that.
Massa said:A problem with Crysis is that even if the game looked amazing at "Medium" people were still unsatisfied that it wasn't running at "max settings". This is a common problem with graphics whores and it's not surprising in the least to see Crytek use different words that do the exact same thing.
subversus said:Dragon Age II looks a LOT better in DX11. More light sources, ground doesn't look like shit, better global lighting etc.
Snuggler said:Even if this were true, do you think people will feel better because the settings are labeled differently? Good is still medium, and not as good as very good, so those graphic whores will still feel inadequate either way.
I don't really give a shit about labels, I would just like to be able to tweak it so I can get the best performance with the highest quality possible. My rig is good but not that good and it's likely that I'll fall somewhere between the two higher settings, making it impossible for me to find that sweet spot (like I did with Crysis 1).
pixel monkey said:And if Crytek is squeezing that performance out of DX9...holy larry. Good for them.
I run DX11 titles at max and honestly, the only practical difference I see is a fucking framerate hit on most titles.
Metro 2033 would be the exception to that.
Snuggler said:Even if this were true, do you think people will feel better because the settings are labeled differently? Good is still medium, and not as good as very good, so those graphic whores will still feel inadequate either way.
I don't really give a shit about labels, I would just like to be able to tweak it so I can get the best performance with the highest quality possible. My rig is good but not that good and it's likely that I'll fall somewhere between the two higher settings, making it impossible for me to find that sweet spot (like I did with Crysis 1).