Crysis 2 trailer takes us to a decidedly unsafe zone

@ReaperHybrid

Don't make stupid statements.

You WILL check out Crysis 2.

Is the fullscreen button not working for anyone else?

@(Unverified)
*on PC

@Faenix
you mean the part where you have to fly one? I had to play it over 9000 times because the controls were so damned bad, fix it or drop it crytek!

@Faenix

yes, that part.. Im STILL on that part. I cant beat it. :/

@Faenix

If you have a gamepad/controller, that should be the easiest part of the game.

I found it the easiest part of the game and I was playing on the keyboard. To each his own I guess.

@xakari Why because it doesn't have commentary or Eminem is it? Crysis doesn't need those things to show a great game.

@(Unverified)
wow, because i state a harmless opinion you have to attack me. i said i was still excited for this game, but that the trailer was a bit boring is all. looked like it was more to show off the engine and not the game itself. just when the gameplay got interesting they stopped showing it. way to think you know me just because you read one sentence on the internet.

@(Unverified) agh. hush man, it's just an opinion lol btw, those better be physics for that buildin' collapse, cause that is pretty epic

@xakari Well ... its true, a lot of trailers aren't as good without Eminem.

@Lekko my thoughts exactly. The game looks like something I definitely want to play...but while watching the trailer I couldn't help but think Modern Warfare meets Cloverfield.

@Ashkental

I know the GeForce GTS 250 is a 9800 GTX+, so I cant see yours being much powerful.. thats probably why :P

@Ashkental

Even at medium settings it's going to look better on your PC than it will on your PS3. The ps3 likely will only run at 720p, So if you lower the resolution from 1080p and up the settings you'll likely get better performance and visuals than the PS3 version. Plus you'll be able to use a mouse and keyboard. (Or hood it up to your tv and use a controller if you wish)

Also keep in mind part of the reason Crysis 1 still doesn't run perfectly on your rig is because it was horribly optimized. Warhead looked better and ran better on lower end hardware, and I wouldn't be surprised if Crysis 2 was even more efficient. Especially since the city environments are less taxing to render than dense foliage, and the levels seem smaller as well.

@Ashkental It's still ridiculous what the game takes to run. Completely out of proportion to it's famous graphics.

Phenom II X4 3.4Ghz
Radeon HD 5850
4 GB DDR3 1600

Still can't play it on full max, and even on settings that mostly run fine - there's the occasional framerate drop. I know that's not pure top of the line, but it's not sucky either. A game of that vintage shouldn't run that poorly.

@Ashkental

I have an i5 750, 12 GB DDR3 RAM @ 1600 mhz, and a 5770. I get 30 to 35 fps in demanding areas and 40+ fps in indoor scenarios. Your video card is the main issue. It's pretty dated. you would get 50+ fps easy with a 5850.

@CaramelZappa: Is it really going to run at 720p on consoles? I thought most nice-looking games were 640p or less. (This is just a factual comment, not a dig at PS3/60; IMO, other aspects of visual quality are much more important than resolution.)

@Ashkental

I couldn't disagree more xxxsam.

There are several games that have great texture work and such but look mediocre due to having low resolution. Console Syndrome is what I call it. An example would be Halo Reach. The game looks fantastic in it's natural resolution in screenshots and such. But on a TV you can really see a major difference. To me it felt like playing a computer game on my 1650 x 1050 monitor at 2/3 the resolution with the same aspect ratio. It does not sound like much but it makes a huge difference. On the flip side you can play a game with mediocre textures and stuff but at a high resolution and it turns it into a good looking game.

@Deschain no it doesn't...

@Ashkental


I posted two comments. Which are you talking about? Anyway, You know you can't just say "no" to something. If you take the time to disagree at least post something to back it up or shut up.

@Ashkental

I'm running:
AMD Phenom II 955
8gb DDR3
ATI 5970

...and I have to use NaturalMod to get decent framerates. At 1400 x 900, I get an average of 45 FPS. Without NaturalMod, it shoots to an average of about 15 FPS. That said, even with NaturalMod it looks and plays great. Ran through both Crysis and Crysis Warhead recently and was very pleased with the experience.

@Ashkental

I have the same issue. I want the PS3 version for friends and trophies, but the PC version will be so much better.

I can usually get a mix of Very High/High settings to run at 30fps, and my system is from 2008. Try tweaking some settings, and playing around with the graphics. Shaders has the biggest impact on the visuals and performance. Also try Game Booster, It'll close out of all unnecessary services and programs while you play and start them back up when you're done - it definitely helps me.

@Ashkental

I don't see how you guys are getting these crappy frame rates with monster video cards. check your drivers, clean your system because something is wrong. Like I said. I have a 5770 getting 40fps average maxed out at an even higher rez (1680x1050) than the guy with the 5970. (why you would want a 5970 for 1400x900 is beyond me to begin with..we should switch video cards...)

@Ashkental
WOw.. I have a 16" laptop with a i7 720QM, ATI 5730 Mobility w/1G, native rez is 1366x768 (Yeah I know it's low but it keeps games crisp and fast).. I'm having zero trouble running it on high, I haven't tried very high (max) whatever.. but I don't see the need it looks fantastic and its quick.. I have a hard time seeing how it could go from quick to completely taxing greater hardware.. must be something in max that's completely unoptimized..

@Ashkental

I can run the game on a single 8800 GTS w/ great results. My system is downrighted dated (Core 2 quad and 4 gb RAM), but unless I'm trying to run Crysis in 3D, I can get settings near highest. AA and resolution are what kills it. My monitor does 1600x1200, so that's max I can do. The 8800 GTS/GTX were pretty beefy when it comes to bandwidth, so I still can play a lot of games fine with it.

@Ashkental I have 3 GB ram and a intel core 2 duo e6550 @2.33ghz with ati HD 5770 and I can play the game on all maximum setting on 1080p and get 30-40 fps without too much problem ( i have to put the physics setting from very high to high though)

@Ashkental I don't know why you are having so many problems playing the first Crysis with a rig like that. When I first got Crysis at launch, I had a Geforce 8800GTS, 2GB of Ram and a Athlon X2 4200. With that the game could only play stutter-free on Medium settings. 3 months later I built a built an upgrade: Geforce 8800GT, 4gb or Ram, and a Core 2 Duo overclocked from 2.66 to 3.4. Far below what you are using now and as soon as I reinstalled Crysis, all the settings defaulted to High. Perfect, stutter-free gameplay and I was using XP back then.

Warning: Crysis is fatally-broken using Directx 10. Not because your hardware isn't good enough, but because none of the updates fix all of the random glitches, bugs, slowdown, and crashes caused by Directx 10. I experienced that after installing Vista and Win 7. You must play Crysis on Directx 9 in order to have a completely playable game. (Go to the Games tab in the start menu, right-click Crysis, and select "Play in Directx 9"). I know it sucks not to be able to choose the "Very High" Graphics settings of Directx 10 because in Directx 9 it only goes to "High" settings, but it is nearly impossible to see the difference and nearly every graphical problem is gone. That was the only way I could finish Crysis properly, and no amount of hardware upgrades will ever fix the conflicts between the game and graphics software of the OS.

P.S. To the people below me, I currently have a Win 7, Radeon 4870, and 8gb of ram, and Crysis still plays exactly the same as when I had the older computer with the Geforce 8800GT. Just play using Directx 9.

"I may be running California, but I'm pwning New york"

@zaxis01

Haha, that was great! Crysis has always reminded me of Predator. :)

@Chibi Chaingun

Hah thanks!

I just hope they integrate more stealth attacks than just picking up the enemy and tossing them.

Like maybe add neck snap, or crush their head into a rock. Something along those lines. XD

@MSKiller aka Sony4life

Killzone top FPS spot? *looks at your name* OOOoooh.

@Chibi Chaingun


KZ3 is shaping to be a Killer AAA title, I give dues Halo:Reach looks good, after taking notes from KZ2 on environment and the color scheme for warzones, bright red and blue just make you an easier target.
Also I did not say that it was going to be the top, just in the running.
So loosen up, my sn says it all, after 4 360's dying on me and racing wheel from MS scolding my hands from faulty design, I have had all Sony systems and never ever had one crap out on me, a freeze on my PS3 once, and even then that was all, just a freeze.


/rant

@d3sc3nd3ncy

Try $2000.

@SuiXide

Try $1000 to $1200

:O