| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Massively, and more

Reader Comments (134)

Posted: Mar 22nd 2011 12:10PM Altman be Praised said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Yes.

Posted: Mar 22nd 2011 12:30PM Alexisonfire said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Reply

Posted: Mar 22nd 2011 12:30PM SmashZilla said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@Altman be Praised

Maximum Yes
Reply

Posted: Mar 22nd 2011 12:49PM Shadowbender said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Alexisonfire

Hahaha.
Reply

Posted: Mar 22nd 2011 4:00PM Xirifus said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@SmashZilla
Maximum Win.
Reply

Posted: Mar 22nd 2011 12:10PM cloner458 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
looks good...

Posted: Mar 22nd 2011 12:13PM Truant said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Good stuff. Thanks for the review.

Seems pretty positive, I'll have to give it a look. I like campaigns and co-op modes... so this isn't an instant buy.

Posted: Mar 22nd 2011 1:22PM Mal F4cti0n said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Truant

If you are 360 owner the MP demo is out. I think it was out for PS3 but it was pulled? Not sure what happened there.

Reply

Posted: Mar 22nd 2011 12:14PM jaydark123 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Oh baby! This is some good news! Can't wait to play!

Hopefully, my computer doesn't blow up....

Posted: Mar 22nd 2011 12:15PM bitcrusherrr said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
By orbital energy beam strikes you mean "the vuvuzela of death"

Posted: Mar 22nd 2011 12:17PM bargaingamer said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
I'm glade it a good game i feared it would be share the same fate as homefront.

Posted: Mar 22nd 2011 12:37PM Uncle Jesse said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@bargaingamer

I too am glade it good game and Homefront not like. Will be buy after job today.
Reply

Posted: Mar 22nd 2011 12:50PM camronm21 said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@bargaingamer

I agree. And it might be pretty, but has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?
Reply

Posted: Mar 22nd 2011 1:51PM Crayola Q Pants ESQ said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@camronm21 haha potatoes
Reply

Posted: Mar 22nd 2011 2:07PM Captain Planet Planeteer Power said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@bargaingamer

SOLOMON GRUNDY NOT HAVE GOOD DAY ME NEED NAPPY NAP TIME
Reply

Posted: Mar 22nd 2011 3:32PM Yuccadude said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@bargaingamer All you guys without pictures should be ashamed that someone like this can set up a picture and you guys can't.
Reply

Posted: Mar 22nd 2011 12:17PM PointlessPuppies said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
How does the multiplayer in Crysis 2 stack up to the multiplayer in Crysis 1/Wars? Because from what I've heard the Crysis 2 multiplayer is severely stripped down and CoD-ified by comparison.

Posted: Mar 22nd 2011 12:19PM Ninjasoup said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@PointlessPuppies

If the demo is anything to go by, it is.
Reply

Posted: Mar 22nd 2011 3:39PM LEONLEONLEON said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@PointlessPuppies The demo only has 2 game modes. The full game has more.

And alot of people didnt really get the Crysis 1 MP. It was over complicated and wouldnt work well for alot of people.

If you want crysis 1 style MP im sure there will be custom servers and maps.
Reply

Posted: Mar 22nd 2011 12:19PM bwiancohen said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Going to trade in Homefront (friggin piece of crap....GRRRRR) for this. Just hope the online part works ok.... :)

Posted: Mar 22nd 2011 3:07PM GreenLight said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@bwiancohen ... My friend bought Homefront yesterday afternoon, then returned it yesterday late afternoon, for a credit toward Crysis 2. LOL
Reply

Posted: Mar 22nd 2011 3:35PM kentuckyfried said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@bwiancohen

Why no love for homefront? The campaign's been a fun run so far.

The MP seem's a bit...tough. I tried one quick game yesterday and getting sniped like no tomorrow.
Reply

Posted: Mar 22nd 2011 4:13PM FlashJS said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@kentuckyfried

Yeah, I love Homefront.

If you're getting sniped a lot, use the killcam to figure out where they are, then flank them. Go cover to cover like in campaign and you'll make it there. Unlike BFBC2, I do not find snipers a problem in this game. The maps are designed well enough to allow you to avoid them. Alternatively, call in an airstrike or use the parrot to mark them and annoy them. Lol.
Reply

Posted: Mar 23rd 2011 8:29AM Hawkz900 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@bwiancohen Traded homefront for this as well!
Reply

Posted: Mar 22nd 2011 12:21PM trauma disaster said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
So the difference with the pc is what? Do I need to upgrade my quad and gtx275?

Posted: Mar 22nd 2011 12:30PM SilverFireshot said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@trauma disaster This one's not as intensive as the first one. You should be able to run it pretty well at probably high settings.
Reply

Posted: Mar 22nd 2011 12:53PM Billlop said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@trauma disaster

Its really well optimised actually. I have a Geforce 8800GTX, Dual Core 3.0ghz with 2 gigs ram and i can run on Max (with shadows on medium) and still get around 25-30fps.

Its the polar opposite of Dragon Age 2 which looked meh and performed horifficly bad even on medium.
Reply

Posted: Mar 22nd 2011 1:13PM trauma disaster said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Billlop
Does it look much different than cry1?, On your setup. If it's not much of a bump then I still have plenty of life in one left. If it's 2 points better in graphics over cysis then I have to buy today, cause that would be the high water mark.
Reply

Posted: Mar 22nd 2011 1:22PM Billlop said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@trauma disaster

Well i especially noticed that motion blur and depth of field both look much more polished than in Crysis 1. Also water looks shinier and surfaces that have water on them are a lot more slick.

One thing i was very impressed by was the lack of texture popin. Considering i only have 2 gigs RAM, there was very little texture pop-in and it was never noticable for more than about 2 seconds.

Overall i would say it looks a lot more polished than either Warhead or Crysis 1. It also runs a hellova lot better.
Reply

Posted: Mar 22nd 2011 4:11PM Draugdraugr said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
@trauma disaster

It looks great but it's no crysis 1 or Metro 2033 (for PC)
Reply

Posted: Mar 22nd 2011 12:25PM Anciegher said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
This will be great next year when I buy my new computer. Ivy Bridge i7, 16GB RAM, 2x 7950

Can't wait!!!

Posted: Mar 22nd 2011 12:27PM VeeDeeVee said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@Anciegher
Good lord man are you building a PC OR A DEATH STAR
Reply

Posted: Mar 22nd 2011 12:40PM PointlessPuppies said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@Anciegher

16 GB of RAM? Talk about overkill...
Reply

Posted: Mar 22nd 2011 12:46PM TheShaper said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@VeeDeeVee
By next year, this hardware will already be on pair with Tie Fighters...

God bless console gaming
Reply

Posted: Mar 22nd 2011 12:57PM Billlop said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Anciegher

You understand most games only use 4gigs of ram, with a very tiny % using up to 6gigs. 16gigs is the very definition of a waste of money as even Windows 7 64bit cant support that
Reply

Posted: Mar 22nd 2011 1:28PM Mal F4cti0n said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@Billlop

Why can't Windows 7 support up to 16 GB of RAM?

Last year, at my old job, we were looking at the costs for 32GB RAM for fluid dynamic calculations for a user friendly CFD code based on Windows as opposed to Lunix or Unix based.

I now that you max out at 4 GB RAM on a 32-bit machine, but that limit is not reached on a 64-bit machine as it has about 4x10^9 more RAM allowable.
Reply

Posted: Mar 22nd 2011 1:29PM Mal F4cti0n said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Mal F4cti0n

*know

dangit!
Reply

Posted: Mar 22nd 2011 1:31PM Mal F4cti0n said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@Mal F4cti0n

In fact:

Here are the upper RAM limits for the different editions of Windows 7:

Starter: 8GB
Home Basic: 8GB
Home Premium: 16GB
Professional: 192GB
Enterprise: 192GB
Ultimate: 192GB

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/max-memory-limits-for-64-bit-windows-7/4254
Reply

Posted: Mar 22nd 2011 2:03PM zlickrick said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
@Billlop

Actually, if he has Professorial Edition or higher, the upper limit on 64 bit Windows 7 is 192GB.

Reply

Posted: Mar 22nd 2011 2:20PM ytilanigiroon said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@Billlop
"16gigs is the very definition of a waste of money as even Windows 7 64bit cant support that"

I'm going to presume that you buy your computers from one of the "Big Box" companies (HP, Apple, Dell, et al). Where I work I've built rigs for HFSS, SolidWorks, AutoCAD, Adobe CS and all of them have a minimum 8GB of RAM. Most of them have 16GB and one of the HFSS boxes has 32GB

Why?

Because these types of programs are optimized to use multi-core 64-bit processors, and (for windows 7 Pro, Ent, and Ult users) UP TO 192GB of RAM.

Waste of money? Not at all, provided Crysis2 has been programed with today's (and tomorrow's) technology in mind.
Reply

Posted: Mar 22nd 2011 3:19PM PointlessPuppies said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@ytilanigiroon
I'm going to assume you're not very familiar with PC gaming, because in its current state barely any game uses more than 6GB, let alone 192GB. Hell, there's not even a reason for it, even if games did use that much. The most important components needed to run a game are the GPU and CPU.
Reply

Posted: Mar 22nd 2011 4:43PM ytilanigiroon said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@PointlessPuppies
I'm going to presume you're not that familiar with computer science: every single interaction that is made with your computer is translated mathematically by your computer. Every time you see water ripple and reflect in Crysis, every micron your mouse moves, the sound being generated by your audio processor, equates to a nigh incalculable number of calculations per frame. You are correct if you assume that the GPU may take the lead role in pumping this data out, but the CPU, motherboard/chipset, and RAM play an invaluable role in your fragging session. RAM, essentially, stores commonly used locations of data and instructions for the CPU. Thus; the bigger the amount of RAM available, the more instructions can be cashed for quicker accessibility and the quicker that frame rate will sync with the movements of your mouse.

Really, though, FSB speed is the real bottleneck.
Reply

Posted: Mar 23rd 2011 8:08AM Jinketsu said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@ytilanigiroon

In layman's terms, Just because a game uses 6GB of RAM doesn't mean the rest of your computer doesn't need any RAM at all.
Reply

Posted: Mar 23rd 2011 12:45PM mangosango said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@ytilanigiroon

*cached not cashed :P

Anyway,

For gaming, the capacity of your RAM matters less than it's latency. Smaller amounts of RAM (say 4, 8 or 16 GB) are easier to overclock and manage than higher-capacity RAM (16+ GB). In programs like CAD, Maya, and After Effects, your RAM capacity matters more because the program essentially stores your render previews in a memory buffer, instead of dumping it all to your disk.

For gaming, it matters less because games rarely use over 1 GB of system memory (and most of the memory-heavy items like textures and models are stored in the VRAM buffer). In Crysis 2 specifically, the water interactions you mentioned are just fancy normal maps (which are textures stored... in video ram). Camera movements in most games are just matrix multiplications done per vertex on the GPU. Audio and physics calculations are still done on the sound card/cpu, I think. Not completely sure about how that works.

So while your CPU and RAM matter (just like every other component on your computer), because games these days rely so heavily on parallel processing done on the GPU, your GPU is far more likely to be the bottleneck.

TL;DR: RAM speed is more important than capacity in gaming. Games don't use THAT much system memory (mostly VRAM). Smaller amounts of RAM are easier to manage and OC.

Anyways, I'm pretty sure the OP is joking... 2 x 7950 lol. I raise you 3 x GTX 790 (mmm 6-way SLI. We can all dream).
Reply

Posted: Mar 23rd 2011 5:11PM Anciegher said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@mangosango

I'm not joking, I'm looking at spending around 12k Swedish crowns ~ 1500$ on a system in Q1/Q2 of 2012.

Going by today's calculations I can get a system of an i7 2600k, 12GB RAM and 2x6950 for that price.

I would expect that by next year around march I could get an i7 gen 3, 16GB RAM and 2x7950 for around the same price. And I'm hopeful this computer could last me around 5 years (as my current rig has done).

I usually spend around 1500$ on a new computer every few years, it used to be a cycle of 3-4 years but now adays you can last longer on old tech (thanks to consoles hampering the PC-graphics standard).
Reply

Posted: Mar 23rd 2011 6:19PM Marco le Polo said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Anciegher

Nerds! Nerds! Nerds! Nerds! Nerds! Nerds! Nerds! Nerds! Nerds!

Yea I just made my gaming pc too...

Nerds!
Reply

Posted: Mar 23rd 2011 6:25PM Marco le Polo said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Reply

Posted: Mar 24th 2011 10:23AM ytilanigiroon said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@mangosango

I do agree that latency is more important than the amount, speaking specifically about gaming. However, I would say that the latency of the VRAM is even more important than the GPU on the card. Provided that it's within spec.

The figure of 1GB of RAM being used seems unfortunate, if true. I'm not positive, but it seems that devs would be better served to used larger amounts of system RAM instead of VRAM to /cache/ (hah, stupid ring finger and middle finger getting sloppy) things like the rest of the map, or help to preload upcoming events, et cetera. In my experience the more instructions and math you can buffer by storing stuff in RAM, the better.

Though, the game you're playing isn't the only thing running on your machine. Right now I've got Win7pro, PSPad, an RDP session, Firefox, Outlook, Kaspersky, and for some reason - iTunes (nothing's playing though) and I'm using ~2.32GB of RAM at the moment. Now, tack on Ventrillo, Trillian (or pidgen, et al), uTorrent, a couple other browsers, system monitors, AND your game and I'm guessing the figure is somewhere near ~5-6GB. Granted 8GB should be JUST fine, but more is - well - more.

tl;dr
Point was that stating that 16GB of ram being pointless is pretty silly.
Reply

Posted: Mar 24th 2011 10:41AM ytilanigiroon said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@ytilanigiroon
"I'm not positive, but it seems that devs would be better served to used larger amounts of system RAM instead of VRAM to /cache/ (hah, stupid ring finger and middle finger getting sloppy) things like the rest of the map, or help to preload upcoming events, et cetera."

To clarify, they should use as much as is reasonable of the system RAM in tandem with the VRAM - or, add some SODIMM slots so you can roll your own VRAM configuration.
Reply

Posted: Mar 22nd 2011 12:26PM djpotatohead said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I like a game that is awesome and I don't have to wait in line to get it release day. Got last night with absolutely no problem and it is a really good game.

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

TUAW

TUAW

Massively

Massively

WoW

WoW