Crysis 2 upgrades to maximum graphics on the PC, get the patch here

@Frostblade10
Can my PC run thi....... What the, what are you doing with that? Aaahhhhhhhhhhhhhgurgle gurgle.......gurgle.

@Flat Rook
It wasn't me this time.

@Frostblade10 Can my PC run this?

CPU:MOS 6510 at 0.000985 Ghz
GPU:MOS VIC-II 6569 512 Bytes of Colour Ram (Shared)
Sound: MOS 6581 3-channel synth programmable ADSR envelope
RAM: 64 kB
Storage: 340kb (2 Sides times 170kb) and 60 minutes of magnetised Chromium Dioxide Tape.

@Dehnus
Almost....

@iceveiled
I hope not! I just picked up a gtx 580 and am going to try a second run through with the extra eyecandy. AFAIK this card is the fasted single gpu out there right now and if it isn't good enough, I'll be a sad panda.

Also, THANK YOU joystiq for the fast download!

@DV8ing1 - Depends on the resolution. 1080p, and you're probably fine. Any higher though, and it may be an issue.

I'm also on a GTX 580 (at 1080p) and the only issue I've run into is in Metro 2033. Even then, the problem is only with DOF and extra AA on (which isn't really needed). I'm not going to try Crysis 2 until later this week, so I can't say what kind of performance hit you'd take.

My only fear at this point is Battlefield 3. If this 580 can't max it, I'll cry (at my inability to get another 580 at the same $330 price point of the first)

@gtkkk
Yeah, exactly. This is practically the definition of diminishing returns. The DX9 version looks great! The DX11 version... also looks great! Woo.

Occasionally it looks a little bit different; the tesselation makes it lumpier. But is lumpier better? I flipped between those shots and I honestly don't think there's a big improvement. Fact is, brick walls ARE pretty flat, unless the builder was totally incompetent; the lumpy version is unrealistic.

The shadows and reflections were distinctly better in places but it still took some effort to even notice that.

Anyway, I'm not saying that companies (game companies, graphics card companies, Microsoft, etc) shouldn't continue to push for greater realism and improved graphics card features to help achieve that. Of course they should. And I'm sure PC gamers will appreciate the minor improvements (or the ability to run at higher resolution etc). But looking at these comparisons you can certainly see why Microsoft don't see a need to rush the end of this console generation. You know what? Don't bother until DX12, or maybe 13. At some point it'll reach a level where the difference is obvious enough for regular customers rather than pixel-peekers to actually notice. Waste of time to upgrade until then. Think of the difference between PS2/Xbox (or Wii) and PS3/60 (or Café). Same with original PS/N64 and PS2/GC/Xbox. It was night and day. These comparisons are more like 11:37 and 11:39.

(And yes I realise the DX9 version isn't actually console DX9, but I think the point still pretty much stands.)

@xxxsam ... i'm not going to lie im tiered so i only read the first part of your post... anyways, yes, yes, yes tessellation making things lumpier is a good thing. imagine if you will something like... idk... carpet (looked around my room) in side a game, without tessellation it would just be a flat surface with some pixels arranged to make it seem 3D (not sony's 3D but normal game world 3D just to clarify). With tessellation that flat fake 3D carpet can suddenly have actual bumps and... nonflatness...ness to it with little effort on the part of the devs.... pertty cool huh?

@xxxsam the real difference came with the Dreamcast

@xxxsam

tl; dr

@GTThaAceman
My question: Will it blend?

@A bit a puddin My 5850 gets a solid 30 fps with everything maxed out. I don't plan on using the new features (I prefer higher framerates) but it's playable.

@CleanUndies "artical"

What.

@Hyne
except it was left out for consoles. This is the problem this generation. Many companies are not using the PC to the fullest because the games are being made with consoles in mind.

@Hyne Actually... It was because of consoles... oO

@szimm
Yeah, this is true. The CEO of Crytek said it himself, though not so explicitly.

@The Aquacharger They kept consoles in mind just by putting the game on the consoles. They could have just said screw you and left 360/PS3 with nothing. PC versions shouldn't be dumbed down because consoles can't support every feature. It's not a matter of its not fair to consoles. It's just how it is. Consoles aren't upgradable part by part like PCs are. They're always going to be a little behind.

If you want the best performance you have to invest more in a machine that can handle the juice. If you don't want to go that route thats the purpose of consoles. It's cheaper but consequently has lesser performance. Even I know and accept that. It's the reason I mainly play games on the console as I am not capable of upgrading my PC everytime theres a new leap.

Not everything can be handled equally in gaming when everything is already pretty divided. Whats the point of PC gaming and consoles when they're going to run exactly the same? Sorry but I believe one should out perform the other and I'm saying this as someone who mains the less powerful machine and accepts I'm going to miss out on features.

@Hyne The PC version still looked a lot better than the console version before this update, it just didn't have all the goodies it could have had.

@maxxgold How dare they actually make the game have a semblance of gameplay instead of being nothing more than a techdemo.

Crysis was fricking terriblke, I don't understand how anyone could say otherwise.

Crysis Warhead fixed some of my gripes, but just wasn't quite there.

Crysis 2 while still issue filled had to be the most "fun" of the three games.

I get a feeling that people who say otherwise are still just upset that Crysis went to consoles.

To which I say: The more people who have a chance to experience something I get to enjoy, the better.

@Robborboy
I enjoyed Crysis.

@Robborboy
No, Crysis 1 was much better. The AI was better, the "level" areas are larger and require planning (AKA STRATEGY).
Anyone who says otherwise just loves consoles too much (or; your excuse but flipped around. Except my point was proven with actual facts).

@Robborboy
So your idea of "Fixing the gameplay" was make CoD-style yawnfest?

I'm sorry but Crysis 1 IS better. Better AI, more open levels, better tactical situations, difficulty that's actually challenging without being cheap, more freedom in strategies. It simply lent itself to far more fun and organic gameplay situations. Of course, if you enjoy flashy corridor-style gameplay then Crysis 2 is right up your alley. I suppose you enjoy your gameplay being spoonfed to you instead of actually thinking through your battles and how to pick off enemies one by one.

You're completely delusional if you think the only reason people say Crysis 1 is better than 2 is because PC gamers are bitter that the sequel went to the consoles. What a laughable assertion only made as a really piss poor attempt to dismiss everybody's gameplay complaints in one blanket statement.

@Robborboy

Crysis and Crysis Warhead ARE better.

@Robborboy You might "have a feeling" but I couldn't care less that the game was released on console. I have a great PC and all the major consoles of...ever. Really. It is true I prefer shooters on PC but I am by no means a fanboy.

Crysis 1 was the best of them all in my opinion. The story wasn't amazing but at least it led me to be curious what would happen next. Crysis 2 felt like a better looking Contra in terms of story. Crysis 2 doesn't really continue the story so much as jump ahead several chapters and the introduction of your avatar is abysmal. I have no investment in him at all.

The AI in 1 was not perfect but was way ahead of the "I'll just stand here" AI of Crysis 2.

So, again this is just my opinion but the whole "anyone who says otherwise must be crazy" argument it just bullshit. Crysis 2 was good and fun for 1 play through but I have no desire to play it again.

@aughscreennames
Was that official though? I don't think my copy on Steam supports HDR? Could be wrong as I haven't played it in years.

@Tihn You can't activate it through the game's configuration, you have to edit a CFG file. It also disables anti-aliasing.

@Androu1
Thanks! I'll go forth and play through with HDR enabled.

@Hi iTs SlayeR
It does with that patch. Without the patch it looks worse than Crysis 1.

That's because Cryengine 3 was built for consoles, which are 6 years old now.

@Dick Socrates

Oh hush...

The people whining had a reason to whine.
Crysis was PC-centric game that pushed PC graphics into the next-generation only a year after the PS3 came out. In addition, the gameplay was very tactical and required that use of a lot of keys on the keyboard and/or mouse.

Crysis 2, on the other hand became;

1) A console-centric game with linear gameplay and much much smaller maps. In addition, all the tactical keys from Crysis 1 was removed in Crysis 2 in order to comfort a console controller.

2) Crysis 2 PC didn't even push PC graphics ahead of its time like Crysis 1 did either. In fact, New Crysis 2 looked worse then 3.5 Year Old Crysis 1. Tisk Tisk...

What made it worse was; Crysis 2 PC had the same low rez textures as the console version. Try playing that on native 1920 x 1080 and it looks horrible! The game was a comp. port of the 360 build.


This patch tries to fix Problem Number 2. Number 1 is still there and shows a huge problem within the gamin industry.

Developers should try to please their current fans and expand from there, not ditch them!


I can say more, but I don't want to waste my time anymore...