Crysis 3

ithehappy

ithehappy

Human Spambot
Oh, now I know.
Vanilla version or whatever it's called it was good, but that HD and DX11 thing which made C2 a super one, in term of graphics I mean. I don't think if there was no external modifications the game would've reached the level what it have.
But be it Vanilla or not, the optimisation was just great.
 
gameranand

gameranand

Living to Play
cyborg47 said:
The point is, what game looked better than Crysis 2 on DX9? I cannot think of any.
Click to expand...

Thats the point when C1 was Dx10 then why did they made C2 on Dx9. I mean its downgrading which is certainly not good. And do we even have to do this all over again, I think that we are finished over C2, NO. :)
 
cyborg47

cyborg47

Technomancer
gameranand said:
Thats the point when C1 was Dx10 then why did they made C2 on Dx9. I mean its downgrading which is certainly not good. And do we even have to do this all over again, I think that we are finished over C2, NO. :)
Click to expand...

I don't remember any of it, but yeah, downgrading was bad, i don't mean to say otherwise. But Crysis 2 was a damn good looking DX9 title to this day.
 
Nerevarine

Nerevarine

Incarnate
gameranand said:
Thats the point when C1 was Dx10 then why did they made C2 on Dx9. I mean its downgrading which is certainly not good. And do we even have to do this all over again, I think that we are finished over C2, NO. :)
Click to expand...

Did you know assassin's creed 1 supported direct x 10 but the devs just never put in that extra effort to include directx10 in AC2, ACB and ACR
 
gameranand

gameranand

Living to Play
Nerevarine said:
Did you know assassin's creed 1 supported direct x 10 but the devs just never put in that extra effort to include directx10 in AC2, ACB and ACR
Click to expand...

Damn....Alright lets just say that a game X is released which is a milestone for graphics in PC and have made a hell lot of fans and then X2 is released after 4 years, now what would you expect from X2, should it be better than X in every aspect be it graphically, gameplay or anything or not specially when developers said in their Interviews that X2 is going to be epic graphically and all for PC. Now comes the release of X2, its good on consoles considering their power but for PC its more of a Shitty game as compared to X with downgraded graphics, AI, a lot of bugs and what not. Then developers releases all the necessaries after 6 months. And mind you that most gamers would have already played and completed X2 by then apart from gamers like me who prefer to play the game when its development cycle is completed. Now what would you call X2 a very good game or a very bad game. In this case X is Crysis and X2 is Crysis 2. I hope you got my point and won't start it again. :)
 
cyborg47

cyborg47

Technomancer
Nerevarine said:
Did you know assassin's creed 1 supported direct x 10 but the devs just never put in that extra effort to include directx10 in AC2, ACB and ACR
Click to expand...

Where did you get that from? The devs only left out dx10 because they didn't see any kind of improvement in the game due to that. Moreover, AC2 on dx9 looked a lot more beautiful than AC1 did on dx10.

gameranand said:
Damn....Alright lets just say that a game X is released which is a milestone for graphics in PC and have made a hell lot of fans and then X2 is released after 4 years, now what would you expect from X2, should it be better than X in every aspect be it graphically, gameplay or anything or not specially when developers said in their Interviews that X2 is going to be epic graphically and all for PC. Now comes the release of X2, its good on consoles considering their power but for PC its more of a Shitty game as compared to X with downgraded graphics, AI, a lot of bugs and what not. Then developers releases all the necessaries after 6 months. And mind you that most gamers would have already played and completed X2 by then apart from gamers like me who prefer to play the game when its development cycle is completed. Now what would you call X2 a very good game or a very bad game. In this case X is Crysis and X2 is Crysis 2. I hope you got my point and won't start it again. :)
Click to expand...

An obvious smart move from Crytek which kinda backfired. On the brighter side, there's no single game that was set in New York and made it look as beautiful as it did in Crysis 2. Sure there were a lot of shameful downsides, but the scale, feel and environment of New York was captured perfectly. From an artistic standpoint, I'd rather go for a varied environment of Crysis 2, than a bland forest in Crysis 1, even though I admit I enjoyed the latter more :D
 
anirbandd

anirbandd

Conversation Architect
gameranand said:
Damn....Alright lets just say that a game X is released which is a milestone for graphics in PC and have made a hell lot of fans and then X2 is released after 4 years, now what would you expect from X2, should it be better than X in every aspect be it graphically, gameplay or anything or not specially when developers said in their Interviews that X2 is going to be epic graphically and all for PC. Now comes the release of X2, its good on consoles considering their power but for PC its more of a Shitty game as compared to X with downgraded graphics, AI, a lot of bugs and what not. Then developers releases all the necessaries after 6 months. And mind you that most gamers would have already played and completed X2 by then apart from gamers like me who prefer to play the game when its development cycle is completed. Now what would you call X2 a very good game or a very bad game. In this case X is Crysis and X2 is Crysis 2. I hope you got my point and won't start it again. :)
Click to expand...

where did you bring in the algebra?? :D

cyborg47 said:
Where did you get that from? The devs only left out dx10 because they didn't see any kind of improvement in the game due to that. Moreover, AC2 on dx9 looked a lot more beautiful than AC1 did on dx10.

An obvious smart move from Crytek which kinda backfired. On the brighter side, there's no single game that was set in New York and made it look as beautiful as it did in Crysis 2. Sure there were a lot of shameful downsides, but the scale, feel and environment of New York was captured perfectly. From an artistic standpoint, I'd rather go for a varied environment of Crysis 2, than a bland forest in Crysis 1, even though I admit I enjoyed the latter more :D
Click to expand...

level desingwas great. i'll agree on that.
 
Nerevarine

Nerevarine

Incarnate
gameranand said:
Damn....Alright lets just say that a game X is released which is a milestone for graphics in PC and have made a hell lot of fans and then X2 is released after 4 years, now what would you expect from X2, should it be better than X in every aspect be it graphically, gameplay or anything or not specially when developers said in their Interviews that X2 is going to be epic graphically and all for PC. Now comes the release of X2, its good on consoles considering their power but for PC its more of a Shitty game as compared to X with downgraded graphics, AI, a lot of bugs and what not. Then developers releases all the necessaries after 6 months. And mind you that most gamers would have already played and completed X2 by then apart from gamers like me who prefer to play the game when its development cycle is completed. Now what would you call X2 a very good game or a very bad game. In this case X is Crysis and X2 is Crysis 2. I hope you got my point and won't start it again. :)
Click to expand...


too long did not read :p
im sleepy ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom