Crysis 2 Will Be Kind to Your PC. Plus, a New Trailer

[MrTub]

it's just a couple generations behind.

Which is exactly why I don't think it's that great a card. The 200 series is to nVidia what the 1156 socket is to Intel. Sure it performs great for it's time, but with the price points of newer hardware that outperforms it easily, it is rendered completely obsolete.

So what you are saying is that anything not top-of-the-line is "not a great card". That's ridiculous. That's like saying the Geforce 4 ti wasn't or isn't a good card just because it's old and can't handle new games. It's still a great card that was made for the games of it's generation. Same with the 260.

I think from the 9 series to 200 series or so, nVidia sort of dropped the ball. To me, the 460 GTX is where they redeemed themselves. It represents the amazing bang for buck that the 8800 had back in it's day.

Clearly what you "think" is an opinion, and not a fact. The fact is, is that the series of cards from 9-current has been reviewed to be just as good if not better than AMD's similar offerings, and Nvidia has been the market-owning champ since the Radeon 9800 series. Also, upper-mid range cards typically sell the most and have the most longevity in the market, like the 260.

I'm not comparing them to AMD, I'm comparing them to themselves (compare the 9800 GTX and 8800 GTX, the 9800 reads like an overclocked 8800). You need to stop putting words in my mouth. I never claimed to spouting facts. I never said you need to have a top of the line card. I just said that I don't think the 200 is that great given the price points of newer cards (i.e. the 460 GTX and 560 GTX) which offer great value for money. You don't need to be so defensive.

If you think the 260 is great, good for you, I just don't think it is.

Obviously if you have the ability to see the future, you could easily tell that the 460 GTX and the 560 GTX are coming out and are going to be better deals compared to the 260. But back in 200-time, those cards didn't exist and a 260 was considered a GREAT deal by most publications. How can you compare a newer generation to an older one? OBVIOUSLY it's going to be a better deal and no one in their right mind would buy a 200-series card today. DUH. But saying that Nvidia "dropped the ball" with their 9-200 series is just an unfair opinion, not taking into account the fact that professional hardware reviewers completely disagreed when those cards debuted.

I don't understand what you're trying to do here. I DISAGREE with you and I also disagree with professional hardware reviewers if their opinion reflects yours. I do not think that the 260 is a GREAT card. I didn't say it was a terrible bit of tech, I think it's average but when you're talking about fairly high spec games, average doesn't cut it.

All I'm saying here is to put yourself in the buyer's mindset in the time when the top-of-the-line cards were the 200 series. A 260 was much cheaper than a 280, and most reviewer's considered it an excellent deal for the tech you were getting. Compared to today's cards, yes, it is vastly inferior, but at the time, a 260 was an awesome deal, and it could run every game on high with some or full aa. Same with my 275: great deal at the time, run on max with no or little aa. Calling my card or this guy's 260 a "not that great card" is just not cool, because when we bought these cards, they were awesome deals, and now-a-days they may not be top of the line, but they are still considered "great" cards that can play (I say from personal experience) most, if not all, games on maximum settings with at least a little bit of aa. I'm confident both cards can also play Crysis 2 on max settings with no aa, and they are nowhere near today's top-of-the-line.

No it can't play Crysis 2 on max setting since your cards do not support DX11 and therefor you cannot play it on the highest settings.

Ok, since you side-stepped the real argument I guess I'll respond to this. DX11 is a joke. So is dx9. DX10 effects could be simply modified into the config to work in DX9. Maybe this isn't true with DX11, but even if it isn't, name 10 games that will take advantage of the new effects, and name 10 big-budget pc games that are ported from consoles that will take advantage of it. 1 and 0. Sorry, but advances in PC hardware don't equal advances in console hardware, and the PC has been degraded to just receiving ports of good console games. Also, DX11 "support" is often confused with DX11 "features" which is an entirely different matter. I doubt many DX11 "features" will be present in Crysis 2. Also, in order to keep the platform's visual quality at least mostly consistent, I doubt Crysis 2 will feature any of these "features". Of course, this is all speculation as is anything that states that a 260 won't be able to run Crysis 2 at max.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_games_with_DirectX_11_support damn that was hard :<

 

[thesaxmaniac]

it's just a couple generations behind.

Which is exactly why I don't think it's that great a card. The 200 series is to nVidia what the 1156 socket is to Intel. Sure it performs great for it's time, but with the price points of newer hardware that outperforms it easily, it is rendered completely obsolete.

So what you are saying is that anything not top-of-the-line is "not a great card". That's ridiculous. That's like saying the Geforce 4 ti wasn't or isn't a good card just because it's old and can't handle new games. It's still a great card that was made for the games of it's generation. Same with the 260.

I think from the 9 series to 200 series or so, nVidia sort of dropped the ball. To me, the 460 GTX is where they redeemed themselves. It represents the amazing bang for buck that the 8800 had back in it's day.

Clearly what you "think" is an opinion, and not a fact. The fact is, is that the series of cards from 9-current has been reviewed to be just as good if not better than AMD's similar offerings, and Nvidia has been the market-owning champ since the Radeon 9800 series. Also, upper-mid range cards typically sell the most and have the most longevity in the market, like the 260.

I'm not comparing them to AMD, I'm comparing them to themselves (compare the 9800 GTX and 8800 GTX, the 9800 reads like an overclocked 8800). You need to stop putting words in my mouth. I never claimed to spouting facts. I never said you need to have a top of the line card. I just said that I don't think the 200 is that great given the price points of newer cards (i.e. the 460 GTX and 560 GTX) which offer great value for money. You don't need to be so defensive.

If you think the 260 is great, good for you, I just don't think it is.

Obviously if you have the ability to see the future, you could easily tell that the 460 GTX and the 560 GTX are coming out and are going to be better deals compared to the 260. But back in 200-time, those cards didn't exist and a 260 was considered a GREAT deal by most publications. How can you compare a newer generation to an older one? OBVIOUSLY it's going to be a better deal and no one in their right mind would buy a 200-series card today. DUH. But saying that Nvidia "dropped the ball" with their 9-200 series is just an unfair opinion, not taking into account the fact that professional hardware reviewers completely disagreed when those cards debuted.

I don't understand what you're trying to do here. I DISAGREE with you and I also disagree with professional hardware reviewers if their opinion reflects yours. I do not think that the 260 is a GREAT card. I didn't say it was a terrible bit of tech, I think it's average but when you're talking about fairly high spec games, average doesn't cut it.

All I'm saying here is to put yourself in the buyer's mindset in the time when the top-of-the-line cards were the 200 series. A 260 was much cheaper than a 280, and most reviewer's considered it an excellent deal for the tech you were getting. Compared to today's cards, yes, it is vastly inferior, but at the time, a 260 was an awesome deal, and it could run every game on high with some or full aa. Same with my 275: great deal at the time, run on max with no or little aa. Calling my card or this guy's 260 a "not that great card" is just not cool, because when we bought these cards, they were awesome deals, and now-a-days they may not be top of the line, but they are still considered "great" cards that can play (I say from personal experience) most, if not all, games on maximum settings with at least a little bit of aa. I'm confident both cards can also play Crysis 2 on max settings with no aa, and they are nowhere near today's top-of-the-line.

No it can't play Crysis 2 on max setting since your cards do not support DX11 and therefor you cannot play it on the highest settings.

Ok, since you side-stepped the real argument I guess I'll respond to this. DX11 is a joke. So is dx9. DX10 effects could be simply modified into the config to work in DX9. Maybe this isn't true with DX11, but even if it isn't, name 10 games that will take advantage of the new effects, and name 10 big-budget pc games that are ported from consoles that will take advantage of it. 1 and 0. Sorry, but advances in PC hardware don't equal advances in console hardware, and the PC has been degraded to just receiving ports of good console games. Also, DX11 "support" is often confused with DX11 "features" which is an entirely different matter. I doubt many DX11 "features" will be present in Crysis 2. Also, in order to keep the platform's visual quality at least mostly consistent, I doubt Crysis 2 will feature any of these "features". Of course, this is all speculation as is anything that states that a 260 won't be able to run Crysis 2 at max.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_games_with_DirectX_11_support damn that was hard :<

Again, "support" and "features" are 2 completely different things. I could release a game that supports DX11, and it would even be listed on the link you posted. But it would look nothing like Crysis 2. That was hard.

Also, I go to Berkeley and am majoring in computer science. Just thought I'd throw that out if you thought I was just trolling idiot.

 

[MrTub]

it's just a couple generations behind.

Which is exactly why I don't think it's that great a card. The 200 series is to nVidia what the 1156 socket is to Intel. Sure it performs great for it's time, but with the price points of newer hardware that outperforms it easily, it is rendered completely obsolete.

So what you are saying is that anything not top-of-the-line is "not a great card". That's ridiculous. That's like saying the Geforce 4 ti wasn't or isn't a good card just because it's old and can't handle new games. It's still a great card that was made for the games of it's generation. Same with the 260.

I think from the 9 series to 200 series or so, nVidia sort of dropped the ball. To me, the 460 GTX is where they redeemed themselves. It represents the amazing bang for buck that the 8800 had back in it's day.

Clearly what you "think" is an opinion, and not a fact. The fact is, is that the series of cards from 9-current has been reviewed to be just as good if not better than AMD's similar offerings, and Nvidia has been the market-owning champ since the Radeon 9800 series. Also, upper-mid range cards typically sell the most and have the most longevity in the market, like the 260.

I'm not comparing them to AMD, I'm comparing them to themselves (compare the 9800 GTX and 8800 GTX, the 9800 reads like an overclocked 8800). You need to stop putting words in my mouth. I never claimed to spouting facts. I never said you need to have a top of the line card. I just said that I don't think the 200 is that great given the price points of newer cards (i.e. the 460 GTX and 560 GTX) which offer great value for money. You don't need to be so defensive.

If you think the 260 is great, good for you, I just don't think it is.

Obviously if you have the ability to see the future, you could easily tell that the 460 GTX and the 560 GTX are coming out and are going to be better deals compared to the 260. But back in 200-time, those cards didn't exist and a 260 was considered a GREAT deal by most publications. How can you compare a newer generation to an older one? OBVIOUSLY it's going to be a better deal and no one in their right mind would buy a 200-series card today. DUH. But saying that Nvidia "dropped the ball" with their 9-200 series is just an unfair opinion, not taking into account the fact that professional hardware reviewers completely disagreed when those cards debuted.

I don't understand what you're trying to do here. I DISAGREE with you and I also disagree with professional hardware reviewers if their opinion reflects yours. I do not think that the 260 is a GREAT card. I didn't say it was a terrible bit of tech, I think it's average but when you're talking about fairly high spec games, average doesn't cut it.

All I'm saying here is to put yourself in the buyer's mindset in the time when the top-of-the-line cards were the 200 series. A 260 was much cheaper than a 280, and most reviewer's considered it an excellent deal for the tech you were getting. Compared to today's cards, yes, it is vastly inferior, but at the time, a 260 was an awesome deal, and it could run every game on high with some or full aa. Same with my 275: great deal at the time, run on max with no or little aa. Calling my card or this guy's 260 a "not that great card" is just not cool, because when we bought these cards, they were awesome deals, and now-a-days they may not be top of the line, but they are still considered "great" cards that can play (I say from personal experience) most, if not all, games on maximum settings with at least a little bit of aa. I'm confident both cards can also play Crysis 2 on max settings with no aa, and they are nowhere near today's top-of-the-line.

No it can't play Crysis 2 on max setting since your cards do not support DX11 and therefor you cannot play it on the highest settings.

Ok, since you side-stepped the real argument I guess I'll respond to this. DX11 is a joke. So is dx9. DX10 effects could be simply modified into the config to work in DX9. Maybe this isn't true with DX11, but even if it isn't, name 10 games that will take advantage of the new effects, and name 10 big-budget pc games that are ported from consoles that will take advantage of it. 1 and 0. Sorry, but advances in PC hardware don't equal advances in console hardware, and the PC has been degraded to just receiving ports of good console games. Also, DX11 "support" is often confused with DX11 "features" which is an entirely different matter. I doubt many DX11 "features" will be present in Crysis 2. Also, in order to keep the platform's visual quality at least mostly consistent, I doubt Crysis 2 will feature any of these "features". Of course, this is all speculation as is anything that states that a 260 won't be able to run Crysis 2 at max.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_games_with_DirectX_11_support damn that was hard :<

Again, "support" and "features" are 2 completely different things. I could release a game that supports DX11, and it would even be listed on the link you posted. But it would look nothing like Crysis 2. That was hard.

I'm sorry but I'm not really sure what you mean?.. I know for fact that Lost planet 2 & Alien versus Predator Supports DX11 and has DX11 Features and It MIGHT not look like crysis 2 but that doesnt make it less true.

 

[thesaxmaniac]

it's just a couple generations behind.

Which is exactly why I don't think it's that great a card. The 200 series is to nVidia what the 1156 socket is to Intel. Sure it performs great for it's time, but with the price points of newer hardware that outperforms it easily, it is rendered completely obsolete.

So what you are saying is that anything not top-of-the-line is "not a great card". That's ridiculous. That's like saying the Geforce 4 ti wasn't or isn't a good card just because it's old and can't handle new games. It's still a great card that was made for the games of it's generation. Same with the 260.

I think from the 9 series to 200 series or so, nVidia sort of dropped the ball. To me, the 460 GTX is where they redeemed themselves. It represents the amazing bang for buck that the 8800 had back in it's day.

Clearly what you "think" is an opinion, and not a fact. The fact is, is that the series of cards from 9-current has been reviewed to be just as good if not better than AMD's similar offerings, and Nvidia has been the market-owning champ since the Radeon 9800 series. Also, upper-mid range cards typically sell the most and have the most longevity in the market, like the 260.

I'm not comparing them to AMD, I'm comparing them to themselves (compare the 9800 GTX and 8800 GTX, the 9800 reads like an overclocked 8800). You need to stop putting words in my mouth. I never claimed to spouting facts. I never said you need to have a top of the line card. I just said that I don't think the 200 is that great given the price points of newer cards (i.e. the 460 GTX and 560 GTX) which offer great value for money. You don't need to be so defensive.

If you think the 260 is great, good for you, I just don't think it is.

Obviously if you have the ability to see the future, you could easily tell that the 460 GTX and the 560 GTX are coming out and are going to be better deals compared to the 260. But back in 200-time, those cards didn't exist and a 260 was considered a GREAT deal by most publications. How can you compare a newer generation to an older one? OBVIOUSLY it's going to be a better deal and no one in their right mind would buy a 200-series card today. DUH. But saying that Nvidia "dropped the ball" with their 9-200 series is just an unfair opinion, not taking into account the fact that professional hardware reviewers completely disagreed when those cards debuted.

I don't understand what you're trying to do here. I DISAGREE with you and I also disagree with professional hardware reviewers if their opinion reflects yours. I do not think that the 260 is a GREAT card. I didn't say it was a terrible bit of tech, I think it's average but when you're talking about fairly high spec games, average doesn't cut it.

All I'm saying here is to put yourself in the buyer's mindset in the time when the top-of-the-line cards were the 200 series. A 260 was much cheaper than a 280, and most reviewer's considered it an excellent deal for the tech you were getting. Compared to today's cards, yes, it is vastly inferior, but at the time, a 260 was an awesome deal, and it could run every game on high with some or full aa. Same with my 275: great deal at the time, run on max with no or little aa. Calling my card or this guy's 260 a "not that great card" is just not cool, because when we bought these cards, they were awesome deals, and now-a-days they may not be top of the line, but they are still considered "great" cards that can play (I say from personal experience) most, if not all, games on maximum settings with at least a little bit of aa. I'm confident both cards can also play Crysis 2 on max settings with no aa, and they are nowhere near today's top-of-the-line.

No it can't play Crysis 2 on max setting since your cards do not support DX11 and therefor you cannot play it on the highest settings.

Ok, since you side-stepped the real argument I guess I'll respond to this. DX11 is a joke. So is dx9. DX10 effects could be simply modified into the config to work in DX9. Maybe this isn't true with DX11, but even if it isn't, name 10 games that will take advantage of the new effects, and name 10 big-budget pc games that are ported from consoles that will take advantage of it. 1 and 0. Sorry, but advances in PC hardware don't equal advances in console hardware, and the PC has been degraded to just receiving ports of good console games. Also, DX11 "support" is often confused with DX11 "features" which is an entirely different matter. I doubt many DX11 "features" will be present in Crysis 2. Also, in order to keep the platform's visual quality at least mostly consistent, I doubt Crysis 2 will feature any of these "features". Of course, this is all speculation as is anything that states that a 260 won't be able to run Crysis 2 at max.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_games_with_DirectX_11_support damn that was hard :<

Again, "support" and "features" are 2 completely different things. I could release a game that supports DX11, and it would even be listed on the link you posted. But it would look nothing like Crysis 2. That was hard.

I'm sorry but I'm not really sure what you mean?.. I know for fact that Lost planet 2 Supports DX11 and has DX11 Features and It MIGHT not look like crysis 2 but that doesnt make it less true.

For example: I create a 2d game, but it has advanced api's from DX11. It doesn't make my game a 3d powerhouse like Crysis, but it does make it "support" DX11. Therefore, it supports DX11, but doesn't use any DX11 features. Crysis uses extremely high quality textures, unmatched by any other game released, which is it's real calling, not DX11.

 

[Burck]

An 8800GT as the minimum requirement for a graphics card...

Man, I only have a 9800GTX+...
My other components are all along that line: somewhat above the minimum...
Well, I guess I'll try the demo and hope for double-digit frames per second.

Also, cool narrator voice, and I enjoyed the pacing of the trailer, but the music was kinda weird.

 

[MrTub]

it's just a couple generations behind.

Which is exactly why I don't think it's that great a card. The 200 series is to nVidia what the 1156 socket is to Intel. Sure it performs great for it's time, but with the price points of newer hardware that outperforms it easily, it is rendered completely obsolete.

So what you are saying is that anything not top-of-the-line is "not a great card". That's ridiculous. That's like saying the Geforce 4 ti wasn't or isn't a good card just because it's old and can't handle new games. It's still a great card that was made for the games of it's generation. Same with the 260.

I think from the 9 series to 200 series or so, nVidia sort of dropped the ball. To me, the 460 GTX is where they redeemed themselves. It represents the amazing bang for buck that the 8800 had back in it's day.

Clearly what you "think" is an opinion, and not a fact. The fact is, is that the series of cards from 9-current has been reviewed to be just as good if not better than AMD's similar offerings, and Nvidia has been the market-owning champ since the Radeon 9800 series. Also, upper-mid range cards typically sell the most and have the most longevity in the market, like the 260.

I'm not comparing them to AMD, I'm comparing them to themselves (compare the 9800 GTX and 8800 GTX, the 9800 reads like an overclocked 8800). You need to stop putting words in my mouth. I never claimed to spouting facts. I never said you need to have a top of the line card. I just said that I don't think the 200 is that great given the price points of newer cards (i.e. the 460 GTX and 560 GTX) which offer great value for money. You don't need to be so defensive.

If you think the 260 is great, good for you, I just don't think it is.

Obviously if you have the ability to see the future, you could easily tell that the 460 GTX and the 560 GTX are coming out and are going to be better deals compared to the 260. But back in 200-time, those cards didn't exist and a 260 was considered a GREAT deal by most publications. How can you compare a newer generation to an older one? OBVIOUSLY it's going to be a better deal and no one in their right mind would buy a 200-series card today. DUH. But saying that Nvidia "dropped the ball" with their 9-200 series is just an unfair opinion, not taking into account the fact that professional hardware reviewers completely disagreed when those cards debuted.

I don't understand what you're trying to do here. I DISAGREE with you and I also disagree with professional hardware reviewers if their opinion reflects yours. I do not think that the 260 is a GREAT card. I didn't say it was a terrible bit of tech, I think it's average but when you're talking about fairly high spec games, average doesn't cut it.

All I'm saying here is to put yourself in the buyer's mindset in the time when the top-of-the-line cards were the 200 series. A 260 was much cheaper than a 280, and most reviewer's considered it an excellent deal for the tech you were getting. Compared to today's cards, yes, it is vastly inferior, but at the time, a 260 was an awesome deal, and it could run every game on high with some or full aa. Same with my 275: great deal at the time, run on max with no or little aa. Calling my card or this guy's 260 a "not that great card" is just not cool, because when we bought these cards, they were awesome deals, and now-a-days they may not be top of the line, but they are still considered "great" cards that can play (I say from personal experience) most, if not all, games on maximum settings with at least a little bit of aa. I'm confident both cards can also play Crysis 2 on max settings with no aa, and they are nowhere near today's top-of-the-line.

No it can't play Crysis 2 on max setting since your cards do not support DX11 and therefor you cannot play it on the highest settings.

Ok, since you side-stepped the real argument I guess I'll respond to this. DX11 is a joke. So is dx9. DX10 effects could be simply modified into the config to work in DX9. Maybe this isn't true with DX11, but even if it isn't, name 10 games that will take advantage of the new effects, and name 10 big-budget pc games that are ported from consoles that will take advantage of it. 1 and 0. Sorry, but advances in PC hardware don't equal advances in console hardware, and the PC has been degraded to just receiving ports of good console games. Also, DX11 "support" is often confused with DX11 "features" which is an entirely different matter. I doubt many DX11 "features" will be present in Crysis 2. Also, in order to keep the platform's visual quality at least mostly consistent, I doubt Crysis 2 will feature any of these "features". Of course, this is all speculation as is anything that states that a 260 won't be able to run Crysis 2 at max.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_games_with_DirectX_11_support damn that was hard :<

Again, "support" and "features" are 2 completely different things. I could release a game that supports DX11, and it would even be listed on the link you posted. But it would look nothing like Crysis 2. That was hard.

I'm sorry but I'm not really sure what you mean?.. I know for fact that Lost planet 2 Supports DX11 and has DX11 Features and It MIGHT not look like crysis 2 but that doesnt make it less true.

For example: I create a 2d game, but it has advanced api's from DX11. It doesn't make my game a 3d powerhouse like Crysis, but it does make it "support" DX11. Therefore, it supports DX11, but doesn't use any DX11 features. Crysis uses extremely high quality textures, unmatched by any other game released, which is it's real calling, not DX11.

Ah thanks, might be time for me to sleep but I did a quick google and here is one of many results http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,768604/Crysis-2-Everything-about-DirectX-11-3D-without-perfomance-drop-and-8-core-optimization/News/ (quite old and stuff might have changed) but I will really disappointed with Crytek if they do not enable Dx11 Features since Crysis 1 was all about pushing the limits

 

[thesaxmaniac]

it's just a couple generations behind.

Which is exactly why I don't think it's that great a card. The 200 series is to nVidia what the 1156 socket is to Intel. Sure it performs great for it's time, but with the price points of newer hardware that outperforms it easily, it is rendered completely obsolete.

So what you are saying is that anything not top-of-the-line is "not a great card". That's ridiculous. That's like saying the Geforce 4 ti wasn't or isn't a good card just because it's old and can't handle new games. It's still a great card that was made for the games of it's generation. Same with the 260.

I think from the 9 series to 200 series or so, nVidia sort of dropped the ball. To me, the 460 GTX is where they redeemed themselves. It represents the amazing bang for buck that the 8800 had back in it's day.

Clearly what you "think" is an opinion, and not a fact. The fact is, is that the series of cards from 9-current has been reviewed to be just as good if not better than AMD's similar offerings, and Nvidia has been the market-owning champ since the Radeon 9800 series. Also, upper-mid range cards typically sell the most and have the most longevity in the market, like the 260.

I'm not comparing them to AMD, I'm comparing them to themselves (compare the 9800 GTX and 8800 GTX, the 9800 reads like an overclocked 8800). You need to stop putting words in my mouth. I never claimed to spouting facts. I never said you need to have a top of the line card. I just said that I don't think the 200 is that great given the price points of newer cards (i.e. the 460 GTX and 560 GTX) which offer great value for money. You don't need to be so defensive.

If you think the 260 is great, good for you, I just don't think it is.

Obviously if you have the ability to see the future, you could easily tell that the 460 GTX and the 560 GTX are coming out and are going to be better deals compared to the 260. But back in 200-time, those cards didn't exist and a 260 was considered a GREAT deal by most publications. How can you compare a newer generation to an older one? OBVIOUSLY it's going to be a better deal and no one in their right mind would buy a 200-series card today. DUH. But saying that Nvidia "dropped the ball" with their 9-200 series is just an unfair opinion, not taking into account the fact that professional hardware reviewers completely disagreed when those cards debuted.

I don't understand what you're trying to do here. I DISAGREE with you and I also disagree with professional hardware reviewers if their opinion reflects yours. I do not think that the 260 is a GREAT card. I didn't say it was a terrible bit of tech, I think it's average but when you're talking about fairly high spec games, average doesn't cut it.

All I'm saying here is to put yourself in the buyer's mindset in the time when the top-of-the-line cards were the 200 series. A 260 was much cheaper than a 280, and most reviewer's considered it an excellent deal for the tech you were getting. Compared to today's cards, yes, it is vastly inferior, but at the time, a 260 was an awesome deal, and it could run every game on high with some or full aa. Same with my 275: great deal at the time, run on max with no or little aa. Calling my card or this guy's 260 a "not that great card" is just not cool, because when we bought these cards, they were awesome deals, and now-a-days they may not be top of the line, but they are still considered "great" cards that can play (I say from personal experience) most, if not all, games on maximum settings with at least a little bit of aa. I'm confident both cards can also play Crysis 2 on max settings with no aa, and they are nowhere near today's top-of-the-line.

No it can't play Crysis 2 on max setting since your cards do not support DX11 and therefor you cannot play it on the highest settings.

Ok, since you side-stepped the real argument I guess I'll respond to this. DX11 is a joke. So is dx9. DX10 effects could be simply modified into the config to work in DX9. Maybe this isn't true with DX11, but even if it isn't, name 10 games that will take advantage of the new effects, and name 10 big-budget pc games that are ported from consoles that will take advantage of it. 1 and 0. Sorry, but advances in PC hardware don't equal advances in console hardware, and the PC has been degraded to just receiving ports of good console games. Also, DX11 "support" is often confused with DX11 "features" which is an entirely different matter. I doubt many DX11 "features" will be present in Crysis 2. Also, in order to keep the platform's visual quality at least mostly consistent, I doubt Crysis 2 will feature any of these "features". Of course, this is all speculation as is anything that states that a 260 won't be able to run Crysis 2 at max.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_games_with_DirectX_11_support damn that was hard :<

Again, "support" and "features" are 2 completely different things. I could release a game that supports DX11, and it would even be listed on the link you posted. But it would look nothing like Crysis 2. That was hard.

I'm sorry but I'm not really sure what you mean?.. I know for fact that Lost planet 2 Supports DX11 and has DX11 Features and It MIGHT not look like crysis 2 but that doesnt make it less true.

For example: I create a 2d game, but it has advanced api's from DX11. It doesn't make my game a 3d powerhouse like Crysis, but it does make it "support" DX11. Therefore, it supports DX11, but doesn't use any DX11 features. Crysis uses extremely high quality textures, unmatched by any other game released, which is it's real calling, not DX11.

Ah thanks, might be time for me to sleep but I did a quick google and here is one of many results http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,768604/Crysis-2-Everything-about-DirectX-11-3D-without-perfomance-drop-and-8-core-optimization/News/ (quite old and stuff might have changed) but I will really disappointed with Crytek if they do not enable Dx11 Features since Crysis 1 was all about pushing the limits

I mean, I really hope C2 uses some DX11 features; tessellation is extremely exciting, almost as much as occlusion was in the original Crysis, and 8-core usage would be really awesome as well. But we all know the media tend to over-hype things (I read a report that Crysis would use a whole core or 2 for A.I. alone, or that attacking an alien in the first level could change the outcome of the game), that never end up materializing.
Anyway I have to go to a rally. It's been nice arguing with you guys haha

 

[Uber Evil]

-snip-

I do not think they are that great cards, because they perform below what I want in terms of performance. You are talking to a person who wants DX11 to become standard level quality of graphics and/or 120 FPS to superceed 60 FPS as the acceptable standard for gaming as soon as possible.

I can understand why you would want that and all, but not all gamers are able to afford super systems, like me. I have no job (yet), and no other way to generate income, so I tend to have lesser hardware due to not having enough dough to buy the best stuff. (Hopefully that'll change soon, but for now, I'm up shit creek.) Until the price point of higher end hardware lowers to a more reasonable level, game developers will have to make games that can run on a wide variety of systems as to have a larger potential audience.

 

[creothes]

so rather then my comp blowing up in my face its spits fire in all directions

 

[.No.]

I really need a new computer. I think mine has about one gig of RAM.

 

[Hungry Donner]

From what I can tell those specs are lower than Warhead's as well, what sort of tomfoolery is this?

 

[Super Toast]

Only with a PC-only shooter that was ported for 3rd generation consoles does that make sense.

Fixed.

You got a problem with that?

OT: Hell, I'm impressed!

 

[beema]

Let's be honest: Crysis, minus the visual spectacle, is a run of the mill shooter at best.
Without the computer-melting graphics in giant outdoor environments pushing things to the limit, there's no real reason to be excited for it. It was like a big playable tech demo. Something for pc gaming enthusiasts to aspire to, to build towards and brag to their friends about how many FPS they could run it with.
The fact that they scaled things back for Crysis 2 makes it an almost pointless game.

It's clear that Crytek has come to their senses from a business perspective, and is now slutting themselves out to console users (hello exclusive 360 demo). That's all well and good for them, but what console users don't realize is that it's not like they are being let in on some amazing mindblowing game. The only hype around the game, the only real thing they were missing out on, was the graphical experience.
The game itself is pretty dull. Big man, big guns, kill aliens. We've seen that before a million times.

Thus is Crytek's conundrum. They are revered in the gaming world as a dev that pushes graphical boundaries, but I don't think anyone would say they are revered for making earth-shattering games that inspire or have amazing gameplay mechanics or storylines or something. Once console users get a hold of Crysis 2 and realize "oh hey, it's just another shooter," I'm not sure it will do so well on those platforms. In order to survive financially in the gaming industry these days, you have to sell on consoles, but unless Crytek delves in to other aspects of gaming besides graphics, they should try and play nice to their PC fanbase, because those will be the only people who give a crap about the one thing they do really well. Then again, there are mediocre shooters that seem to be doing plenty well on consoles, so I could be totally wrong.

Oh well, it was fun while it lasted.

 

[Gabbit]

I think it's a bad judgement call if they limit the graphics on this to please console gamers. IF they scale thats all well and good. The majority of Crysis' fans are on the PC so if they fuck us over here I'm going to be shitty. I was hoping this game could test out my 3 GTX 580's i will be pissed if its just another average port.

 

[Squilookle]

wake me up when they announce Timesplitters 4 will ya?

I give them points for getting Crysis 2 working on XP somehow though...

 

[JayDub147]

Let's be honest: Crysis, minus the visual spectacle, is a run of the mill shooter at best.
Without the computer-melting graphics in giant outdoor environments pushing things to the limit, there's no real reason to be excited for it. It was like a big playable tech demo. Something for pc gaming enthusiasts to aspire to, to build towards and brag to their friends about how many FPS they could run it with.
The fact that they scaled things back for Crysis 2 makes it an almost pointless game.

It's clear that Crytek has come to their senses from a business perspective, and is now slutting themselves out to console users (hello exclusive 360 demo). That's all well and good for them, but what console users don't realize is that it's not like they are being let in on some amazing mindblowing game. The only hype around the game, the only real thing they were missing out on, was the graphical experience.
The game itself is pretty dull. Big man, big guns, kill aliens. We've seen that before a million times.

Thus is Crytek's conundrum. They are revered in the gaming world as a dev that pushes graphical boundaries, but I don't think anyone would say they are revered for making earth-shattering games that inspire or have amazing gameplay mechanics or storylines or something. Once console users get a hold of Crysis 2 and realize "oh hey, it's just another shooter," I'm not sure it will do so well on those platforms. In order to survive financially in the gaming industry these days, you have to sell on consoles, but unless Crytek delves in to other aspects of gaming besides graphics, they should try and play nice to their PC fanbase, because those will be the only people who give a crap about the one thing they do really well. Then again, there are mediocre shooters that seem to be doing plenty well on consoles, so I could be totally wrong.

Oh well, it was fun while it lasted.

Did you forget about Far Cry? That game was pretty damn fun, if you ask me. I also enjoyed Crysis, but in order to really appreciate it you can't just play it the way you would play a standard shooter. You have to experiment. Try out some stealth. Go all melee. That's the whole point of the giant levels.

 

[duchaked]

um...awesome?

I'll give it a rental when it comes out if I like the demo (which...I have yet to get to)