The game looks damn good, one of the best I've seen.
Also, it is not baddly optimized, and neither was Crysis. Just like Crysis, Metro2033 is one of the first games of a new generation, that actually uses next generation DX features.
Crysis was one of the first games to actually use DX10 features to a great extent in the game, and it showed by having pretty much the best graphics for its time, and it also really pushed graphics hardware.
Metro2033 is the same. It is one of the first games to use DX11 features, particularly tessellation, which is very GPU intensive, and has a massive performance hit.
Now, being the first use really use the latest DX versions, both games were not as optimized as they could have been. There is a pretty major learning curve when a new DX comes out. It is sort of like when consoles come out. The developers can use all the features right away, but over time they learn how to implement those features better, giving better graphics and better performance. If you take a game at the begining of a consoles life cycle, and compare it to a game released at the end, graphicly the games look like they are totally different generations. The same goes with DX versions.
Yeah, even in DX9 it looks pretty sweet. The one thing that bugs me about the game more than any thing is the lack of control over the graphic options.
physX enabled with out a card for it will lag the f ing crap out of it when there is explosions. Other wise i think the game runs really nice but like Fallout 3 more with it having more to do about outside.
Disabling the "Advanced PhysX" option, removes the hardware accelerated PhysX that runs on the GPU and only enabled the PhysX that runs on the CPU. This is the case with ATi and nVidia cards.
qubit : actually yeah i dont believe that US ever landed on the moon. and yes it IS conspiracy, and a very obvious one.
just look at their lame videos, its obvious that its made in a studio. LOL
their landing on moon conspiracy is just as bad and lame as them fighting with terrorism.
anyway, if Crytek decided to make Crysis 2 as unoptimized as the first one just because nvidia or ati paid them to, then they will face the piracy once again.
i hope they learnt their lesson.
Developers should make games for low end and medium video cards. not high end.
Yeah, and those images that people, independent astronomers have taken, that show the things we've left behind, the lander base, the rover, foot prints... I guess all of those are fake too?
Also, all of the games you've mentioned, Crysis and Metro2033, play just fine on low-end and medium video cards. However, they will not do it with maxxed out settings. But that is a good thing, if mid-range graphics cards could max out games, they would always look worse then what is possible and people with high end cards would be unhappy. Personally, I like having the option to make the games look absolutely stunning if I want to, while still having the ability to set modest setting to run on lower end hardware. I like it a whole lot better then if I was forced to always use the settings for modest hardware...
Oh, and by the way, I played through and beat Crysis on an
X800XL, I played it a lot during downtime at work. And I'm playing through Metro2033 on a 9600GT, again during down time at work.
Please show me where he posted that he called himself an idiot. You bring the moderators attention into a thread where you call others names?
Let's keep this conversation on topic (moon landing and terrorism? c'mon
), not resort to name calling and be civil. Failure to comply with the forum guidelines will result with infractions.
Well he quotes a post that has been editted, so you are the only one that can see what the original post was...
It wouldn't be the first time someone editted a post to make it look like they didn't say something they really did to make someone else look bad, that is why the system to let mods view the edits to a post was implemented.
