Hot Heart Posted March 21, 2011 Report Share Posted March 21, 2011 It's common knowledge that the PS3 has more complicated architecture to develop for. Plus, MS has the LIVE network functionality working smoother than the PSN. Could partly explain the delays and problems. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faiblesse Des Sens Posted March 22, 2011 Report Share Posted March 22, 2011 It' s common knowledge that the PS3 has more complicated architecture to develop for. Plus, MS has the LIVE network functionality working smoother than the PSN. Could partly explain the delays and problems. What kind of argument is this? The problems are with netcode and not how the game runs and EVERY SINGLE PLATFORM HAS THE SAME PROBLEMS. Many developers would likely point out that PSN architecture is easier to work with as it's less restrictive (steamworks anyone?) Live also isn't smoother than PSN and never has been due to its P2P functionality. It's just more feature rich (better friends features and that sort of thing.) What delays have there been? It's coming out at the same time on everything. This fanboy mindset really needs to go away which is EXACTLY what I was pointing out in my last post. The problems with Crysis 2 are universal and very few are willing to embrace an objective viewpoint on the matter because they don't get the chance to play all 3 let alone give them equal time. This is why I also gave the example of Oblivion/Fallout 3/New Vegas which was plagued with bugs across all platforms. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hot Heart Posted March 22, 2011 Report Share Posted March 22, 2011 (edited) It's not an argument. I'm not taking a fanboy stance. I own both consoles as well as PC, and I'm not even interested in the game. If you paid attention, you'd notice that I was against putting a fanboy slant on such an article. I'm just ruminating on reasons for the discrepancies between the betas on console. It's known that PS3 can be harder to program for. That could be why the 'beta' arrived a bit later. It could simply be that they didn't want to try and run two betas simultaneously, especially since Crytek are inexperienced at developing for consoles. As far as I'm aware, MS seems to have a bit more of an outreach in terms of helping developers get games working on LIVE (and since they charge for it, I guess that'd make sense). If anything, I'm encouraging an open mind when considering matters. If you want to contribute your own viewpoint, I welcome that; but some manners go a long way and attacking others for how you perceive them achieves nothing. Edited March 22, 2011 by Hot Heart 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faiblesse Des Sens Posted March 22, 2011 Report Share Posted March 22, 2011 The discrepancies are false when the problems are across all 3 versions though. That's what you don't seem to get. All you're doing is complain why some idiots online would think one version is better than the other which is completely useless. You're talking about a beta arriving later, but not an entire game arriving later, also completely useless. How is that a "delay?" For all you know that's marketing. Crytek developed an engine that works with both consoles so one would assume that they are over the hurdles that make the PS3 more difficult to develop for. Either way that's not an excuse for any of the problems. Yes, MS does work with developers more for LIVE, but even Crysis 2 had its problems. I'm not contributing my viewpoint, I'm contributing a lack of viewpoint. One that is open to all sides. You seem to want to talk about very generic concepts (console war sort of subjects) rather than what is actually going on here (all 3 versions not being up to par for multiplayer.) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thursday Next Posted March 22, 2011 Report Share Posted March 22, 2011 OK, my point is you wrote: "PS3 users got their taste of the Crysis 2 multiplayer demo just this week. Assuming you were able to play a game that is. Mere days after launching the demo, amidst connection and matchmaking issues, Crytek has just issued a statement that they are ending the multiplayer demo in the next 24 hours to “ensure all issues are resolved when the game launches next week.” Further adding that their “priority is to ensure that the final product is flawless at launch.” So, the Xbox 360 and PC get two multiplayer demos and PS3 users barely get even a week? Are PS3 players ok with that? Are you confident Crytek can fix their servers a week before launch" So you took the time to bring up that there were multiplayer demos for the other platforms, yet neglected to mention that all three had issues, giving the impression that Xbox/PC are the favoured sons while PS3 is the ginger step-child, something that is simply not the case. This is what I mean by being "lazy or dishonest". You either neglected to mention that every MP demo had been a buggy mess because (i) You were not as diligent in your reporting as you could have been. or (ii) You wanted to rile up the community for some Hit-Count whoring. P.S. Played Crysis 2 online last night, it was all working fine. We'll see how that changes when the PSU count spikes. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faiblesse Des Sens Posted March 22, 2011 Report Share Posted March 22, 2011 Bingo ^ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted March 22, 2011 Report Share Posted March 22, 2011 Faiblesse you guys are making the same points. This started with Thursday taking issue at Excaliburps for implying the PS3 version was some off cast step child and horribly buggy version, when anyone who has played all three ( I didn't bother with the PS3 version but I have given a fair bit of chit chat on the other two versions in this thread, of which a fair bit is from prompting from yours truly,), would know that they're all as bad as each other. Hot Heart was just taking a devils advocate stance. A retarded one none the less since PS3 being awkward to code for shouldn't come into it since Crytek UK are/were a PS3 developer. (and the ones doing the multi-player). The reason why the 360 demo came first should surely be pretty obvious 5 years into this generations and 30-something years into Microsoft's history: tl;dr: All versions of the Crysis 2 demo were pretty fucked. Excaliburps piece could of been written a fair bit better. edit: and there's a page 2. :/ And seems FDS clicked at some point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hot Heart Posted March 22, 2011 Report Share Posted March 22, 2011 The reason why the 360 demo came first should surely be pretty obvious 5 years into this generations and 30-something years into Microsoft's history That's the sort of stuff I was avoiding mentioning/implying. I was trying to look at logical and 'innocent' reasons, is all. I guess you can call that playing devil's advocate, but I felt it's more just considering possibilities. Sure, dismiss them if you want (I'm not intimate with all the details) but calling people retarded or fanboys? Come on... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted March 22, 2011 Report Share Posted March 22, 2011 Well you don't really have to mention it since most of the time it's pretty much a given. MS have plenty of cash and as history has shown, they're not afraid to use it. And I'm not actually calling you a retard, you get that right. Just some of your reasoning. Though I'm also working on the basis you don't "mean" them, just throwing them out there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hot Heart Posted March 22, 2011 Report Share Posted March 22, 2011 Well, yeah. I wasn't even directing them at anyone besides excalliburps. Just other things to consider instead of 'Crytek hates PS3'. Nihil just seems set on arguing over anything. I will say that calling anything 'retarded' in that sort of discussion still sounds childish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thursday Next Posted March 22, 2011 Report Share Posted March 22, 2011 Nihil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
excaliburps Posted March 22, 2011 Report Share Posted March 22, 2011 The game has been getting some solid reviews in! Actually, I have yet to see a negative one. Our review gave it a 9.4! Ok, call me a sheep but this might have tipped me over the edge in getting this over Homefront. My reasoning? Higher scores, most probably more players will buy it. Which also means that more people will play online. Yeah...Kinda far-out, no? The graphics I've seen so far are truly amazing. I mean having the SP clock in at 12-15 hours isn't shabby either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hot Heart Posted March 22, 2011 Report Share Posted March 22, 2011 And I've heard very not good things about Homefront. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
excaliburps Posted March 22, 2011 Report Share Posted March 22, 2011 And I've heard very not good things about Homefront. Yep. When I asked our EIC the day before the embargo how Homefront was, all he said was "Ugh" or something to that effect.He was reviewing it you see. Made me cringe a bit to be honest. I mean Danny Bilson's a nice guy. Kinda want to interview him down the road, but I don't think I can mention Homefront without being snarky just a bit. I think I'm good with Crysis 2 and getting Socom next month. Yeah. Then Brink. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted March 22, 2011 Report Share Posted March 22, 2011 I've yet to read a review that doesn't mention "Call of Duty". (maybe it's a common thing, I've not really read FPS review before) I've also only seen a handful that make reference to the fact this is a sequel and there was a preceding game with different story, characters, gameplay, controls and multiplayer. I'd say the obvious guess is most of the folks reviewing have never played the first game, but surely is makes sense to compare and contrast the changes. Reviewers did the same for DA2. It's not like no one bought the first, surely people who've played it would like to know what changes have been made in the following 3-4 years of development and multi-platform release? Also I'm not so sure if I've even read a PC review beyond PC Gamer. I'm wanting confirmation on the basic graphic settings being a pre-release/demo only thing. Though the act that release also brought news that DX11 support is a patch down the line, not supported in the gold release, does suggest that the graphic settings aren't so fancy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MasterDex Posted March 23, 2011 Report Share Posted March 23, 2011 (edited) I was going to post this in the shoutbox but it's a bit long winded for that so I'll post it here. That's bloody right. And the different MP studio hasn't seemed to have made a difference in the MP quality at all...never have I played a more fucked MP demo on PC You haven't played many MP demos on PC though' date=' to be fair. Let's not start raging too prematurely. We can all see that the consoles were the prime focus for Crysis 2 but we can blame that on the market and EA (and yes, even the pirates) as much as we can blame Crytek. MP demos and MP games generally never release in a good state. Developers always underestimate the network load (why spend more when you might only need less?) and this can cause all kinds of timeout problems and so on and yeah, the network code likely played a role too but again, that's the case for many newly released MP games. In fact, I don't actually recall the last time I got a MP game on Day 1 that worked well. It's a shame this is the way things are gone and it's a shame that DX10/DX11 aren't there from day 1 but it's not there for Shogun 2 either and that game had some MP issues (and seems to still) right out the door. Have we all forgotten how Bad Company 2, even TF2, released? My point is that we shouldn't start getting mad just yet because then we're just turning ourselves into those horrible tantrum throwers you see signing up on official game forums just to say they hate the game and start crying when a patch is a day overdue because a problem was found in testing. The days of perfect AAA budget games is long gone (If it ever even existed) and while I'm sure there'll be plenty of reasons to make us rage about Crysis 2, I think we should at least wait until it's a month out the door before slamming Crytek [i']too[/i] hard. Edited March 23, 2011 by MasterDex 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
excel_excel Posted March 23, 2011 Report Share Posted March 23, 2011 Well I just pointed out PC because I didn't want people to think I was talking about the Console versions! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thursday Next Posted March 23, 2011 Report Share Posted March 23, 2011 but we can blame that on the market and EA Just for the record, the games EA publishes on behalf of external developers, they often have little or no creative control over. They don't set or enforce release dates, they don't directly control content and while they offer support where requested they most certainly are not responsible for the actual multiplayer code of a title. Many times EA will be responsible only for packaging, marketing and shipping a title and sometimes EA will literally only be responsible for putting the finished product in crates and transporting it where it needs to be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MasterDex Posted March 23, 2011 Report Share Posted March 23, 2011 but we can blame that on the market and EA Just for the record, the games EA publishes on behalf of external developers, they often have little or no creative control over. They don't set or enforce release dates, they don't directly control content and while they offer support where requested they most certainly are not responsible for the actual multiplayer code of a title. Many times EA will be responsible only for packaging, marketing and shipping a title and sometimes EA will literally only be responsible for putting the finished product in crates and transporting it where it needs to be. Yeah, you're right and I'm probably wrong but I have a feeling EA played more than a facilitatory role in the development of Crysis 2. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thursday Next Posted March 23, 2011 Report Share Posted March 23, 2011 but we can blame that on the market and EA Just for the record, the games EA publishes on behalf of external developers, they often have little or no creative control over. They don't set or enforce release dates, they don't directly control content and while they offer support where requested they most certainly are not responsible for the actual multiplayer code of a title. Many times EA will be responsible only for packaging, marketing and shipping a title and sometimes EA will literally only be responsible for putting the finished product in crates and transporting it where it needs to be. Yeah, you're right and I'm probably wrong but I have a feeling EA played more than a facilitatory role in the development of Crysis 2. EA didn't develop the multiplayer, nor are they responsible for servers. MS and Sony are responsible for the servers on their platforms, Crytek for PC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MasterDex Posted March 23, 2011 Report Share Posted March 23, 2011 EA didn't develop the multiplayer, nor are they responsible for servers. MS and Sony are responsible for the servers on their platforms, Crytek for PC. Yeah, I know that. When I was talking about the market and EA, it was to do with the game as a whole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thursday Next Posted March 23, 2011 Report Share Posted March 23, 2011 EA didn't develop the multiplayer, nor are they responsible for servers. MS and Sony are responsible for the servers on their platforms, Crytek for PC. Yeah, I know that. When I was talking about the market and EA, it was to do with the game as a whole. Ok... how can I put this... I know for a fact that EA are not directly responsible for the content of the game. Any design choices, art choices anything that wasn't the box, the marketing or the delivery of the product were made by Crytek. EA advised and supported Crytek where requested but the multi player, the single player, the menus, were all developed by Crytek. The game as a whole would have been developed the way it was with or without EA's involvement, the market can take their share of the "blame" (if that's the right word) though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted March 23, 2011 Report Share Posted March 23, 2011 Yeah dudes EA does have a [thingy] of letting the studios pretty much work on their own. They'll nudge in some areas like what games you can and can't make, but other than that have general creative freedom. If you can't play Crysis 2 later down the line and the day before you'd just dropped a few comments on MyCrysis, then that'd be EA's doing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thursday Next Posted March 23, 2011 Report Share Posted March 23, 2011 Yeah dudes EA does have a POLICY of letting the studios pretty much work on their own. They'll nudge in some areas like what games you can and can't make, but other than that have general creative freedom. If you can't play Crysis 2 later down the line and the day before you'd just dropped a few comments on MyCrysis, then that'd be EA's doing Hehehe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arionfrost Posted March 23, 2011 Report Share Posted March 23, 2011 Hey everyone. Great game here, I recommend anyone who is on the fence about it to give it a shot. At 10-12 hours, you are getting much more for your money via the single player campaign, and the tactical options make replaying the same areas slightly varied each time, encouraging multiple playthroughs and neat strategies. I would be describe it as metal gear solid meets Battlefield Bad Company with some Crackdown mixed in. Also, I'm a little bummed over some of the dumbing down of the physics. Crysis 1 was a monumental triumph of graphics and physics technology in a video game. I am suprised that they scaled back some of the physis such as breakable objects etc. Doesn't really detract from the game all that much if you aren't paying attention, but it was cool to lift a heavy wooden crate throw it at a soldier and watch it crack into individual non-prerendered pieces, take a box and put it next to an open fire and watch it burn, or shoot the tires of a moving vehicle and watch it topple over. Maybe it's just a console limitation, not present in the PC version. One question though: in the original crysis, you could grab soldiers by the throat and give them a good chuck off of the roof of a building or into the water. Can you still do this? I can't figure out the control to grab a person. Also, let's not turn this thread into a bitchfest concerning broken this or PS3 vs 360 that. Every other thread on EA's forums and gamefaqs is like this, and it's really annoying. You guys were the lifeblood of the kotaku community, one thing you were good at was coming to consensus about games and having above the par exchange and conversations concerning games. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.