One of the Crysis 2 trailers mentioned physics, altho concrete blocks that bounces doesn't really convince me that they've tried very hard on making realistic physics. When the game is complete tho, do you think Crysis 2 will have the physics somewhat like Bad Company 2, where you can tear down entire houses(maybe not skyscraqers for Crysis 2) and punch holes in the wall with grenade launcher? I know you can tear down the shacks in Crysis, but come on, those are shacks, I can probably kick them down.

In Crysis, you could completely rip a shanty house, and it would be all unique. BC2 was all pre-determined, but in most cases, yes, the environment was destructible. Crysis 2 would be nothing without destroying stuff. But of course, we don't know entirely what we will be able to destroy.

I can assume with the upgrade of the Nanosuit, we should be able to destroy stuff, most likely we'll get the chance to.

Plus, object deformation was shown at the GDC 10', so I can assume destruction will be part with it.

We'll certainly destroy some aliens for sure:)

Well I hope that the Crysis 2 destruction physics are better than BC2 because all the "destruction" in that game involves lots of dust to hide the magical fairly that comes along to make whole sections of wall/house/fence disappear. I was hoping that C2 would actually have real destruction - destruction that doesn't involve making stuff disappear. Basically, if you shoot a grenade at a brick wall, the wall doesn't just throw up some particles and disappear, but the bricks actually get displaced, create rubble and interact with the objects around them.

[quote]Well I hope that the Crysis 2 destruction physics are better than BC2 because all the "destruction" in that game involves lots of dust to hide the magical fairly that comes along to make whole sections of wall/house/fence disappear. I was hoping that C2 would actually have real destruction - destruction that doesn't involve making stuff disappear. Basically, if you shoot a grenade at a brick wall, the wall doesn't just throw up some particles and disappear, but the bricks actually get displaced, create rubble and interact with the objects around them.[/quote]

+1

Crysis 2 will have destructable worlds. People tout Bad Company 2 for its physics, but Crysis had better physics and that was back in 2007, 3 years earlier. I hope that destructable worlds stays as complex and realistic as possible in Crysis 2.

I hope its good, but really good physics would require a second graphics card to run as a physics processor

[quote]In Crysis, you could completely rip a shanty house, and it would be all unique. BC2 was all pre-determined, but in most cases, yes, the environment was destructible. Crysis 2 would be nothing without destroying stuff. But of course, we don't know entirely what we will be able to destroy.

I can assume with the upgrade of the Nanosuit, we should be able to destroy stuff, most likely we'll get the chance to.

Plus, object deformation was shown at the GDC 10', so I can assume destruction will be part with it.[/quote]

I never knew BBC2 physics were all pre-determined. Goes to show how far ahead Crysis is. I'll remember that the next time i smash one of the N Korean huts to bits. "I kill you for fun!"

I didn't know at first as well. I thought it was all procedural. But it wasn't.

But you have to remember that you can be creative when it comes to pre-determined destruction. After all, it's animated, meaning you can make it break the way you wish. Of course, as with any destruction, you're going to have the make different versions of it, to make it feel unique.

And that's what BC2 is. It's not bad or anything. But procedural destruction can have it's flaws in some perspective (May not look as perfect, or real like [Depends entirely on the situation]).

Crysis physics is pre-determined as well.

Except for the trees, wich are sorta procedural

[quote]Crysis physics is pre-determined as well.[/quote]

well, yeah you're right. when you punch a wall in crysis, you can clearly see that it transforms into a broken one. (<-- does that make sense ) Same goes for the explosive barrels. Really the barrel should be ripped to pieces by the explosion but it's just animated into a broken one.

We've seen that that changes in crysis 2

[quote]Crysis physics is pre-determined as well.[/quote]

True, but this was back in 2007. People tout BC2 for the destructability when its even more pre-determined and in 2010.

Crysis 2 physics look great though! I just hope we can do that in multiplayer.

BC2 did it in Multiplayer and integrated it intelligently into the gameplay. Any developer can make some uber 1337 tech. The key is, that it suits and helps the game well. Just like in BC2.

cevat says you cant destruct a wall to run throgh it this isnt that gameplay that he wants he says that the destruction is so powerful and so we make a destruction thats more realistic and more useful is

Physics.

At the end of the game, could I destroy stuff, well yes I could, BC2 was great, and for sure I could only destroy the greatest part of some walls, and not the whole wall, not even if I hit it with granades all day long, the idea being to suggest that if you had enemy within that room, then they gunna suffer.

then you move on, while some buildings in BC2 would completely colapse and again this looked great, but again the enviromental idea is that you win and move on, pretty much the same with Crysis, there some buildings could be tottaly destroyed, while some could not, like the ones with part stone wall, this wouldnt give no matter what you throw at it.

Only my opinion, but the idea surely is for the game to look great, kill the enemy, and win, sure some things dissapear, or dont bend/break the way they actually should, and yet we still achieve some great graphics, have lots of fun, and yes its true, that some stuff is hidden by dustfall.

But as Isidor points out in a way, the more we demand from a game, the more the expensive our rigs become by way of upgrade, better physics/graphics, mean more demand on the rig in whatever way, and the game is still enjoyable, the thing is that not everyone can afford to keep up.

My rig is great for now, but I was so glad to hear that Crysis 2 will at least be "no more demanding" on my system then Crysis was, this means I dont have to run out and get me a new Graphics card, for sure I do understand that the above makes great games more enjoyable than ever, but at what cost.

My point is, can the average gaming enthusiast keep up with the upgrade costs to achieve the look that we all want from games?

I can just as soon enjoy a blast on Splinter Cell, or the origional AVP2, despite the outdated graphics, as I can from Crysis, or BC2,
this is becuase the game was the whole point of playing.

I look forward to Crysis 2 eagerly, and I anticipate some realy good destruction, but I wont be too concerened if a wall dont collapse quite the way it should, let the dust cover the flaws, njo problem to me, im busy shootin the aliens. lol.

have fun people,

the physics will be better than they were in the first title.
personally, i hope an option to enable physX to have a little bit more flashing graphics (I think, physX help making graphics better caused by little stones flying aroung you when something explodes or almost realistic rendered water)

Bad Company 2 completely ignores my GTX285 and attacks my processor at any chance possible. I only get 15-20fps on medium. It is one of the worst optimized games for a Dual Core i have ever seen.

And people complained about Crysis...

I didn't really mind that the walls disappeared in BC2, just that they felt the need to cover it up with a mountainful of DUST.

[quote]Bad Company 2 completely ignores my GTX285 and attacks my processor at any chance possible. I only get 15-20fps on medium. It is one of the worst optimized games for a Dual Core i have ever seen.

And people complained about Crysis... [/quote]
Console port They'd probably have to rewrite most of the engine in order for it to be optimised well for dual cores. Time to get a quad, mate

have to admit I have a quad core so BC2 runs great, the graphics are fine so gar as im concerend, much the smae with Crysis, and Warhead.

As i pointed out above im not too into finding all the physics faults, if a wall does happen to dissapear, hidden in cloud of dust, well thats just fine, as I have allready moved on.

Surely its just as wise to remember that all our fellow gamers want to enjoy these games at an affordable level, and the kind of graphics performance we sometimes seek may well be beyond some gamers buget.

[quote]Bad Company 2 completely ignores my GTX285 and attacks my processor at any chance possible. I only get 15-20fps on medium. It is one of the worst optimized games for a Dual Core i have ever seen.

And people complained about Crysis... [/quote]

I have an 4870 512MB and I get around 30-40 FPS on high O.o
Yes it is hard on the CPU (Have dual core too, 3GHz) but it doesn't ignore my GPU. Perhaps drivers?

[quote][quote]Bad Company 2 completely ignores my GTX285 and attacks my processor at any chance possible. I only get 15-20fps on medium. It is one of the worst optimized games for a Dual Core i have ever seen.

And people complained about Crysis... [/quote]

I have an 4870 512MB and I get around 30-40 FPS on high O.o
Yes it is hard on the CPU (Have dual core too, 3GHz) but it doesn't ignore my GPU. Perhaps drivers?[/quote]

You got a higher clock speed than me, thats why. It doesnt ignore my GPU, it just doesnt use enough of it, instead it murders my dual core.

@ Shinanigans: I know, im planning on getting a Core Two Quad for Crysis 2, so i can stay on the same socket for now until i get more money.

C2Q's are becoming harder and harder to find though. They're almost non-existent at a retail level here in Aus now. I recently upgraded my 775skt system to an 1156skt i5 setup and it cost me about $650AUD, which hopefully i'll get about 250-300 back on my old gear though

Im looking at this, but the price better come down by December:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115130

Core Two Quad Q9650. I would get an i7 instead, but i dont have the money to also upgrade my motherboard and ram, as that would cost more. I can also (hopefully), get some money back from selling the E6750.

Upgrade comparison between the two:

http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=35428

http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=30784

That is a big upgrade, 290 million die transistors to 420 million. Me wantz, but me waitz for better price.

It's not like transistors would be totally irrelevant for the choice of your processor.