How was Crysis made so that hardware that came out in the future couldn't max it

  • 92 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for wookieeassassin
wookieeassassin

1678

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 wookieeassassin
Member since 2006 • 1678 Posts

How was it that Crysis came out 2 years ago (correct me if I am wrong) but people are still having trouble fully maxing it out at high resolutions even with the best commercial hardware? How was a game made so that it is more intensive than hardware that was available at the time?

Avatar image for kilerchese
kilerchese

831

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2 kilerchese
Member since 2008 • 831 Posts

The code wasn't optimized and still isn't.

It's slightly better in Crysis Warhead, but not by much.

Avatar image for wookieeassassin
wookieeassassin

1678

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 wookieeassassin
Member since 2006 • 1678 Posts

Isn't it kind of silly that you can go out and buy the most expensive commercial consumer video card, CPU and RAM and still not be able to max games that came out fairly recently at a high resolution? Doesn't that kind of tick people off? I know is was EXTREMELY ticked off when I got the World in Conflict demo (after I had been playing Crysis at 1280x1024 with med/high DX10 with acceptable FPS) and I couldn't run it above 30FPS unless I dropped all the settings to low. This was a brand new card too, the second best at the time (8800GT 512MB). Actually, I haven't played a new PC game since then so I have completely forgotten the frustration of not being able to play a new game acceptably. Day of Defeat: Source is pretty forgiving on hardware :) . I need to start playing PC games more though. I can often times buy the PC version for $20-30 where as a xbox 360 rental will cost $8 or so and I will have to kind of rush to finish it. Well, I could use gamefly but when I used to use it it took forever to get games back.

I was planning on getting a new 24" 1920x1080 monitor but after seeing that even an i7 quad w/ 6GB RAM and an nvidia 280 or radeon 4890 can't play Crysis at 1920x1080 above ~37 frames I am dissuaded from doing so. Really, a game (it is a good looking game) has been out for probably over 2 years and it still can't be maxed with brand new hardware? Ridiculous. They need to get some developers together and optimize that code. At least optimize the engine and some other major stuff before releasing the next big game that runs on Cryengine 2.

Avatar image for SinfulPotato
SinfulPotato

1381

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 SinfulPotato
Member since 2005 • 1381 Posts
Sloppy code. You should make that game run great on Nvida 8000 series if it was optimized correctly.
Avatar image for txraider18
txraider18

684

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 txraider18
Member since 2006 • 684 Posts

Good ol' lazy developers....I mean it's a beautiful game but the way you sell as much as you can is make it run on as many machines as you can (aka WoW) but not sacrifice graphics...it's a fine line and they weren't close to it.

It sure is pretty though

Avatar image for sihunt
sihunt

1116

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 sihunt
Member since 2007 • 1116 Posts

Hi. Looks like that game is junk. I think it is actually unfinished

and the game sold on hype and not on its own merits. I have

an HD 4870 which runs the game pretty well and some of

the scenery looks good,impressive even. But I see in my game

hummer jeeps with no back tires and sticks and rocks that pop

up 15 feet in front of you as you walk down the beach. If you back

up, they disappear. Some games from the late 90s did that sort of

thing. We shouldn't be seeing that sort of thing in games today.

Avatar image for aura_enchanted
aura_enchanted

7942

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 14

User Lists: 0

#7 aura_enchanted
Member since 2006 • 7942 Posts

Sloppy code. You should make that game run great on Nvida 8000 series if it was optimized correctly.SinfulPotato

correction 8800 series

and 8400gs would have super issues trying to run it :P

Avatar image for Marfoo
Marfoo

6006

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 Marfoo
Member since 2004 • 6006 Posts
Lazy developers, yes blame the developers. Everytime someone can't run a game you people throw around "Lazy, unoptimized, poorly coded..." Are you even qualified to make that kind of judgement? Have you ever made a Direct3D engine of that sophistication? Have you looked at the source code? Always quick to point fingers with no evidence to suggest that it's poorly coded. Don't tell me the fact that it doesn't run on todays hardware is enough evidence because that's assuming they scaled the engine to run well on todays hardware and you have no way of telling what they aimed for. If they say they aimed for future generations, take their word for it.
Avatar image for DarthIntel
DarthIntel

101

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 DarthIntel
Member since 2009 • 101 Posts

I play Crysis on an ATI HD 4850. I play @ 1024x768 on XP w/ the very high tweak with 2x AA and ive yet to see my frame rate drop below 35, even in multiplayer.

But then again I overclocked my CPU to 4GHz so im sure that helps because at lower resolutions games are more CPU bound.

Avatar image for kilerchese
kilerchese

831

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 kilerchese
Member since 2008 • 831 Posts

Lazy developers, yes blame the developers. Everytime someone can't run a game you people throw around "Lazy, unoptimized, poorly coded..." Are you even qualified to make that kind of judgement? Have you ever made a Direct3D engine of that sophistication? Have you looked at the source code? Always quick to point fingers with no evidence to suggest that it's poorly coded. Don't tell me the fact that it doesn't run on todays hardware is enough evidence because that's assuming they scaled the engine to run well on todays hardware and you have no way of telling what they aimed for. If they say they aimed for future generations, take their word for it.Marfoo

I'm sorry, but it IS poorly coded. Guess what, they said that it would run at 60 FPS on DX10 on SLI'd 8800GTX. Guess what, it doesn't.

It takes a $800+ video card to run this game at any where CLOSE to 60 FPS at 1920x1200 with only 2xAA and NO AF.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/asus-mars-review-test/11

And the card isn't even released yet. Takes a $500 video card to run it at 60 FPS at 1600x1200.

Crysis IS and always WILL be poorly coded. Crytek dropped the ball because I remember them saying that it would run just fine at MAX settings DX10 on the, at the time, current generation video cards, IE 8800 series.

Avatar image for d-rtyboy
d-rtyboy

3178

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#11 d-rtyboy
Member since 2006 • 3178 Posts
I don't know, PC gaming will, at least should, remain at the cutting edge of technology. If companies like Crytek don't push the boundaries we get console crud like ut3. Is that what you people want?
Avatar image for KHAndAnime
KHAndAnime

17565

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#12 KHAndAnime
Member since 2009 • 17565 Posts
[QUOTE="SinfulPotato"]Sloppy code. You should make that game run great on Nvida 8000 series if it was optimized correctly.

The game does run great on 8800GTs and other 8800 cards. Looks great too. Game is greatly optimized.
Avatar image for *AshieduNwadiei
*AshieduNwadiei

101

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 0

#13 *AshieduNwadiei
Member since 2009 • 101 Posts

I play Crysis on an ATI HD 4850. I play @ 1024x768 on XP w/ the very high tweak with 2x AA and ive yet to see my frame rate drop below 35, even in multiplayer.

But then again I overclocked my CPU to 4GHz so im sure that helps because at lower resolutions games are more CPU bound.

DarthIntel

You've got to be getting better than that in-game.

Avatar image for DeckardLee
DeckardLee

859

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#14 DeckardLee
Member since 2009 • 859 Posts

[QUOTE="Marfoo"]Lazy developers, yes blame the developers. Everytime someone can't run a game you people throw around "Lazy, unoptimized, poorly coded..." Are you even qualified to make that kind of judgement? Have you ever made a Direct3D engine of that sophistication? Have you looked at the source code? Always quick to point fingers with no evidence to suggest that it's poorly coded. Don't tell me the fact that it doesn't run on todays hardware is enough evidence because that's assuming they scaled the engine to run well on todays hardware and you have no way of telling what they aimed for. If they say they aimed for future generations, take their word for it.kilerchese

I'm sorry, but it IS poorly coded. Guess what, they said that it would run at 60 FPS on DX10 on SLI'd 8800GTX. Guess what, it doesn't.

It takes a $800+ video card to run this game at any where CLOSE to 60 FPS at 1920x1200 with only 2xAA and NO AF.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/asus-mars-review-test/11

And the card isn't even released yet. Takes a $500 video card to run it at 60 FPS at 1600x1200.

Crysis IS and always WILL be poorly coded. Crytek dropped the ball because I remember them saying that it would run just fine at MAX settings DX10 on the, at the time, current generation video cards, IE 8800 series.

That's true. A 8800 could run it on High at a max resolution. The Very High Serttings and Ultra High were added since then,

Also, lol @ the PC nubs in this topic. It almost annoys me.

Avatar image for jimmyjammer69
jimmyjammer69

12239

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#15 jimmyjammer69
Member since 2008 • 12239 Posts
That game's sloppy coding has sold more GPUs, and consequently made PC hardware development more lucrative, than any other PC title I can think of. Whether that's been healthy or destructive for PC gaming, I wouldn't hazard a guess.
Avatar image for enriK233
enriK233

543

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#16 enriK233
Member since 2009 • 543 Posts

it simply is more advanced , and has better graphics than even todays games , and maybe even for the future.

Good graphics come at a cost.

If you don't agree , please tell me which game looks better than crysis right now.

Avatar image for No_Quoter
No_Quoter

281

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#17 No_Quoter
Member since 2008 • 281 Posts
[QUOTE="sihunt"]

Hi. Looks like that game is junk. I think it is actually unfinished

and the game sold on hype and not on its own merits. I have

an HD 4870 which runs the game pretty well and some of

the scenery looks good,impressive even. But I see in my game

hummer jeeps with no back tires and sticks and rocks that pop

up 15 feet in front of you as you walk down the beach. If you back

up, they disappear. Some games from the late 90s did that sort of

thing. We shouldn't be seeing that sort of thing in games today.

I get the same problem with the tires when I play the game with AA, what is that a card thing or a glitch?
Avatar image for powerslide67
powerslide67

266

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#18 powerslide67
Member since 2006 • 266 Posts

like everybody else said, poor coding. They initially had problems with sandbox 2 because it wouldn't run in 32bit and then they started developing on pre alpha dx10. They just started developing at the wrong time. I bet we will still benchmark with crysis until crysis 2 comes out.

Avatar image for Jermone123
Jermone123

803

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#19 Jermone123
Member since 2006 • 803 Posts

Lazy developers, yes blame the developers. Everytime someone can't run a game you people throw around "Lazy, unoptimized, poorly coded..." Are you even qualified to make that kind of judgement? Have you ever made a Direct3D engine of that sophistication? Have you looked at the source code? Always quick to point fingers with no evidence to suggest that it's poorly coded. Don't tell me the fact that it doesn't run on todays hardware is enough evidence because that's assuming they scaled the engine to run well on todays hardware and you have no way of telling what they aimed for. If they say they aimed for future generations, take their word for it.Marfoo

Totally agree... you people crack me up. You think just cuz you get 60 fps in a cooridor shooter in a room with only a trash can and a desk in it that you should be getting 60 fps in crysis with a billion tree's and INSANE draw distance. You people make me laugh! :roll:

Avatar image for Sparticus247
Sparticus247

2368

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#20 Sparticus247
Member since 2005 • 2368 Posts

I don't know, PC gaming will, at least should, remain at the cutting edge of technology. If companies like Crytek don't push the boundaries we get console crud like ut3. Is that what you people want?d-rtyboy

I actually enjoy UT3. Maybe it wasn't a step in the right direction for the series but at least it still is playable. I mean it is pretty hard to follow up on Ut2k4.

But anyway yeah the game can't be maxed out yet but it's still very playable, isn't that what really matters?

Avatar image for gamer082009
gamer082009

6679

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#21 gamer082009
Member since 2007 • 6679 Posts
Funny thing is, they cry about piracy killing their games, but it's really because no one could run their games. The game is HORRIBLY optimized...that's why newer hardware still can't handle it, and that's not a good thing.
Avatar image for Hellavionx
Hellavionx

43

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#22 Hellavionx
Member since 2008 • 43 Posts
u can run it on high without a problem,yust stay up to date,and u can do some few easy tweaks and run it 30-40 fps,my pc-specs are core2duo e8400,2gbram 1066mhz,asus en9800gt 512mb running it on 1680x1050...trust me =)
Avatar image for codezer0
codezer0

15898

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 44

User Lists: 0

#23 codezer0
Member since 2004 • 15898 Posts
Simple; Crytek were fooling themselves into thinking that people were going to buy $5k+ godboxes to run their game. And/or believed Microsoft that everyone would be upgrading to Vista to run it in 'OMG T3H DIRECTX 10!111!11!" Why else do you think the biggest selling point to Warhead was that they'd actually spent more than ten minutes optimizing it for realistic computer system configs?
Avatar image for dared3vil0
dared3vil0

1254

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#24 dared3vil0
Member since 2009 • 1254 Posts

I play Crysis on an ATI HD 4850. I play @ 1024x768 on XP w/ the very high tweak with 2x AA and ive yet to see my frame rate drop below 35, even in multiplayer.

But then again I overclocked my CPU to 4GHz so im sure that helps because at lower resolutions games are more CPU bound.

DarthIntel

Your sig says 3.1Ghz... LOL

Avatar image for DeckardLee
DeckardLee

859

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#25 DeckardLee
Member since 2009 • 859 Posts

What games are you guys comparing Crysis to that is close enough to say Crysis is unoptimized. People have ALWAYS said that about the envelope pushers. Hell, I remember people saying the Doom 3 engine was unoptimized trash, but, really, it was optimized terrifically. The same thing was said about FEAR because Half-Life 2 looked better outdoors and people compared it to that. What they didn't understand was FEAR's bullet physics and AI are very intensive.


In the end, not a damn one of you is qualified enough to say it is unoptimized unless there's a game out just like Crysis that runs considerably better.

Avatar image for washd123
washd123

3418

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#26 washd123
Member since 2003 • 3418 Posts

Funny thing is, they cry about piracy killing their games, but it's really because no one could run their games. The game is HORRIBLY optimized...that's why newer hardware still can't handle it, and that's not a good thing.gamer082009

people need to stop calling things unoptimized just because they cant run it.

seriously. its not unoptimized in fact its more so than a large majority of games. if you understood the amount it was rendering in any given scene youd understand why it takes a top end machine to run at a high resolution.

even high settings which can be done by almost any card on the market designed for gaming (ex not a 8400gs) still is pushing more than almost any other game. the fact that those settings run well on almost any card is a testament to ow well the game was coded

not to mention this is normal it happened with doom 3 and HL2 and FC1 back in the day.

Avatar image for Gog
Gog

16376

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#27 Gog
Member since 2002 • 16376 Posts

As people above said, Crysis can not be called unoptimized unless you demonstrate a comparable better looking game that runs better. I don't see any game that qualifies. It was the same for Far Cry back in 2004.

You also need to take into account that vidoecard performance has not progressed very well the last couple of years. We've been using the same card rebadged over 3 generations (8800GT)

Avatar image for codezer0
codezer0

15898

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 44

User Lists: 0

#28 codezer0
Member since 2004 • 15898 Posts

What games are you guys comparing Crysis to that is close enough to say Crysis is unoptimized. People have ALWAYS said that about the envelope pushers. Hell, I remember people saying the Doom 3 engine was unoptimized trash, but, really, it was optimized terrifically. The same thing was said about FEAR because Half-Life 2 looked better outdoors and people compared it to that. What they didn't understand was FEAR's bullet physics and AI are very intensive.

In the end, not a damn one of you is qualified enough to say it is unoptimized unless there's a game out just like Crysis that runs considerably better.

DeckardLee
Doom 3 was pretty bad. So much so, that it ruined my one good 9800 Pro, leading me to a long string of RMA's for other junk 9800's that never quite worked as well as that first one did. :( Even when I finally had a system that could run it fully maxed in the in-game settings, it didn't look that much better to justify the added cost. Same with Crysis. While my current setup now can most definitely run it on high (since it won't let me choose very high since I don't feel like ruining a perfectly good XP installation for Vista), it just doesn't look or play good or fun enough to have justified the added cost of waiting all this time and then finally upgrading. Far Cry 2, on the other hand, manages to push things for just the amount of stuff that can be seen on the screen, and even though its built-in FPS readout shows a pretty craptastic framerate when I run it (~25fps), it remains amazingly smooth, without even a hint of slowdown from what little I'd played of it. Which makes the slideshow that Crysis likes to degrade itself to become even more inexcusable.
Avatar image for DeckardLee
DeckardLee

859

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#29 DeckardLee
Member since 2009 • 859 Posts

Doom 3 is generally believed to be quite optimized. It runs well on a wide range of hardware and runs on it well. Also, Far Cry 2 was based around console specfications so, of course, the lower frames of animation are going to look better at 25 FPS.

Every word of your paragraph just proves to me that you're just upset about your hardware; not the software.

Avatar image for RobboElRobbo
RobboElRobbo

13668

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#31 RobboElRobbo
Member since 2009 • 13668 Posts
This is an awesome guide to greatly improve frame rate... http://www.gamecritics.com/the-noobs-guide-to-optimizing-crysis
Avatar image for markop2003
markop2003

29917

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#32 markop2003
Member since 2005 • 29917 Posts

Hi. Looks like that game is junk. I think it is actually unfinished

and the game sold on hype and not on its own merits. I have

an HD 4870 which runs the game pretty well and some of

the scenery looks good,impressive even. But I see in my game

hummer jeeps with no back tires and sticks and rocks that pop

up 15 feet in front of you as you walk down the beach. If you back

up, they disappear. Some games from the late 90s did that sort of

thing. We shouldn't be seeing that sort of thing in games today.

sihunt
I've seen that on Warhead but not on the Original, Warhead greatly reduced the draw distance so it would run better.
Avatar image for markop2003
markop2003

29917

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#33 markop2003
Member since 2005 • 29917 Posts

How was a game made so that it is more intensive than hardware that was available at the time?

wookieeassassin
On thew special edition DVD they have interviews with the liason from Nvidia, as soon as Nvidia had a new card in prototype it was shipped off for Crytek to work with. A lot of the gear they were actually using to develop the game were prototype models.
Avatar image for Marfoo
Marfoo

6006

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#34 Marfoo
Member since 2004 • 6006 Posts

[QUOTE="Marfoo"]Lazy developers, yes blame the developers. Everytime someone can't run a game you people throw around "Lazy, unoptimized, poorly coded..." Are you even qualified to make that kind of judgement? Have you ever made a Direct3D engine of that sophistication? Have you looked at the source code? Always quick to point fingers with no evidence to suggest that it's poorly coded. Don't tell me the fact that it doesn't run on todays hardware is enough evidence because that's assuming they scaled the engine to run well on todays hardware and you have no way of telling what they aimed for. If they say they aimed for future generations, take their word for it.kilerchese

I'm sorry, but it IS poorly coded. Guess what, they said that it would run at 60 FPS on DX10 on SLI'd 8800GTX. Guess what, it doesn't.

It takes a $800+ video card to run this game at any where CLOSE to 60 FPS at 1920x1200 with only 2xAA and NO AF.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/asus-mars-review-test/11

And the card isn't even released yet. Takes a $500 video card to run it at 60 FPS at 1600x1200.

Crysis IS and always WILL be poorly coded. Crytek dropped the ball because I remember them saying that it would run just fine at MAX settings DX10 on the, at the time, current generation video cards, IE 8800 series.

Cite it, last I saw the only indicator of performance I saw was that "High" would be playable on an 8800GTS with no indicater to FPS. LINK. In a later interview here on Gamespot he said that the really high settings reserved for thie highest of graphics cards "Very High" would be available, but at the cost of performance. As far as I know the 8800GTS and 2900XT give you playable game on high settings.
Avatar image for Hekynn
Hekynn

2164

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#35 Hekynn
Member since 2003 • 2164 Posts
I have no clue dude lol.
Avatar image for codezer0
codezer0

15898

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 44

User Lists: 0

#36 codezer0
Member since 2004 • 15898 Posts

And, again, what are your specs for playing Crysis. Also, hahahahahahhaahhah!! You honestly believe it ruined your 9800 Pro? I see no further reason to talk to you.

DeckardLee
Look at my sig. Before the q6600 and 285, I was running an E6300 and just the 8800GTS. Secondly, the 9800Pro was years back. it was an original model with Samsung RAM on it - it was great because I was able to BIOS-mod it so that it showed up like a 9800XT - albeit with 128MB of RAM. For nearly every other game, it was not only flawless, but the BIOS mod allowed it better 3DMark performance than if I'd just used the stock BIOS and overclocked to that level. I'd also had a really good aftermarket cooler on the card and RAM to keep it quiet at that performance. Then as soon as I started playing Doom 3, the thing started artifacting and graphical glitches all over the place. Even when I went back to factory BIOS and settings for the card, the damage had (inadvertently) been done. Since then, I'd kept receiving replacement 9800's from Newegg (and later, ATi) that were spec'd with inferior, unstable Hynix RAM. And despite all their marketing and claims, the 9800 Pro since had never been able to run HL2 on High on my previous machine. After about the sixth failure, I'd finally had it out with ATi, their support, their engineers, and filed complaints with the better business bureau for sending me defective product. I finally receive satisfaction in a 512MB X1600 Pro, which was a reasonable upgrade and played HL2 on High damned well. Then more recently ATi decided to make the X1k's all "legacy" product. :| Then again, since it's no longer my primary card, I don't feel as bad about it anymore. And what the **** does "being based around a console" have ANYthing to do with it, or this discussion?
Avatar image for DarthIntel
DarthIntel

101

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#37 DarthIntel
Member since 2009 • 101 Posts

[QUOTE="DarthIntel"]

I play Crysis on an ATI HD 4850. I play @ 1024x768 on XP w/ the very high tweak with 2x AA and ive yet to see my frame rate drop below 35, even in multiplayer.

But then again I overclocked my CPU to 4GHz so im sure that helps because at lower resolutions games are more CPU bound.

dared3vil0

Your sig says 3.1Ghz... LOL

I forgot to change it.

Avatar image for XaosII
XaosII

16705

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#38 XaosII
Member since 2003 • 16705 Posts

Isnt that a good thing? Why should i be able to max out any game? I think its great that a game has capabilties to take advantage of hardware much later in the future simply beyond higher framerates. I would love to have games with more upward scaling beyond the max avaiable hardware. It just means the game will look great even a few years down the line.

Avatar image for d-rtyboy
d-rtyboy

3178

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#39 d-rtyboy
Member since 2006 • 3178 Posts
And what the **** does "being based around a console" have ANYthing to do with it, or this discussion?codezer0
Well, games that are based around consoles are going to perform better simply because PCs are more powerful. IIRC, the Xbox has a neutered 7950 as a graphics card, so obviously Far Cry 2 is going to run a lot better on a gtx when it was designed to run on an outdated gpu. Further, I'm sure they programmed it to run at 30fps and made the game pace well for that. Crytek didn't do that with Crysis and that is not to say they didn't do a good job of it. At any rate, I played the demo with an athlon x2 3800 and a 7950gt and it wasn't too bad and looked good as well, so I'm not really sure what the complaining is all about.
Avatar image for codezer0
codezer0

15898

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 44

User Lists: 0

#40 codezer0
Member since 2004 • 15898 Posts
... And again, how is that a bad thing? It forces devs to think logically to make sure their stuff will actually run on what's out there. I'm sorry, but I don't see how or why PC fanboys want to use that as a negative against a game. Crytek chose to whore themselves to the PC fanboy crowd, and guess what? Only the PC fanboys could actually review the game positively. Everyone else that played it on a realistically configured machine just got a stuttering, fugly mess of a game that was nowhere near what all the teaser footage and trailers showed it doing. Hell, half the physics were not even done if you had to turn the physics setting to anything other than high, and when I still only had an E6300, the only playable setting for Crysis and my 8800GTS was Low. Yet then it looked worse than Far Cry 1 did. I will never understand why PC fanboys seem to go into such a circle-jerk-off contest about games that make their $$$$ god-box play like a $200 throw-away dell special. As a gamer, you should want your stuff to run well. It reminds me of the BroGamers-style frenzy that fanboys get into every time a new Madden comes out, or Halo... :roll:
Avatar image for kilerchese
kilerchese

831

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#41 kilerchese
Member since 2008 • 831 Posts

[QUOTE="codezer0"]And what the **** does "being based around a console" have ANYthing to do with it, or this discussion?d-rtyboy
Well, games that are based around consoles are going to perform better simply because PCs are more powerful. IIRC, the Xbox has a neutered 7950 as a graphics card, so obviously Far Cry 2 is going to run a lot better on a gtx when it was designed to run on an outdated gpu. Further, I'm sure they programmed it to run at 30fps and made the game pace well for that. Crytek didn't do that with Crysis and that is not to say they didn't do a good job of it. At any rate, I played the demo with an athlon x2 3800 and a 7950gt and it wasn't too bad and looked good as well, so I'm not really sure what the complaining is all about.

The 360 has a neutered R600 chip from ATI, IE HD 2000/HD 3000 series.

The PS3 has a neutered GeForce 7800. Which can ALMOST be compared to a 7600 GT.

Avatar image for Berserker1_5
Berserker1_5

1967

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

#43 Berserker1_5
Member since 2007 • 1967 Posts

Crysis is not optimized good. If you take a look at Crysis Warhead, and then Crysis, people would say that Warhead has better graphics. Yet, it is easier to run. That's because the game is more optimized. Take a look at some of Blizzard's games. They are all optimized incredibly nicely. That's way even 2003 computers can run their current games.

Avatar image for codezer0
codezer0

15898

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 44

User Lists: 0

#44 codezer0
Member since 2004 • 15898 Posts

I'm glad you posted this :D I can ignore you now! .. no offense ...

DeckardLee
I would have something to say about this, but you're too self-absorbed for me to justify the appropriate response. You should consider yourself lucky the mods here hate my guts, because otherwise I would have probably banned you for your attitude.
Avatar image for d-rtyboy
d-rtyboy

3178

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#45 d-rtyboy
Member since 2006 • 3178 Posts
I will never understand why PC fanboys seem to go into such a circle-jerk-off contest about games that make their $$$$ god-box play like a $200 throw-away dell special. As a gamer, you should want your stuff to run well. It reminds me of the BroGamers-style frenzy that fanboys get into every time a new Madden comes out, or Halo... :roll:codezer0
I don't know what you're talking about, even on low it still looked better than anything I've seen on a console. Also, making a game for console and PC turns the game into a console game. Sure, UT3 was good, but it was a console game. It didn't feel anything like it was meant to be played on a computer. I have a feeling that Far Cry 2 is the same way. There are plenty of games for PC that run well and don't feel like a console game because they weren't designed to run on a console.
Avatar image for codezer0
codezer0

15898

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 44

User Lists: 0

#47 codezer0
Member since 2004 • 15898 Posts
Uh, no it did not. Crysis on Low looks like ass. Same thing with HL2. If you have to run that on Low now, it looks even worse than what HL1 does. Not to mention that none of all that fancy physics stuff that they brag about on the box for Crysis even works if you have to run on anything but High, which I took offense to with the game. For that time I had to play on Low, I was pissed that the trees that were supposed to be "cut down" with gunfire were still there, but the enemies still saw me perfectly like they were cut. Thus leading to many, many unfair deaths even on the demo. or the fact that none of the buildings crumbled, even when the AI was behaving as if it was. Once I was able to upgrade and compare the difference between Crysis on Low, Medium, and then High, I felt like Crytek basically was robbing everyone, by only letting the Medium and Low settings being playable, and those that went out and paid $50 on their mediocre shooter only getting closer to 10 or 20 dollars' worth of content and features. I'm just glad I wasn't one of those that bought it after all.
Avatar image for lettuceman44
lettuceman44

7971

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 23

User Lists: 0

#48 lettuceman44
Member since 2005 • 7971 Posts

[QUOTE="Marfoo"]Lazy developers, yes blame the developers. Everytime someone can't run a game you people throw around "Lazy, unoptimized, poorly coded..." Are you even qualified to make that kind of judgement? Have you ever made a Direct3D engine of that sophistication? Have you looked at the source code? Always quick to point fingers with no evidence to suggest that it's poorly coded. Don't tell me the fact that it doesn't run on todays hardware is enough evidence because that's assuming they scaled the engine to run well on todays hardware and you have no way of telling what they aimed for. If they say they aimed for future generations, take their word for it.Jermone123

Totally agree... you people crack me up. You think just cuz you get 60 fps in a cooridor shooter in a room with only a trash can and a desk in it that you should be getting 60 fps in crysis with a billion tree's and INSANE draw distance. You people make me laugh! :roll:

I agree too.
Avatar image for gamer082009
gamer082009

6679

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#49 gamer082009
Member since 2007 • 6679 Posts
I love how people are trying to come to the defense of Crytek for their lack of optimizing their game better. I stand by what I said, Crysis: Warhead is a mess when it comes down to optimization. It's an amazing game much like the first one, don't get me wrong, but I know some people...hell quite a few people who have issues with it and they're running top of the line hardware...*from CPU-to-memory-to-graphic cards* Sure say it's drivers and something wrong with their computer, but too many people have problems with Crysis running on decent machines for it to just be blamed on people with out of date PC's or driver issues. Crysis 1 ran pretty good for me (should've ran better though), but Crysis: Warhead runs horridly. I'm jus sayin!
Avatar image for jamesfffan
jamesfffan

1269

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#50 jamesfffan
Member since 2004 • 1269 Posts

I use the Helder Pinto Ultra High Custom Config, it changes some of the values for certain internal graphical settings, but actually improves the look of the game past that of "very high" imo.

Now as you can see my Card isn't especially the mutts nuts, but on my old monitor 1360x768 I would get using this config 25-35FPS No AA with the odd setting on medium/high.

Now I just bought a 1920x1080 Samsung, using the same settings I get between 10-20FPS No AA, but somehow it is pretty playable, and also nice to look at, i was in fact astounded at the sheer clarity and sharpness of 1920x1080, it made me want to play through it all over again. Completed both Crysis n Warhead 6 times each.

So consider this then, what if I bought an Ati HD 4870 1024mb card? I would hazard a guess at me getting between 30-37FPS @1920x1080 No AA, and possibly between 25-32FPS with 2xAA. Even without AA it looks great with the custom config at this res.

As others have said you cannot compare tunnel/closed environment lower dynamic games with less textures and rendering to this game, Crysis 2 come on down!

You will also find there's a fair amount of console games capped at 30FPS, But are playable.