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

my comp isnt the greatest, but if farcry 2 looks better on my comp and, according to nearly everyone, it looks worse than crysis, then crysis is horribly optimised. btw, i can run fc2 on high w/o aa at 1280x800 on an 8600m gt.

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.codezer0

Are you seriously complaining the Crytek put in an option for your computer to be able to run it well? That's like saying, "I have to play the game on high or it looks terrible!" It just doesn't make a bit of sense.

my comp isnt the greatest, but if farcry 2 looks better on my comp and, according to nearly everyone, it looks worse than crysis, then crysis is horribly optimised. btw, i can run fc2 on high w/o aa at 1280x800 on an 8600m gt.

lpjazzman220

That's not how game engines work. There's going to be a lot going on that you won't be able to see. I recommend you only listen to those with at least a Computer Science degree when it comesto in-depth knowledge like this.

[QUOTE="lpjazzman220"]

my comp isnt the greatest, but if farcry 2 looks better on my comp and, according to nearly everyone, it looks worse than crysis, then crysis is horribly optimised. btw, i can run fc2 on high w/o aa at 1280x800 on an 8600m gt.

Nokanhav

That's not how game engines work. There's going to be a lot going on that you won't be able to see. I recommend you only listen to those with at least a Computer Science degree when it comesto in-depth knowledge like this.

my comp isnt the greatest, but if farcry 2 looks better on my comp and, according to nearly everyone, it looks worse than crysis, then crysis is horribly optimised. btw, i can run fc2 on high w/o aa at 1280x800 on an 8600m gt.

lpjazzman220

You forget FarCry 2 was also made for consoles multi-platform, Crysis was a PC exclusive, because quite simply consoles can't run it. Do not come back with what about Cryengine3, did you see the draw distance detail on them demos? laughable.

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!gamer082009

and i love how people assume just because they cant run it or it runs poor for them on max its unoptimized.

again and i say this for everyone out there whos still under this misconception. crysis is extremely well optimized (more so on the nvidia/intel side although that also has to do with drivers). if you understood what exactly was being pushed on screen youd never make that assumption. no other game pushes as many polygons at a time, does as many lighting calculations at a time, has as advanced AI, and does as much post processing as crysis in any given scene.

i also love how this is something new. its really not. FC and doom3 and HL2 all had the same issues upon release. and after release. the only difference here is on the manufactuers side.

the best card at crysis's release was the 8800ultra and it stayed that way. the next card were all midranged cards below the 8800ultra. then the 9 series came out and they had the 9800gtx which was essentially a 8800ultra OCed even more and with 512mb of GDDR3 and not the 768mb. so no actual improvements. the first step up was the GTX260 and GTX280.

on the ATI side the HD2900xt was the most powerful offering. and then the hd3870 which was just a hd2900xt OCed with better drivers and more efficient tech. then they had the hd3870x2. then finally we got the hd4850 and hd4870 the first improvements along with the X2 and the hd4830 and hd4770.

so for a lot of people thats why it seems like even though graphics tech has been 'improving' you still cant run it.

and about warheads optimizations, if you actually look at what they did, the sky no longer features as many dynamic clouds, theres a greater focus on post processing for lighting effects and such while less on the actual shaders, the draw distance is shorter to begin with, and the game overall is much more linear.

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

[QUOTE="gamer082009"]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!washd123

and i love how people assume just because they cant run it or it runs poor for them on max its unoptimized.

again and i say this for everyone out there whos still under this misconception. crysis is extremely well optimized (more so on the nvidia/intel side although that also has to do with drivers). if you understood what exactly was being pushed on screen youd never make that assumption. no other game pushes as many polygons at a time, does as many lighting calculations at a time, has as advanced AI, and does as much post processing as crysis in any given scene.

i also love how this is something new. its really not. FC and doom3 and HL2 all had the same issues upon release. and after release. the only difference here is on the manufactuers side.

the best card at crysis's release was the 8800ultra and it stayed that way. the next card were all midranged cards below the 8800ultra. then the 9 series came out and they had the 9800gtx which was essentially a 8800ultra OCed even more and with 512mb of GDDR3 and not the 768mb. so no actual improvements. the first step up was the GTX260 and GTX280.

on the ATI side the HD2900xt was the most powerful offering. and then the hd3870 which was just a hd2900xt OCed with better drivers and more efficient tech. then they had the hd3870x2. then finally we got the hd4850 and hd4870 the first improvements along with the X2 and the hd4830 and hd4770.

so for a lot of people thats why it seems like even though graphics tech has been 'improving' you still cant run it.

and about warheads optimizations, if you actually look at what they did, the sky no longer features as many dynamic clouds, theres a greater focus on post processing for lighting effects and such while less on the actual shaders, the draw distance is shorter to begin with, and the game overall is much more linear.

[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:

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:

so your saying a game that came out 2+ years ago is not well optimised since it runs pretty poorly on latest hardware.. crysis ISNT THAT GOOD LOOKING... not to need Quad Sli to have a real nice fps. The game is ugly in spots... and beautiful in others but its not a gorgeous game throughout. i think this game suffers from what console people have with games such as killzone2.. they think it looks better than what it really does. but thats just my opinion :) o0squishy0o

i said it is well optimized. and no its not opinion at all. looking good and having good graphics are two separate issues. the reason crysis is 'hard; to run is due to the graphics aka tech behind it. no other game pushes as much as it does. bottom line. i also adressed the time issue as to why it seems like its taken a long time. its all relative

[QUOTE="washd123"]

[QUOTE="gamer082009"]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!o0squishy0o

and i love how people assume just because they cant run it or it runs poor for them on max its unoptimized.

again and i say this for everyone out there whos still under this misconception. crysis is extremely well optimized (more so on the nvidia/intel side although that also has to do with drivers). if you understood what exactly was being pushed on screen youd never make that assumption. no other game pushes as many polygons at a time, does as many lighting calculations at a time, has as advanced AI, and does as much post processing as crysis in any given scene.

i also love how this is something new. its really not. FC and doom3 and HL2 all had the same issues upon release. and after release. the only difference here is on the manufactuers side.

the best card at crysis's release was the 8800ultra and it stayed that way. the next card were all midranged cards below the 8800ultra. then the 9 series came out and they had the 9800gtx which was essentially a 8800ultra OCed even more and with 512mb of GDDR3 and not the 768mb. so no actual improvements. the first step up was the GTX260 and GTX280.

on the ATI side the HD2900xt was the most powerful offering. and then the hd3870 which was just a hd2900xt OCed with better drivers and more efficient tech. then they had the hd3870x2. then finally we got the hd4850 and hd4870 the first improvements along with the X2 and the hd4830 and hd4770.

so for a lot of people thats why it seems like even though graphics tech has been 'improving' you still cant run it.

and about warheads optimizations, if you actually look at what they did, the sky no longer features as many dynamic clouds, theres a greater focus on post processing for lighting effects and such while less on the actual shaders, the draw distance is shorter to begin with, and the game overall is much more linear.

I agree. Low quality does look like crap :D

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

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

kilerchese

I loved how efficient unreal tournament 2k3 was, looked space age back and choked less than hl1, yeah half life had crap coding in terms of efficiency *shivers. Back to the topic, if this game had great coding than we would had easily maxed out the game and it would be no fun.

so your saying a game that came out 2+ years ago is not well optimised since it runs pretty poorly on latest hardware.. crysis ISNT THAT GOOD LOOKING... not to need Quad Sli to have a real nice fps. The game is ugly in spots... and beautiful in others but its not a gorgeous game throughout. i think this game suffers from what console people have with games such as killzone2.. they think it looks better than what it really does. but thats just my opinion :) o0squishy0o

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

Sounds more like a driver issue to me...

[QUOTE="o0squishy0o"] so your saying a game that came out 2+ years ago is not well optimised since it runs pretty poorly on latest hardware.. crysis ISNT THAT GOOD LOOKING... not to need Quad Sli to have a real nice fps. The game is ugly in spots... and beautiful in others but its not a gorgeous game throughout. i think this game suffers from what console people have with games such as killzone2.. they think it looks better than what it really does. but thats just my opinion :) -GeordiLaForge-

It's impossible that he played it maxed. He's just QQ that his PC can't max it. But, even if he could, he didn't see all Crysis could do because no PC can truly max Crysis with the ini/cfg options maxed.

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

Only in PC gaming can you make such a righteously fanboy-istic fandom from making a product only 1% of your entire potential userbase could actually run well enough to appreciate the "quality" behind your work.codezer0

only in a console gamers head could you believe you know what ytoure talking about

Why the hell would you defend a product that you can't even run correctly? :? Please think logically next time you want to present an argument, instead of hurling insults. Thank you.codezer0

it runs fine for me. hell it ran fine when it came out on my x1950pro agp. this whole i cant run it and lazy coding bull is coming from people who dont understand coding or hardware.

Your standards on how it "runs fine" must be different than mine, then. At the time I first tried the Crysis demo, I was with an (original) E6300 and just the 8800GTS on my main system. I gave it a whirl, and at the default settings, the thing just kept stuttering to be such an unplayable mess for me. High was a literal slideshow, and not even worth putting up with for more than a few seconds before I had to bail on it. The only time I was getting fluid gameplay, even with what was then still considered top-end hardware (keep in mind, the Core 2 quads were still prohibitively expensive for me), was on low. Yes, I was able to get my 60 frames consistently then. But the game looked and played like unwashed ass. It looked worse than even Far Cry 1 on my old system ( athlon xp 2400+m, and a 6600GT at the time). And compared to how good UE3 games like Gears of War and UT3 looked and played on the same machine, it definitely felt like I was getting cheated. Now, some have said that the full game is better, and that at least with the full game, it has since received patches that greatly fixed the performance problems that plagued the demo. Well, that's all well and great, but Crytek chose to basically take a **** on everyone that only has the demo to (legally) go by. If they'd wanted more people to buy the game, they really should have considered starting the demo at a more exciting "good" part then, or a part that more appropriately shows how good the game can look, rather than just the very boring (I'm guessing here) beginning. As it is, my impression of the game from the demo has left such a bad taste in my mouth, that I refuse to even put the effort to pirate the game, because I just don't want it. I simply feel there are better shooters out there for me to spend my time with. With getting the 285 I have now, one of the games i got free was Far Cry 2, and noticed how it was trying to be like "Crysis in Africa", with the absurd amount of plant life in any given location. But even with the in-game framerate telling me that I should be experiencing a slideshow, it never felt like it. It was a bit like how many people thought Super Mario 64 on the n64 was running at 60fps, when really it was running at only 30. Whatever it was doing in the background to reduce the need for the system to stop and load was working, and definitely seemed a more intelligent use of programming and resource management than many of these games that try to push for 60 and up, and then still end up being a slideshow. So, from first-hand experience, all that talk about all the tech behind Crytek's Crysis doesn't mean jack, because there have been (and since) games released that use the same resources efficiently, and let me spend less time obsessing about how it runs, and more time actually letting myself get immersed into the game. There are few things that break immersion and flow in a game like the machine you're running it on struggling to keep up with its demands, which especially applies in PC gaming.codezer0

it was running 30fps on a x1950pro agp and a singlecore 3400+ proc on mediumhigh settings at 1024x768. it rarely dipped only when there was a lot going on.thats what i meant by fine and i am talking about the demo.

the actual game was maxed out on my hd4830 at the same res 30fps. or 1680x1050 on my hd4890.

i agree though that the chose a poor part to showcase for the demo although the sunrise was one of the most impressive scenes in the game.

FC2 has no wheres near as much going on as crysis. nor does any other game. everything from lighting to textures to physics to AI is of lower quality.

[QUOTE="AzNs3nSaT1On"][QUOTE="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:

Marfoo

hey man i'm using the 2gb. i didn't even know they make 1GB models

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 have maxed games that came out recently and they still dont look as good as crysis did 2 years ago NOT maxed. I really cant fathom how someone cant tell the difference and cant understand where all that computing overhead is going when comparing to other games.

My crappy Q8400 9800GT gets over 150 FPS on Low. Something's wrong with your PC.. majorly.

THAT'S your problem.

Holy crap. You have a GTX 285. You either are flat out lying or there's some seriously wrong. Benchmarks show the GTX 285 of getting over 45 FPS at 1920x1200 Very High with 2x AA.

Holy crap. You have a GTX 285. You either are flat out lying or there's some seriously wrong. Benchmarks show the GTX 285 of getting over 45 FPS at 1920x1200 Very High with 2x AA.

Nokanhav

They do it to get you to buy hardware, lol.

[QUOTE="Nokanhav"]

Holy crap. You have a GTX 285. You either are flat out lying or there's some seriously wrong. Benchmarks show the GTX 285 of getting over 45 FPS at 1920x1200 Very High with 2x AA.

codezer0

*eyepencil*

If you only knew how infuriating you are. Yout posts are completely devoid of any semblance of logic.

Now, let's just agree that you're doubly not qualified to judge since you haven't even played the game or have the experience in programming as well as agree that the demo is poorly optimized since it's basically a beta but the retail version patched is optimized pretty damn well.

"E6300 and just the 8800GTS on my main system. I gave it a whirl, and at the default settings, the thing just kept stuttering to be such an unplayable mess for me"

I don't know what you're talking about. I had a athlon x2 3800 and a 7950gt and I could play the demo just fine. Sure, I couldn't max it, but it looked light years ahead of Far Cry. Heck, it looked better than UT3 maxed. Obviously with my system now UT3 plays a hell of a lot more fluidly.

I just don't get all the moaning over one stupid game. Some people, including me, can't max it. Boo Friggin' Hoo. Good on Crytek for pushing the graphical boundaries and I hope they made a butt load of cash off of it. The vast majority of PC games can be maxed with what most of us here would consider a low end system. So, if you insist on playing only games that you can max you can find a game to play.

Hi Well I have had a change of heart regarding Crysis. I reinstalled the game and it is looking

and working much better. I now see much more detail than before and Crytek put some very

nice effects into the game. I now have come to believe that the game is not poorly optimized.

As a poster said earlier,(I am too lazy to look back and find the thread-SORRY)there is a lot

of visual detail going on to process. If you run the game in DX 10 all very high settings,the game

is indeed quite amazing.

crysis was not that bad the engine requires alot of power its actually very optimized and even supports shador 2.0/3.0/4.0
if you see the trees,grass,water and physics compared to anything else the high requirements is understandable

*eyepencil*

If you only knew how infuriating you are. Yout posts are completely devoid of any semblance of logic.

Now, let's just agree that you're doubly not qualified to judge since you haven't even played the game or have the experience in programming as well as agree that the demo is poorly optimized since it's basically a beta but the retail version patched is optimized pretty damn well.

Nokanhav

Graphically the game is stil unparalleled (though many games have gotten very close). Not only does it look good, but the environments are extremely large.

When developers create games, they budget numbers for poly count on models, texture resolution, the number of static models that are present in game, trees and foliage, water, dynamic lighting and weather effects, level size, etc.

If a developer was so inclined (don't know why they would be), they could create a game that consumer level PC's couldn't lay a finger on for decades.

*eyepencil*

If you only knew how infuriating you are. Yout posts are completely devoid of any semblance of logic.

Now, let's just agree that you're doubly not qualified to judge since you haven't even played the game or have the experience in programming as well as agree that the demo is poorly optimized since it's basically a beta but the retail version patched is optimized pretty damn well.

Then in that case, Crytek should fix the **** demo to more realistically show how the game would run when they buy the real thing instead of being such snobs about it. Can we at least **** agree there?codezer0