Shame on Crysis

I dont know if any1 posted this before...but the only thing can say is shame on crytec and microsoft.

http://www.rlslog.net/crysis-makes-me-sick/#more-5980

"Is this the kind of behaviour us enthusiasts and gamers will have to live with in the future? Game developers being a part of the marketing of new technology and hardware, no longer concentrating on delivering the best possible product but convincing consumers to open their wallets and unnecessarily upgrading their systems?"

In short yes. Crysis is little more than a 50 dollar tech demo. It's single player campaign is only 7 hours long (and despite what some people say the vast majority of people will play through it once, maybe twice). The multiplayer is average at best and if you don't think thats true, just take a look at the server loads and number of servers compared to other recent;y released games. And because of the things mentioned in that article and piss poor optimization for anything but top-end hardware it is trying to force people to upgrade. Personally I think Crysis is all that is wrong with PC gameing of late and the hugely praising reviews it is getting bother me greatly.

Personally I think Crysis is all that is wrong with PC gameing of late and the hugely praising reviews it is getting bother me greatly.

SerOlmy

Maybe that is a sign that it is a great game.

"Around 3 years ago Far Cry was launched by the same developers behind Crysis: Germany based Crytek. The Game was an average FPS that didn't bring anything new to the genre, but was still a pleasant game, playable at least one time."

I stopped reading right there.Teufelhuhn

Truth here.

[QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"]"Around 3 years ago Far Cry was launched by the same developers behind Crysis: Germany based Crytek. The Game was an average FPS that didn't bring anything new to the genre, but was still a pleasant game, playable at least one time."

I stopped reading right there.bignice12

Truth here.

What he said.

Dunno, that quote sounds about right to me.SerOlmy

Explain.

Well imagine that, Microsoft has a big stiffy for itself, and is paying everyone to boast about how awesome their stuff is, when it's all total BS!

I wanna stay serious about this, but, what if this guys translation was like, the exact opposite, he said Far Cry didn't give anything new to the genre and was only playable once, I mean, when translating stuff, you can really screw words up (someone set up us the bomb). Maybe he was saying that it DID give something new to the genre, and that it was playable MORE than once. Just kidding around though, I trust this guys translation simply because I know NO swedish lol.

Anyway, here's more proof that Microsoft has a big stiffy for Vista. Look at the screenshot comparison on the bottom, then the "explentation" under it. THEY ARE COMPARING CRYSIS (a game AHEAD of it's time) TO THE FIRST EVER HALO!

http://www.gamesforwindows.com/en-US/AboutGFW/Pages/DirectX10.aspx

I can't believe Microsoft expects people to fall for this BS.

What get's me the most is this part of that "explanation" in the link above.

"DX10 adds a new level of realism to games by making characters more life-like. You can see the incredible detail in the screenshot above. The facial expressions, details of the face, the handle-bar moustache and the glazed looking eyes all add to the realism."

Well did ya hear that? DX10 gives people facial expressions and handle-bar moustache's, and glazed looking eyes in video games now. They mite as well also say DX10 gives you BJ's and pudding!

Hey guys what's going on in here?OoSuperMarioO

Lol, a potential system wars thread...

[QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"]"Around 3 years ago Far Cry was launched by the same developers behind Crysis: Germany based Crytek. The Game was an average FPS that didn't bring anything new to the genre, but was still a pleasant game, playable at least one time."

I stopped reading right there.bignice12

Truth here.

QFT

[QUOTE="SerOlmy"]Dunno, that quote sounds about right to me.bignice12

Explain.

Whats there to explain? I agree with the statement that you were quoting.

i was pissed off earlier today, but now im getting goof fps again in crysis so im not mad anymore

People who are getting good performance are not complaining.

plus im on the very first alien level and its awesome.

Whats there to explain? I agree with the statement that you were quoting.

SerOlmy

oh ok thought you were agreeing with the writer of the article.

[QUOTE="SerOlmy"]Dunno, that quote sounds about right to me.bignice12

Explain.

Half Life fanboy

Anyways this pc hardware thing would only stop if people stop buying the latest cards and move to console gaming.codename_47i

Its not that it is the fact that devs like CryTek are optimizing games only to work with top of the line hardware to try to screw people into buying new hardware. Look at games like HL2 when it was first released, it was amazingly optimized for a wide range of systems, looked amazing maxed out, and still looked good on medium. Whereas Crysis looks amazing at high-very high and looks like crap otherwise when compared to other games released in the last year and to get it to look good you need hardware that is less than 6 months old. It just seems like CryTek shot themselves in the foot with that business model, because once all the hardcore gamers have it that will be the end of full price purchases as most other people will wait 6 months to a year when they have a new rig before buying it.

What can I say it appears as if gaming is only for the rich. I completed crysis It was a great experience and I played it on medium settings even then it looked really awesome. I would give it 9/10 it would have been 10/10 if i hadnt read this article. its truth microsoft and crytek are fooling peoples I shud say dx9 gives real better performance although it has some graphic issues. Anyways this pc hardware thing would only stop if people stop buying the latest cards and move to console gaming.codename_47i

Why? PC's last longer, and thanks to those consoles, PC's the cheapest way to go right now. Latest cards cost the same as consoles nowaday anyways. PC hardware thing will never stop, unless we all use the same hardware, and nVidia, ATI, AMD, or Intel, etc. like, monopolizes or something. I don't see why the article lowers the score for ya, cuz the game is still good, but it is stupid that Microsoft is flaunting their stupid DX10 right in our face by using Crysis.

[QUOTE="SerOlmy"]

Personally I think Crysis is all that is wrong with PC gameing of late and the hugely praising reviews it is getting bother me greatly.

bignice12

Maybe that is a sign that it is a great game.

You'd think it's a pretty obvious sign. But this guy is seriously blinded by his prejudice of the game.

[QUOTE="codename_47i"]What can I say it appears as if gaming is only for the rich. I completed crysis It was a great experience and I played it on medium settings even then it looked really awesome. I would give it 9/10 it would have been 10/10 if i hadnt read this article. its truth microsoft and crytek are fooling peoples I shud say dx9 gives real better performance although it has some graphic issues. Anyways this pc hardware thing would only stop if people stop buying the latest cards and move to console gaming.ElArab

Why? PC's last longer, and thanks to those consoles, PC's the cheapest way to go right now. Latest cards cost the same as consoles nowaday anyways. PC hardware thing will never stop, unless we all use the same hardware, and nVidia, ATI, AMD, or Intel, etc. like, monopolizes or something. I don't see why the article lowers the score for ya, cuz the game is still good, but it is stupid that Microsoft is flaunting their stupid DX10 right in our face by using Crysis.

Hey I'm a PC gamer all the way but give me a break! There is no way you could build a PC with a 8800GT/512 for less than $400 which is the base price for the PS3 and $100 more than the 360.

A year from now the PS3/360 will still be playing all new games max (of course) but a PC with an 8800GT will be out of date, and the 8800GTs will be going used on eBay for -$99. I love PC gamming and think it is the best and most flexible but its is WAY more expensive than consoles.

Hell do you have to buy a $110 OS just to boot your PS3 or 360 up?? I think not!

thats a very poorly written, wannabe-sensationlist article.

It is so full of biased opinion and naive business sense that, imo, it should be disregarded.

Crytek is a company. They are here to make money. When a multi-billion dollar corporation offers you a contract like this, you dont turn them down.

Crytek should have covered their tracks better, however, by not having it possible to enable very high on XP. But deep down I think they left that back door open to spite microsoft.

I read this in the comments part of the article:

Hahah, that guy isnt very good. Crysis the full game DOES support QUAD CORE the demo DIDNT. So it doesnt matter now.

And it is TRUE that some DX10 effects cannot be reproduced under DX9 thats why you cant do DX9 very high. The people that enabled it did NOT get all the effects of DX10 because its not possible.

If thats true (and i think it is, there are SOME effects that Dx9 cant do) then the article can be ignored.

I bougth the full game (Special Edition) last friday and played de game on "Delta", finishing the 11 levels after 21 hours (in three days) of pure glory, even with a crapy framerrate of 5 to 20 fps in the last mission. My game system is a 20 months old rig with a 7900 GT, I was playing at 1680 x 1050 with settings at Medium except textures on High and shadows on Low, of course not AA. Mostly of the campaign my average framerrate was about 20-23 fps, but honestly this was my best fps campaign experience since "Riddick: Escape From Butcher's Bay" and "Far Cry", both titles from the end of 2004, three years ago.

I have no complains about the game or the developer; sure, all the Vista's marketings is sh!t, the game don't enhance with Quad cores, don't support SLIconfigurations, with high level of detail the framerrateis low, and of course DX 10don't worth the Vista installement. But... no matter. The game and his gameplay is awesome, since the open sandbox initial levels to the final, frontal-action orientedmissions, the game overtake your heart. Is a true masterpiece in times of gaming nerfing amd banalization (Morrowing to Oblivion, System Shock to Bioshock) and repetitive, linear, scripted fest of respawning in corridors in that some recent titles are based.

With S.T.A.L.K.E.R., the Crysis campaign is to me, without doubt, the sp fps of the year -and the last years-, in a year in which the best shooters come all from Europe (Armed Assault, Czech Republic; S.T.A.L.K.E.R., Ukraine; Quake Wars, U.K.; Crytek, Germany). To more conventional, less ambitious, primitive formulas of first person shooters all playes can choice, for sure, much "better optimized" shooters and even play it with pads if you want (well Crysis also support this sh!t).Even under the high hardware specs that Crysis demands, the game is more matured and evolved than others; time to grow, dudes.

"Quad core was the advice Crytek had to give to hopeful gamers saving money for upgrades. What was the reality again? The reality is that four cores gives zero, I repeat, ZERO perfomance increase in Crysis"

"Better Performance at higher graphics settings? This was not the reality. The truth is that 64-bit improves NOTHING in Crysis!"

thats BS, of course quad cores improves performance in crysis because it is supported there.

Also 64-bits will improve performance in crysis because it is supported. 64-bits is a different architecture: each command is 64 bits and therefore contains more informations. In 32-bits the same information is spread in to 2 or 3 commands.

The advantage of the technology is the ability to read 64-bits in 1 clock cycle using wider registers. The point is that if 64-bits are supported you will get improved performance.

"Around 3 years ago Far Cry was launched by the same developers behind Crysis: Germany based Crytek. The Game was an average FPS that didn't bring anything new to the genre, but was still a pleasant game, playable at least one time."

I stopped reading right there.Teufelhuhn

While I'm not entirely sure what is meant here, I think I know, and I agree.The whole idea that Far Cry is anything like any FPS before it shows a great lack of understanding of what was actually accomplished.

In fact, on the surface it's a shooter like many others, but the game itself has still not been matched. What would its nearest competitor be? HL2?

HL2 is utterly linear. You go straight from point A to point B exactly the way the level designer wants you to. You can't even hop a fence. If you hope a fence, then you're supposed to right at that point. And driving a car or boat leaves about as much choice as riding a train does. You go along one path and shoot planted foes or wait for a specific list of 'gotchas' to happen. It's like participating in a book or a movie. Exactly one set of events will happen and you're just along for the ride.

Far Cry shattered the mold. The player has a place togo to or something to do, and he is turned loose to do it any way he wants. Far Cry uses complicated AI for each NPC. Not just stand around and shoot or run AI, but excellent, complex AI.

The problem with Crysis appears to be that they got too involved in the look of it and other aspects suffered. I forgive them for it, even though my game basically ended when I ran into arock-slid caveand can't get to the next level. I have to use some other guy's posted save-game to move on. I wish they would have ironed that stuff out before adding new shader stuff, but as I said, I forgive them. They're pushing the limits.

In 2 years the average system will probably still be unable to play it on high because physical limits are being approached currently in computing--as seen in the next gen of chips actually adding another 'core' rather than doubling the CPU speed--and great strides are probably not to be made until completely new technology emerges.

Is there really much of a visual difference between high and very high? I've only played it on high and it looks utterly, utterly astounding. That it also pushes my high end PC to its limits (almost) means that very high is probably not even worth it, regardless of visual quality, with current mainstream user technology.

I took a lot of GameSpot's Crysis hardware guide thing, and it seemed to me (from pictures, not videos) that the difference between medium and high is reasonably small, and the difference between high and very high is utterly moot.

I actually got the impression that Low is like 50%, medium is like 80%, high is 90% and very high is 100%. Anyone who needs to kick up a fuss about the differences between high and very high, even if they were "unfairly" implemented, has some weird personal issues.

Besides, Crytek's mandate isn't to make us happy, it's to make money. If they can make us happy while making money (something I think they've managed by making the best looking & one of the best games ever) then more the better, but their primary goal is always going to be to make money. Because, believe it or not, that is the sole purpose of companies. Regardless of the industry they are in, they exist to make money for the people who founded them.

Is there really much of a visual difference between high and very high? I've only played it on high and it looks utterly, utterly astounding. That it also pushes my high end PC to its limits (almost) means that very high is probably not even worth it, regardless of visual quality, with current mainstream user technology.

I took a lot of GameSpot's Crysis hardware guide thing, and it seemed to me (from pictures, not videos) that the difference between medium and high is reasonably small, and the difference between high and very high is utterly moot.

I actually got the impression that Low is like 50%, medium is like 80%, high is 90% and very high is 100%. Anyone who needs to kick up a fuss about the differences between high and very high, even if they were "unfairly" implemented, has some weird personal issues.

Besides, Crytek's mandate isn't to make us happy, it's to make money. If they can make us happy while making money (something I think they've managed by making the best looking & one of the best games ever) then more the better, but their primary goal is always going to be to make money. Because, believe it or not, that is the sole purpose of companies. Regardless of the industry they are in, they exist to make money for the people who founded them.

mfsa

from my experience (with the demo), there is a big difference with the textures between high and very high, but thats it. There are a few slight lighting effects, but you literally have to seek those effects out by standing under a tree and getting the angle of the sun juuuuuust right.

idunno....the game on medium looks insanely nice, let alone on high or very high.

Good lord, some of you people are such whiners.

Crysis doesn't run maxxed on your 2-year old machine, so you **** and moan, complain that the game is unoriginal, or not what was promised.

Could it possibly be that some of you had your expectations just a tiny bit higher than what was realistic?

The fact is:

A) Crysis DOES have the most advanced graphics available today

B) it DOES have innovative gameplay elements in the nanosuit and destructible environments

C) it DOES have DX10 features that require Vista to employ

D) it DOES require cutting-edge hardware to max and run smoothly, something which noone should be surprised at

I think that most complainers want to downplay what the game does have in order to make themselves feel better because they can't run it, or are just going to steal it.

If thats true (and i think it is, there are SOME effects that Dx9 cant do) then the article can be ignored.

mrbojangles25

Its not that it is the fact that devs like CryTek are optimizing games only to work with top of the line hardware to try to screw people into buying new hardware. Look at games like HL2 when it was first released, it was amazingly optimized for a wide range of systems, looked amazing maxed out, and still looked good on medium.

SerOlmy

Whereas Crysis looks amazing at high-very high and looks like crap otherwise when compared to other games released in the last year and to get it to look good you need hardware that is less than 6 months old. It just seems like CryTek shot themselves in the foot with that business model, because once all the hardcore gamers have it that will be the end of full price purchases as most other people will wait 6 months to a year when they have a new rig before buying it. SerOlmy

So, guys, does Crysis have a 20% performance gain on a 64 bit Vista platform. I remember Cevat said it somewhere... And do quadcores give an increase in FPS at all? I've only played the demo, so I hope things have changed. If not, then he lied to us, plain and simple. You might think it's okey "because they're a company trying to make money", but I think it's despicable. I do not like it when people are bs'ing me and try to get me to buy useless hardware/software. But hey, that's why I don't listen to them.

And to be honest I do not see the difference you guys are seeing between Very High in dx9 and dx10. Maybe it's just me though. I know I'm not upgrading to Vista just yet...

"Quad core was the advice Crytek had to give to hopeful gamers saving money for upgrades. What was the reality again? The reality is that four cores gives zero, I repeat, ZERO perfomance increase in Crysis"

"Better Performance at higher graphics settings? This was not the reality. The truth is that 64-bit improves NOTHING in Crysis!"

thats BS, of course quad cores improves performance in crysis because it is supported there.

Also 64-bits will improve performance in crysis because it is supported. 64-bits is a different architecture: each command is 64 bits and therefore contains more informations. In 32-bits the same information is spread in to 2 or 3 commands.

The advantage of the technology is the ability to read 64-bits in 1 clock cycle using wider registers. The point is that if 64-bits are supported you will get improved performance.

shmok1165

[QUOTE="shmok1165"]

"Quad core was the advice Crytek had to give to hopeful gamers saving money for upgrades. What was the reality again? The reality is that four cores gives zero, I repeat, ZERO perfomance increase in Crysis"

"Better Performance at higher graphics settings? This was not the reality. The truth is that 64-bit improves NOTHING in Crysis!"

thats BS, of course quad cores improves performance in crysis because it is supported there.

Also 64-bits will improve performance in crysis because it is supported. 64-bits is a different architecture: each command is 64 bits and therefore contains more informations. In 32-bits the same information is spread in to 2 or 3 commands.

The advantage of the technology is the ability to read 64-bits in 1 clock cycle using wider registers. The point is that if 64-bits are supported you will get improved performance.

gacmyver

I agree. Just look at the 64bits and Quad Core benchmarks linked from that article and you'll see that there is no performance gain. How do you explain that shmok?

So basically it was false advertising saying: "Multi-core will be beneficial in the experience, particularly in faster but also smoother framerates. [...] We recommend quad core over higher clock." and "I would recommend gamers run 64-bit only under very high configurations."

Shame on Crysis

levent18

Yes, shame on that bad bad inanimate object.

Cevat: The game was in the earliest days before we could ship DX10 hardware obviously developed around DX9. So, during the development process some of the DX10 effects were simulated in DX9. So what some users are seeing is some of the material used to develop the DX10 effects but these are NOT DX10. Only by running the game in Vista and using the DX10 API can you get the true maximum experience and of course we have no guarantees for the game's stability if it's hacked."

[QUOTE="gacmyver"][QUOTE="shmok1165"]

"Quad core was the advice Crytek had to give to hopeful gamers saving money for upgrades. What was the reality again? The reality is that four cores gives zero, I repeat, ZERO perfomance increase in Crysis"

"Better Performance at higher graphics settings? This was not the reality. The truth is that 64-bit improves NOTHING in Crysis!"

thats BS, of course quad cores improves performance in crysis because it is supported there.

Also 64-bits will improve performance in crysis because it is supported. 64-bits is a different architecture: each command is 64 bits and therefore contains more informations. In 32-bits the same information is spread in to 2 or 3 commands.

The advantage of the technology is the ability to read 64-bits in 1 clock cycle using wider registers. The point is that if 64-bits are supported you will get improved performance.

Hydras808

I agree. Just look at the 64bits and Quad Core benchmarks linked from that article and you'll see that there is no performance gain. How do you explain that shmok?

So basically it was false advertising saying: "Multi-core will be beneficial in the experience, particularly in faster but also smoother framerates. [...] We recommend quad core over higher clock." and "I would recommend gamers run 64-bit only under very high configurations."

The game can use quad but doesn't because their power isn't proportional to the GPU which will bottleneck

Behind the flashy eye-strain causing (for me anyway) graphics, Does it actually have a story, or is it just another "point-click-kill-repeat" kinda game?

Judging by some previous comments, I'd say I'm on the money :P

Behind the flashy eye-strain causing (for me anyway) graphics, Does it actually have a story, or is it just another "point-click-kill-repeat" kinda game?

Judging by some previous comments, I'd say I'm on the money :P

Nuchaleft

On the money with which comment? You never really point that out.

But anyway, it has a pretty solid story, complimented with really interesting and well acted characters.

Why are people going crazy over this anyway? Microsoft is greedy and uses underhanded business practices. Wow. That's a newsflash. It's not like this is a company thats had multiple run-ins with the law. United States v. Microsoft anyone?

Yet we all know the biggest travasty they've ever commited is....charging $10 for three halo3 maps. Not only charging a rediculous price for minimal content but effectively splitting the halo3 community in two parts. Go complain about that if you need a cause to fight for

Yeah, gaming is full of travesties...

BioShock DRM anyone? Fricken micro-transactions? In-game advertising overload? Shipping buggy code too early assuming it can just be patched later because everyone has broadband?

Crysis is an fantastic game and I'm personally not going to single it out just because it didn't live up to some of the promises (which is something that also happens alot in this industry). Besides there are some reports that the 64-bit does in fact improve the performance of Crysis http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=698&p=7 and it looks like kyrieee has posted some potential DX10 (from Cevat) and quad-core explanations above.

I dunno guys, my opinion isn't being shaken at all, Crysis rocks :D There are much worse things to complain about IMO

Yeah, gaming is full of travesties...

BioShock DRM anyone? Fricken micro-transactions? In-game advertising overload? Shipping buggy code too early assuming it can just be patched later because everyone has broadband?

Crysis is an fantastic game and I'm personally not going to single it out just because it didn't live up to some of the promises (which is something that also happens alot in this industry). Besides there are some reports that the 64-bit does in fact improve the performance of Crysis http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=698&p=7 and it looks like kyrieee has posted some potential DX10 (from Cevat) and quad-core explanations above.

I dunno guys, my opinion isn't being shaken at all, Crysis rocks :D There are much worse things to complain about IMO

Nitrous2O