I can't think of a CryEngine game that does not have performance issues. It is responsible for some of the best looking games ever, but they don't come together as a total package.
I can't think of a CryEngine game that does not have performance issues. It is responsible for some of the best looking games ever, but they don't come together as a total package.
I can't think of a CryEngine game that does not have performance issues. It is responsible for some of the best looking games ever, but they don't come together as a total package.
Crysis 3 and Ryse ran pretty well.
Crysis 3 still has optimization issues in grassy areas. Let's not forget about the infamous cable physics that murdered performance. Never played Ryse on PC as I played it on the peasant box one when it came out and it ran like shit. Don't judge me though as it was an exclusive at the time. hehe :)
Crysis 3 still has optimization issues in grassy areas. Let's not forget about the infamous cable physics that murdered performance. Never played Ryse on PC as I played it on the peasant box one when it came out and it ran like shit.
Wouldn't call those performance issues. Grass is understandably more demanding than say simple ground or rocks.
What cable physics are you speaking of? Doesn't ring a bell.
Crysis 3 still has optimization issues in grassy areas. Let's not forget about the infamous cable physics that murdered performance. Never played Ryse on PC as I played it on the peasant box one when it came out and it ran like shit.
Wouldn't call those performance issues. Grass is understandably more demanding than say simple ground or rocks.
What cable physics are you speaking of? Doesn't ring a bell.
The grass causes frame pacing issues even if you can hold a high frame rate. As for the cable/rope physics...
Wait for patches people. You all act like starving kids hoarding over some grains of rice. Have some patience when new games are released.
@scatteh316 said:
It has dated ass graphics so it's clear the dev's being shit.
Because Cryengine 4 is dated but it also had a small $5 million dollar budget and a small team. Considering that, it's actually not bad. I would say what makes it shit is that it has a $60 price tag yet has all these bugs as it was a beta. It it was say $30 then I would say it's a great effort. A small team or budget is no excuse for a $60 game that runs like this. But if it were $30 then I'd say it's perfect but hopefully patches will be able to fix most of the issues.
@m3Boarder32 said:
@ShepardCommandr said:
so much for that "un compromised" 4k performance
game is still shite tho
Well according to PC Gamers it’s compromised on a GTX 1080 Ti too
The problem is the A.i. flowgraphs. Cryengine 4 was not developed for RPG's in mind. This is why it stutters bad and has slow loading. The engine is trying to do something it wasn't optimally coded to do. Optimizing is about getting optimal performance from it's minimal required hardware resource and the Cryengine was optimized for FPS environmental mapping and their physics algorithms, particle effects..etc and was largely neglected by Crytek after Ryse anyway. All they focused on in recent years was VR but even Cryengine 5 is dated as far as a universal, Multiplatform engine goes...I mean you wouldn't want to make a racing game or anything using it. Even just to make a walking sim, the game will have performance issues...just look at Everyone's Gone to the Rapture or Robinson Journey, they run like shit cause it's a shit engine. all it could ever do was make nice graphics but now UE4 and others are doing that and surpassing in performance at the same time.
But according to that other thread if it's not X resolution/60fps it doesn't count. :P
I don't know if that's the point that was made...it was just a difference between what we are talking about when we say "4k." 60v30fps is what we were really talking about, until somehow my thread turned to hdr (peeps sidetrack a lot, I guess). Anyways...yeah, this game runs pretty poorly. I was playing today on my 1440/144hz gsync, and it was mostly getting 70s/80s, but I know pcgamer had the 1080ti at 37 average or something. So pc could lock that in at 30 for what'd be VERY smooth for console people. 30fps angers me though, so if I play on my tv I'll run it at 1440/vsync and enjoy it at 60hz. I have to do that with Assassin's Creed Origins too...it runs 50+ but is so variable (4k) that I've got screen tearing all over (mostly 60+fps) and with vsync on, it drops to 30 here and there, making a very janky experience. But if I run it at 1440 on the 4k tv, it's sharper than 1080 and still smooth.
It's all about the smoothness. Anyways...just wanted to say, if it was my thread and op you were referencing, that I never said it "doesn't count." I just made the claim that 60v30fps is enourmous, and 60fps with lower resolution beats higher resolution/30fps.
Doesn't matter when less than 100 people will actually buy the game, lol.
It topped the steam charts. Seems to be doing fairly well. 5th place with over 60K concurrent players.
Okay, less than 100,000.
It peaked at 69,680. That's at least 69,000 units sold on Steam alone. When you factor in other distribution platforms and consoles, you're probably over 100k by now.
Doesn't matter when less than 100 people will actually buy the game, lol.
It topped the steam charts. Seems to be doing fairly well. 5th place with over 60K concurrent players.
Okay, less than 100,000.
It peaked at 69,680. That's at least 69,000 units sold on Steam alone. When you factor in other distribution platforms and consoles, you're probably over 100k by now.
According to Steamspy, 165k copies on Steam have sold already looks like this game is going to be a hit.
@Johnny-n-Roger: Just find it amusing that this game was chosen to illustrate the superiority of pc when even PCs that cost several times the price of the most expensive console struggle to run this smoothly at 4k. I honestly couldn't give two flying fvcks about which toy each one prefers to play its games. I'm not the one trying to justify my purchases.
Log in to comment