![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Yoshiyuki Blade
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2005
- Messages
- 2,881
Yes when you include max in-game settings, max resolution the monitor is capable of, and max AA/AF, its "max quality," but not "max settings." As a few others chimed in here, the phrase "max settings" is used to describe maximum in-game settings excluding resolution, AA, AF and any other notable exceptions. Look at it this way, if someone said "I can play the game at 30 fps with max settings at 800x600 no AA/AF" (and their system is capable of higher res/AA/AF), are you just gonna say they're wrong because the resolution and AA/AF isn't also maxed? If so, how do you think they should have worded it?
I'm still under the impression that Yerli didn't mean to include AA when he said maxed settings. Yes, there was mention of 1920x1200 resolution and "maxed settings," but no mention of AA at all. And if an SLI configuration can average 20 fps, its good in my book.
Sort of like Quad core support?He has a track record all the way from FarCry's "64bit" support. The man is willing to lie to sell games and his engine, its quite transparent.
"Shack: How significant are differences between the DX9 and DX10 versions of the game? Are there any actual gameplay distinctions?
Cevat Yerli: For single-player the difference is only in visual quality, there are no gameplay differences. Visually the imagery has more depth though 3D post processing, looks more cinematic through motion blur systems interacting and surfaces are more crisper in detail and 3D. The lighting and post processing goes through an extended next-generation HDR rendering system."
That took me 20 seconds to find by typing in "Cevat yerli on system specs" in a google search and finding the first quote on a result. http://www.shacknews.com/featuredarticle.x?id=639
Everything he said in that paragraph was false.
Oh geez. You need to read up on some of his lies. He stated that Crysis is CPU bound, would benefit more from a lower clocked Quad and an overclocked Dual. I think it was Tom's Hardware that had to offer a retraction after a reader proved that even though 4 cores of a Quad might be doing calculations at very low resolutions, they are trading off tasks more rapidly than performance monitors can usually detect.
I'm still open to agree/disagree on any other quotes I haven't come across or discussed, including the subject of quad core, but I'll need a direct quote(s) regarding that before I can give an educated opinion. I'll look into it.
As for the quote from Shack News, Yerli's statements pretty much reflect how it is in the actual game. Yes, I'm fully aware that disabling "Very High" on DX9 was mostly artificial, and most of the same visual effects on DX10 can be replicated with DX9. But keep in mind that Shack News asked about differences between the DX9 and DX10 versions of the game. It was poorly worded, and gave Yerli some room to answer it more straightforward than usual.
They should have asked "Are there any exclusive and significantly noticeable differences in visual effects that only DX10 is capable of in comparison to DX9?" That's a well-worded question and is more specific about what we wanted to know. In the end, it was completely up to Crytek to make the DX9 version look almost identical to DX10 if they wanted, but they didn't want to, and that's how it turned out.
It can't be done on Delta, and if so after a lot of practice. If it was a multiplayer game and I was getting 40fps and you were getting 10, who would have had the playable machine? By your reasoning I could spend an agonizing 10 hours playing the first level at 3 seconds per frame and just make it through it. Hey it wouldn't be enjoyable, but it'd be playable gosh darn it!
The difference between your example and mine is that I went out of my way to try it for myself. And as I said, I died twice the entire time, which aint that bad in my opinion. The time it took to do this was hardly different than it was at higher framerates. I still 2-shotted each flying alien with Gauss without missing, and I shot each bullet almost back-to-back as I kept the laser pointer on its body. It's not like I camped in a corner for hours hoping for the right moment to strike. My strategy was identical to what I normally do at lower settings/higher framerates, but a few slip-ups made me die twice. And no, it's not because I lacked sufficient fps to do everything perfectly. I made the same slip-ups at better fps. I'm simply not perfect.
If you can play through the first level at 3 fps without any problems, then I think the game is playable for you. I personally draw the line of "playability" at the point where I can't complete the level the way I want to (but I could at higher framerates).
For multiplayer, the framerate is *always* way different than single player. Resources aren't wasted on insane draw distances, motion blur effects, and other eyecandy. My fps is always consistently and significantly higher on multiplayer than on single player at the same settings simply because a lot of the fluff gets removed.
Misleading statements come to no surprise at all. I go out of my way to look for those every time I read something of interest. For false statements, I won't be too surprised, but he really had to have slipped up on a statement if it was falsifiable.
Yes, I understand where you're getting at. He was the center of attention when it came to knowing what we can expect about the game performance-wise. But I also have to realize that he talks like an advertiser who will use these sleazy tactics to sell something. This is the primary reason why I avoided reading interviews about the game up until now. And again, I wouldn't be surprised if some of his other statements were complete lies, but it doesn't mean that *everything* he said was a lie. He just needs more practice at being deceptive
. Again, you use the word "playable" when talking about SLI. Judging by what I can do with a single GTX, I'm confident that I'll get "playable" framerates with that kind of horsepower, but that's just me. I've played through entire games at minimum settings and shitty framerates (Doom 3 with a Geforce 2 comes to mind), but I still consider it playable, as crazy as it sounds. Again, the term "playable" is relative from person to person. I'm much more lenient on what I consider playable.As for the analogy, if your neighbor asked you "Did you kill my dog?" and you (being a smartass) responded "No, it was the gravity from the fall combined with the impact on the concrete pavement that cracked your dog's skull, effectively killing it," it does make literal sense (though it sounds goofy on an everyday down-to-earth level
). Again it comes from poorly worded questioning. But if your neighbor asked you, "Did you commit an action that lead up to my dog's death?" it would be much more difficult to dodge. If you said no (followed by a reason of any sort) it would most likely be considered a lie once the entire scenario is disclosed. But hell you might get away with "No, even though I was the one who threw your dog off the overpass, I have a mental disorder made me do it without my consent. I was in no way involved because I was not in control of my actions during that time." but that opens a whole new level of argumentation BS, which will involve further investigation of your mental health. It all depends on how the question is asked. If a lenient question is asked, it gives people more room to play with the answer.
