I admit it, I was wrong.

Red Falcon said:
You know what your mentality is? Communism. :rolleyes:

Seriously, if I want to run games at 30Hz @ 3850x2400 max settings, why the hell shouldn't I be 'allowed' to?
Who's going to be setting the rules? You? lol

Whatever. Sounds like since you don't have the hardware to push it to the limit, nobody else should be allowed to. We should all have the same hardware.


As I said, communism. If you love it so much why don't you live in Russia or China. They're both doing so well... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

cause neither Russia nor China is communist ar-tard.
 
Red Falcon said:
You know what your mentality is? Communism. :rolleyes:

Seriously, if I want to run games at 30Hz @ 3850x2400 max settings, why the hell shouldn't I be 'allowed' to?
Who's going to be setting the rules? You? lol

Whatever. Sounds like since you don't have the hardware to push it to the limit, nobody else should be allowed to. We should all have the same hardware.


As I said, communism. If you love it so much why don't you live in Russia or China. They're both doing so well... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Please tell me you have some sort of mental handicap, because thats all I can think of.

Let me break it down for you guys. Crysis demands a lot. We know this. So you jack it to some absolute max setting on your monitor and are somehow shocked when it doesn't play as well?

Our technology isn't there yet. Dan, you seem to think hes insulting you...hes not. Hes just pointing out that people who run such crazy-high rez should understand they're likely gonna have a performance hit, not to mention on a game thats already a resource hog. Don't complain, you're the one who jacked it up, etc etc.

Of course when the 4870x2/4890s come out, a few of those in Crossfire will obviously dominate Crysis....with a whole 50FPS at 2560x1600. ;)
 
Blown 89 said:
You calling BS really doesn't change anything IMO. I played it, your opinion doesn't change that.....sounds like your rig needs some maintenance.
Click to expand...
If you think you played Crysis smoothly on very high settings with your sig rig then your head needs some maintenance. So you think every tech site including [H]ardocp is wrong about the game being unplayable on very high even with better setups than yours? I actually played through a few levels with an 8800gt and better cpu than yours and it sure as hell wasnt playable on very high. :rolleyes:
 
Also, we don't even really know what they mean by "optimized engine" or whatever their marketing jargon used. For all we know it will be a dumbed down Crysis engine with lower polygon counts and things of that nature, something that won't be easily noticeable. If that's sloppy programming, well what can I say.
 
lol

I didn't expect you guys to take me seriously!

Watch out for the communist computers! They won't let you play Crysis at max unless everyone else can. Ha! :D
 
SouLXIV said:
cause neither Russia nor China is communist ar-tard.
Click to expand...
...

The Tienenman Square protester was actually Tony Stark. He crushed the tank formation and then went on to Beijing and tore down the old government and erected a new fair democracy for the people and lived happily ever after. The End.
 
I'm in total agreement with Netrat33

it really is pathetic that so many PC gamers bitch and moan *all day* about companies that make games with the current console generation's specs in mind, and then when a company finally makes something with the next generation's PC specs in mind, they bitch and moan that they can't max it out right away (or very soon after) with 60+ FPS.

As other posters have said.... can ANYONE please post screenshots of a game that looks anywhere NEAR as good as Crysis and also features expansive outdoor environments? Anyone???


Also, i think it is just unbelievably stupid that DanD can take the developer's comments about the next version of the game being easier to handle on a 600 dollar computer (possibly..... it isn't even a clear statement) as an example of the current version of the engine being poorly optimized. Software programs can be made more efficient from version to version, that is just the way software development works.

Is it so hard to fathom that with many more months of coding, the Crytek developers will be able to make certain aspects of the game engine better, and when taken collectively, the improvements can add up a fair bit?
 
Netrat33 said:
You can "want" all day every day. You're not getting. And people complaining about this shows they have unrealistic expectations. PC gamers (myself included) should not expect pc games to push boundries and become unhappy when it actually does raise the bar. End of story. I don't know what else to say to you.

Which is funny since, I'm pretty much standing by your original statements on Crysis, but you're objecting to it. Ok.
Click to expand...

I'm objecting to your statement that people who run games at 2560x1600 shouldn't be allowed to complain about performance. I disagree with that statement and I think its' bullshit. I have very realistic expectations about game performance and I don't mind games pushing the limits. I've even stated that I'd be happy with Crysis running well at 1920x1200 as long as I could max out the eye candy. I'd rather drop the resolution than the quality. Hell I'll take 1680x1050 if I can max all the eye candy out and get some AA and AF thrown into the mix.

I very well know what a difference there is between the demands of gaming at 1920x1200 or less vs. 2560x1600. Still that doesn't mean that my voice shouldn't be heard because I've got nice stuff. It also doesn't mean that I can't want for more performance. Unlike some people who are bitching about performance I'm not. I know what this technology can do and I know full well what the limits are. I'm the guy saying I would love to see Crysis running smooth as melted butter at 2560x1600 with maxed out settings, but that I never expected any cards anytime soon to make that a reality. On the other hand I'm also the guy who tells other people who are bitching that the newer cards aren't twice as fast as the 8800Ultra that their expectations are out of whack as those types of jumps in the video card market are extremely rare and that they are spoiled and foolish to think that every new generation will be what the 8800GTX was to the 7900GTX.

I simply stated this thread more to comment on Crysis and the fact that despite my earlier statements concerning the game just sucking performance wise on the basis of its' graphics and demands alone. Crytek by their own admission have stated in a round about way that the game could be optimized better and could run far better than it does on given hardware.
 
cannondale06 said:
So you think every tech site including [H]ardocp is wrong about the game being unplayable on very high even with better setups than yours?
Click to expand...
Take a look through the old Crysis threads and you'll find many people like me who had no problems. It's not my fault you couldn't follow the guides for optimizing the game.
 
not the subjectivity argument again. some people consider low framerates playable, while others don't, that's what it comes down to. The people who can tolerate single digit FPS tell the people that can't that they need to optimize their pc. nothing new under the sun
 
damonposey said:
not the subjectivity argument again. some people consider low framerates playable, while others don't, that's what it comes down to. The people who can tolerate single digit FPS tell the people that can't that they need to optimize their pc. nothing new under the sun
Click to expand...
my favorite was people taking screenshots showing fps number. hell I took a screenshot showing well over 100fps but I still didnt average much better than 30 fps on a mix of med/high settings with an 8800gt.
 
Blown 89 said:
Take a look through the old Crysis threads and you'll find many people like me who had no problems. It's not my fault you couldn't follow the guides for optimizing the game.
Click to expand...

Um, more like optimized bullshit. :D
 
Crysis was a Fun game. I enjoyed playing it.

I played it on a 7900GS and X2-3800 first time through. Was a Blast.

Played it on my Current Rig another time through. Was a blast and looked "pretty".

It was a fun game with some new elements that I really liked.

Isnt that what really matters? That you enjoyed playing it?
 
Dan_D said:
I simply stated this thread more to comment on Crysis and the fact that despite my earlier statements concerning the game just sucking performance wise on the basis of its' graphics and demands alone. Crytek by their own admission have stated in a round about way that the game could be optimized better and could run far better than it does on given hardware.
Click to expand...

That means nothing though when it comes to Crysis. Define high detail. Are they fixing memory issues? Or rather, are they reworking it so that lighting is done completely differently? Just because the quantity of frames improves doesn't mean the quality of the frames improve. I can honestly see Crysis looking even worse after the "optimizations". One thing though, I would definately not take what he's stating at face value with assumptions. And it's ashame people have to play on settings that weren't made for current PCs. Games use to be future proof, but some clever marketing person one day decided that games could sell more if you would just relabel medium as high, and most people would never notice the difference, and think it's as good as high on another game which was made to be futureproof. High detail is just a meaningless phrase without a definition.
 
sabregen said:
I love when [H] editors are wrong...it happens so often! Okay, that's not true. Well Dan, I'm not sure what to say. A lot of people have been bitching for a really long time, and I would agree with you that many are not educated enough on why it runs like crap, as to actually make a compelling or comprehensible argument. That being said, I will agree with Deviationer in that you should be able to throw the top of the line video card (or system, for that matter) that comes out after the games release, and finally be able to max it out. The last time I can recall this kind of bullshit happening was Doom3, trying to run with the uncompressed textures. I had a friend that went from an A62 3200 (oc'd of course) with 2GB of RAM and a x800XT PE to a Opty 170 (OC'd) w/4GB of RAM and an x1900XTX 512, and still couldn't run at a playable framerate with everything cranked.
Click to expand...

Your friend must have had something configured wrong. I played Doom 3 completely maxed at 2560x1600 with an X24400+ and X1900XTX 512, and it was as smooth as glass.
 
I've seen some old stained glass that wasn't smooth at all. in short, add 'smooth as glass' to the list of subjective terms to describe framerate fluidity.
 
Dan_D said:
All this time I had defended Crysis for being so tough on the systems and being well optimized when many said it wasn't. Granted I still think that many people swearing it was poorly coded aren't well educated on the subject, but that's not the point. I think my conclusion was generally reasonable in remembering how things were with Farcry and seeing at what all Crysis is capable of and what kind of demands it might place on the system due to the sheer amount of polygons and physics calculations. It is and should be more demanding than other games so it still reigns partially true. However it doesn't have to be as bad as it is by Crytek's own admission.

When Crytek stated that Crysis Warhead would run on low end hardware with high detail (even not knowing what resolution that will be possible at) I figured Crysis had to be a piece of shit code-wise. This was confirmed by statments by Crytek indicating that they would fix the performance problems in Crysis but that the fix would take quite a bit of time. That tells me right there that they know its' a piece of shit as well. They've pretty much admitted it was coded poorly and not optimized very damn well.

So I'm wrong. Mark your calenders folks, I don't say it often. Discuss........................
Click to expand...

Let me clear this up a bit.

Crysis is coded like a piece of shit. Crytek said there would be multiple hardware utilization benefits: multithreading, 4gb of RAM, CPU dependency, ability to run the game on max settings with current gen hardware. Crytek knew it was coded like a piece of shit. Crytek needs to gather support for new game since Crysis didn't sell up to expectations. Crytek's quick fix is to release the same game with a different voice actor and character name. Crytek "admits" their programming was shoddy on Crysis, and says they'll fix the new one. Crytek is full of shit.
 
Dethred said:
Let me clear this up a bit.

Crysis is coded like a piece of shit. Crytek said there would be multiple hardware utilization benefits: multithreading, 4gb of RAM, CPU dependency, ability to run the game on max settings with current gen hardware. Crytek knew it was coded like a piece of shit. Crytek needs to gather support for new game since Crysis didn't sell up to expectations. Crytek's quick fix is to release the same game with a different voice actor and character name. Crytek "admits" their programming was shoddy on Crysis, and says they'll fix the new one. Crytek is full of shit.
Click to expand...

Sorry but theres just no evidence to support that Crysis is "coded like a piece of shit", please present some if you feel you need the rest of us to believe this "fact".

The game is multithreaded and does make use of multiple cores, it's not something that is especially easy to code but at least they've got something, we're still waiting on decent multithreading from most of the other big players in the business people like Valve, Epic, id, those who've attempted it have done no better, in fact name a current game out which does make better use of (let's say) quad core.

4Gb of RAM does help, Crysis is large memory aware, recommendations for RAM usauly take into account that the OS can use rather a lot, such a Vista using close to 2Gb when yuo have 4Gb installed.

The comments about running in max settings were vauge at best, they never listed any specific resolution nor did they list AA/AF settings, although I may have missed somwhere where they did list these things, in which case could you link me to these examples please.

The rest of your comments is the same as above but with more swearing so I will respond in kind by saying, read the fucking bloody above ^.
 
Question to Crytek haters: do you see any other game engines doing as much as CryEngine 2 and performing better? No? Shut the fuck up about optimization then.
 
meatfestival said:
Question to Crytek haters: do you see any other game engines doing as much as CryEngine 2 and performing better? No? Shut the fuck up about optimization then.
Click to expand...
sorry but Crysis looks like ass on the inside environments and still runs pretty bad there too.
 
Frostex said:
Sorry but theres just no evidence to support that Crysis is "coded like a piece of shit", please present some if you feel you need the rest of us to believe this "fact".
Click to expand...
So when the company that coded the fuggin' thing comes out and says, "Okay, we admit it, we could've optimized it better," that's not evidence? There's nothing factual about the PEOPLE WHO CODED IT saying, "The coding isn't great."

Ze goggles. Zey do nothing.
 
Dallows said:
What inside environments? All I really remember was the cave and a bit of the boat.
Click to expand...
Inside any of the buildings, boat or huts the graphics look like poo. Tables, walls, even objects like bananas look like they belong in Far Cry not Crysis. Even on very high settings those things were a joke compared to the outside graphics. STALKER on full dynamic lighting had stunning indoor visuals and very realistic looking objects and textures while getting a much high framerate. Yes I know STALKER looked dull outside...
 
COD4 looks really good... runs fast on slower machines...and love SLI/XFIRE and scales well

same cant be said for crysis.... i am also tired of everyone using CRYSIS as the defacto bench.... its not even close to optimized
 
POPEGOLD said:
COD4 looks really good... runs fast on slower machines...and love SLI/XFIRE and scales well

same cant be said for crysis.... i am also tired of everyone using CRYSIS as the defacto bench.... its not even close to optimized
Click to expand...

Crysis DOES put enough straign on every video card product out there though to show their strengths/weaknesses.

What if something like COD4 or UT3 was the Benchmark? People would have little to motivate them to buy a GTX280 over a 8800GTS, since they both run those apps at such high speed.

Crysis has sold more Video Cards than any other game in recent history..
 
TheBluePill said:
Crysis DOES put enough straign on every video card product out there though to show their strengths/weaknesses.

What if something like COD4 or UT3 was the Benchmark? People would have little to motivate them to buy a GTX280 over a 8800GTS, since they both run those apps at such high speed.

Crysis has sold more Video Cards than any other game in recent history..
Click to expand...


YEAH i can see ATI and NVIDIA in a back room with Crytek.... hey lets make a really great looking game with sloppy code that will keep the lemmings buying bigger and better cards to play a game at high levels... even though they cant.
 
POPEGOLD said:
COD4 looks really good... runs fast on slower machines...and love SLI/XFIRE and scales well

same cant be said for crysis.... i am also tired of everyone using CRYSIS as the defacto bench.... its not even close to optimized
Click to expand...

Specifically, Yerli told German outlet PC Games that a 400 euro (roughly $620) PC could run the title, with high settings enabled, at 30 to 35 frames per second. Curiously, he did not detail the resolution at which this is possible.
Click to expand...
Hello 1024x768!

Wow. Comparing CoD4. While true it looks good. NO WHERE near as good looking as Crysis or as involved as Crysis.
 
cannondale06 said:
Inside any of the buildings, boat or huts the graphics look like poo. Tables, walls, even objects like bananas look like they belong in Far Cry not Crysis.
Click to expand...

That might be because there's hundreds of said objects which can be broken apart, picked up, thrown, or otherwise affected by physics

And regarding CoD 4, I don't think it's that well optimized. There's something wrong when the 360/PS3 version runs at a solid 60fps yet on a more powerful PC it will drop well below that even at 720p. Same thing with CoD 2. My 7800GTX would barely manage 30fps most of the time.
 
damonposey said:
Crytek, optimize your bananas!
Click to expand...
I knew I would get an ignorant comment like that if it was taken out of context. The bananas was and example of the stuff that looked like it belonged in a game from 4 years ago. Pretty much all the objects in the game especially the ones indoors looked horrible compared to the rest of the graphics.
 
cannondale06 said:
I knew I would get an ignorant comment like that if it was taken out of context. The bananas was and example of the stuff that looked like it belonged in a game from 4 years ago. Pretty much all the objects in the game especially the ones indoors looked horrible compared to the rest of the graphics.
Click to expand...

First it was indoors sucks compared to the preeminent STALKER (yes, we know, outside was a bit boring.) Now 'pretty much all' the game looks horrible. What next, Crysis looks exactly like Far Cry, or maybe even River Raid?

In context, the banana comment applies. Besides, I thought they looked quite animated.

banana.jpg
 
eggrock said:
First it was indoors sucks compared to the preeminent STALKER (yes, we know, outside was a bit boring.) Now 'pretty much all' the game looks horrible. What next, Crysis looks exactly like Far Cry, or maybe even River Raid?

In context, the banana comment applies. Besides, I thought they looked quite animated.

banana.jpg
Click to expand...
what? yes pretty much all the objects in the game that you can pick up look a little dated compared to the rest of the graphics.
 
That's funny, when I got inside the carrier I found that to be the best-looking indoor environment I'd ever "played" in a game.
 
ballpoint said:
That's funny, when I got inside the carrier I found that to be the best-looking indoor environment I'd ever "played" in a game.
Click to expand...
perhaps you should play STALKER on full dynamic lighting and check out the indoor environments. the inside of the carrier is freaking joke compared to that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top