Doesn't Crysis make you wonder...

J-Mag

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 21, 2004
Messages
3,640
My big complaint about making a game that can not be run smoothly at MAX on the current high end gear is this. I'm going to play the game now!

Would you have been happier if they removed all the very high options?
 

s10010001

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 17, 2002
Messages
7,503
Would you have been happier if they removed all the very high options?

I would be happier if the game was coded to run on todays hardware. There is a very small handful of people who will be upgrading to play crysis, the rest of the people in the real world will either play it lower than it was meant to be played, or not play it at all. My guess is when they play it, and it needs 1024 or 1280 medium settings to keep it smooth, they wont think very highly of the game.

So, I say make you game run on todays hardware, and you have a better chance of success. Even if that means, cutting some stuff out of the game...

...but then again, how many "next" gen games were made to break sales records.. We have seen them come out time and time again, most of them and great to look at for a while, maybe even play thru the entire game once or twice, but no earth shattering sales.


HL2 for example... Ran good on the hardware of its times, and a few patches made it look even better as hardware progressed... ton and tons of sale (greatest game of all time right) But that game not only looked good but ran smooth on high settings with the video cards of its time.




EDIT: myself, im willing to upgrade for the game, and will enjoy the top of the line graphics, but im in that handful.
 

aybdude42

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 24, 2006
Messages
261
I would be happier if the game was coded to run on todays hardware. There is a very small handful of people who will be upgrading to play crysis, the rest of the people in the real world will either play it lower than it was meant to be played, or not play it at all. My guess is when they play it, and it needs 1024 or 1280 medium settings to keep it smooth, they wont think very highly of the game.

So, I say make you game run on todays hardware, and you have a better chance of success. Even if that means, cutting some stuff out of the game...

...but then again, how many "next" gen games were made to break sales records.. We have seen them come out time and time again, most of them and great to look at for a while, maybe even play thru the entire game once or twice, but no earth shattering sales.


HL2 for example... Ran good on the hardware of its times, and a few patches made it look even better as hardware progressed... ton and tons of sale (greatest game of all time right) But that game not only looked good but ran smooth on high settings with the video cards of its time.




EDIT: myself, im willing to upgrade for the game, and will enjoy the top of the line graphics, but im in that handful.

Who says it was meant to be played on very high?

I think it is great that they made it have better graphics than current rigs can handle, that way in the future when new stuff comes out we can experience it in even better graphics.

I believe that people just get all butthurt because they cant brag about playing on the highest setting... i mean come on look at how beautiful it is on high!
 

Toytown

Gawd
Joined
Jan 13, 2005
Messages
996
that way in the future when new stuff comes out we can experience it in even better graphics

But as the poster above mentioned, if you have already played the game through once, theres probably only a small chance you will play it through again just to see the "Very High" settings.

I completely agree with his thinking as its the same for me and i wouldnt return to the title in a year or so, in the same way i dont return to my old single player games anymore to see how they look at high resolutions and multitudes of AA applied to them. I can understand it for MMORPG's where you're going to be playing the game a lot longer (years possibly) so you get the advantage of it, but i suspect (probably incorrectly), that a lot of people will play the game at launch, with whatever options are available to them to play it smoothly, but not return to it in a years time.

Would you have been happier if they removed all the very high options?

If the game cannot sustain a playable framerate with them options then whats the point? It does nothing for the consumer as they will only get to see them quality visuals when taking screens or whatnot. It benefits crytek by allowing them to show screenshots which are just not doable on current hardware and allows them to market a game with screenshots which the end consumer isnt going to see (if he wants a playable game)
 

devil22

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 1, 2003
Messages
3,837
But as the poster above mentioned, if you have already played the game through once, theres probably only a small chance you will play it through again just to see the "Very High" settings.

I completely agree with his thinking as its the same for me and i wouldnt return to the title in a year or so, in the same way i dont return to my old single player games anymore to see how they look at high resolutions and multitudes of AA applied to them. I can understand it for MMORPG's where you're going to be playing the game a lot longer (years possibly) so you get the advantage of it, but i suspect (probably incorrectly), that a lot of people will play the game at launch, with whatever options are available to them to play it smoothly, but not return to it in a years time.



If the game cannot sustain a playable framerate with them options then whats the point? It does nothing for the consumer as they will only get to see them quality visuals when taking screens or whatnot. It benefits crytek by allowing them to show screenshots which are just not doable on current hardware and allows them to market a game with screenshots which the end consumer isnt going to see (if he wants a playable game)

I think they did a good thing by adding in graphics that only future hardware can run. With some other games I play, CS:S for example, really there hasn't been another game since it came out in 2004 that I care about, but it's graphics are very dated, it's nice to know that if crysis or one of its mods is the only game I care about for the next several years, it won't be so graphically boring during all that time as previous games I played for years [talking MP here]. I'll never understand how someone can take a good thing and present it as if it were nothing but bad, surely you can at least see some merit in this?
 

s10010001

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 17, 2002
Messages
7,503
well I am glad im not the only one who see it liek that...

Crysis = Doom3... lol ... So who is playing doom rihgt now at 1920x1200 8xAA 16x AF?
 

devil22

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 1, 2003
Messages
3,837
well I am glad im not the only one who see it liek that...

Crysis = Doom3... lol ... So who is playing doom rihgt now at 1920x1200 8xAA 16x AF?

Not sure if you are replying to me or replied before you saw my post, but, I don't know about how many people are playing Doom 3, but why compare crysis to doom 3, think about it as the new CS and CS:S, those games are old as hell and probably the most common MP FPS played too, would certainly be nice if they had modern graphics because the designers put in extreme graphical options that couldn't be played back when they were released, beyond resolution and AA/AF.
 

BladeVenom

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 29, 2005
Messages
7,707
But as the poster above mentioned, if you have already played the game through once, theres probably only a small chance you will play it through again just to see the "Very High" settings.

I completely agree with his thinking as its the same for me and i wouldnt return to the title in a year or so, in the same way i dont return to my old single player games anymore to see how they look at high resolutions and multitudes of AA applied to them.

If there are good mods for it, I will be playing it 3 or 4 years from now. Look how long Half-life was played because of the Counterstrike mod.
 

Toytown

Gawd
Joined
Jan 13, 2005
Messages
996
but why compare crysis to doom 3, think about it as the new CS and CS:S, those games are old as hell and probably the most common MP FPS played too

I think hes basically saying that doom3/crysis are/will be both predominently single player games, like farcry mp its hard to see people playing crysis mp in the sort of numbers that CS/CSS enjoy. So the argument that crysis is going to look awesome in 2 years time when your hardware is good enough to play it, is the same as saying, well who loads up doom3 to play it at blahblah res/video options today.

IF crysis does have multiplayer that gathers the same amount of online players that CS/CSS have, then of course the very high graphics make sense, otherwise they will have been sacrificed for a smooth single player experience and most people will never actually play the game with them, which means the devs have wasted there time generating them for anything but marketing.
 

jaegertech

Gawd
Joined
May 10, 2005
Messages
603
IF crysis does have multiplayer that gathers the same amount of online players that CS/CSS have, then of course the very high graphics make sense, otherwise they will have been sacrificed for a smooth single player experience and most people will never actually play the game with them, which means the devs have wasted there time generating them for anything but marketing.

I've played the MP beta and it is definitely fun, but I wouldn't call it polished. For instance, people playing at lower detail levels have less rendered. This means that while you are prone behind a bush sniping through a gap between branches, all they can see is some stooge lying in the open on a hill. You could call that a problematic state of affairs; there really shouldn't be a reward for making the game as ugly as possible.
 

Frosteh

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 30, 2004
Messages
3,664
The usage of the term lag has been blurred throughout the years to incorporate both internet connectivity and/or framerate issues. I think he's speaking of the latter ;)

Lag is just short for latency, which is the measure of time it takes to do something, like send a packet, render a frame or any other number of arbitrary measurements, traditionally it's been used to describe ping times from clients to servers with online games, but it doesn't have to.

When we talk of "lagging" we simply mean the latency has increased beyond reasonable limits, this can be reasonably applied to the time it takes to drawn frames (i.e a low frame rate)
 

PornoSatan

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 3, 2004
Messages
3,493
Not a very thoughtful use of the term. If you think lag- think back when you were playing quake and you got the phone jack popping up or high ping whatever.

Haha, you dont even have to think about the little phone jack icon popping up. Just think about playing it on dial up period. But regardless, I've seen other people (not just the op) use lag with reference to framerate issues.

Lag is just short for latency, which is the measure of time it takes to do something, like send a packet, render a frame or any other number of arbitrary measurements, traditionally it's been used to describe ping times from clients to servers with online games, but it doesn't have to.

When we talk of "lagging" we simply mean the latency has increased beyond reasonable limits, this can be reasonably applied to the time it takes to drawn frames (i.e a low frame rate)

You just regurgitated what I said. If you think not, then maybe I should have been more specific.
 
Joined
Jun 10, 2004
Messages
3,954
I would have to disagree. I too have worked in the industry (recently, (though now I'm in IT,)) and we tested on engineering samples for all manner of upcoming products. However, we also tested hardware that was several years old. To think that testing of a PC game product is limited in scope to only what is currently available is silly. We even tested on obscure/unpopular hardware that most people were not likely to have (like mid/high-end workstation 3D chipsets, etc.) We weren't pushy about bugs on this sort of hardware, but we at least documented it.

Anyway, lots of high-end devs get engineering samples long before release, and while they don't test exclusively on them, they do test them. They also provide feedback to the hardware manufacturers for drivers issues etc.



It depends on how high up the 'food chain' a certain dev house is.The Cryteks and ID's of the world get special preference.This is simple fact,last year,most game devs did not get a GTX months in advance of everyone else,but ID did,as did Crytek.Not dozens of cards mind you,but two or three,as did Remedy.
 

Sobek

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 13, 2002
Messages
2,727
HL2 for example... Ran good on the hardware of its times, and a few patches made it look even better as hardware progressed... ton and tons of sale (greatest game of all time right) But that game not only looked good but ran smooth on high settings with the video cards of its time.
.

Keep in mind HL2 was delayed a whole year+ due to the "Stolen code" so hardware had time to catch up some.
 

Nembot

n00b
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Messages
46
We need games like Crysis that push the technical envelope onwards, just in the same way we did when Q3 was released...

It's a simple as that.
 

Dethred

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 30, 2006
Messages
2,543
Its a demo guys, SLI, Multi-threading, and 64 bit support is not in the demo. (Hopefully) It'll get better on release and your questions will be answered.
 

devil22

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 1, 2003
Messages
3,837
Its a demo guys, SLI, Multi-threading, and 64 bit support is not in the demo. (Hopefully) It'll get better on release and your questions will be answered.

You have a source for that "multi-threading isn't in" assertion?
 

Thunder888

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 11, 2004
Messages
221
I think they have the hardware to push it , only thing is there not selling it to the public yet because of the price, they obviously give it to the military and other places first , then worry about consumer products.

Ho-ho! Yup - them GI's are prolly rocking away with the 9800GTX's as we speak!:D

No - I hear what you're saying.
 

evanisthecoastie

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 14, 2006
Messages
4,708
I think they have the hardware to push it , only thing is there not selling it to the public yet because of the price, they obviously give it to the military and other places first , then worry about consumer products.

Hello, I am in the military.

and...



no
 

Nenu

[H]ardened
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
20,165
Crytek could have left out the high and ultra high settings for a later patch when hardware can run it at highest resolutions.
Instead they have given us those settings from the start.

I'm happy they have given us high/ultra high from the start as it allows us a preview of what newer hardware will be able to render and the quality we can expect at a later date.
This does indeed give the game more longevity.

Who would prefer that the game was released with lesser quality settings?
I wouldnt.
 

Dethred

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 30, 2006
Messages
2,543
From what I understand the game isn't going to have the highest settings that we've seen in some of the renders and videos. I have read that Crytek will patch in features and graphics options once the hardware catches up, because honestly, by this time next year I bet high end machines will be able to run it at max resolution with absolutely everything on the highest quality settings. Considering the only thing my machine can't do is play the game above 1440x900 and any AA shows that Cevat Yerli's "18 month longevity" for Crysis performance will require patched-in features.
 

bazylik

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 18, 2005
Messages
1,405
the could always render gameplay demos at 30fps or whatever after theyve finished playing it on low settings.
you're going in the right direction... but the had to play it on their highest settings, even if it was 4-5 fps they just rendered the gameplay at whatever fps they felt suitable
 

CopyThat

Gawd
Joined
Oct 26, 2000
Messages
708
I'm not using BETA drivers. You said you have everything on "High," but you said in your previous post that you should be able to play "everything at the highest settings with a 8800GTX," and I was talking about the settings on Very High at 1280x1024 in Vista.


Hmmmm...I have an 8800GTX as well. The HW Scan set mine at 1024x768 and all VERY HIGH! (No AA though :()
This may have been due to the Quad core and 8GB of RAM *Shrug* I Dunno.
Ran great
 

magoo

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
14,492
Nope.

Trust me.

This is my job.

You are wrong.

Sorry.

If the guy who makes the game cant run it on very high settings, how does "he" know it will work at all when the "right time comes". Its absurd to think these things arent tested in some uber form prior to retail release.:eek:
I am not blind to the fact that the game has to be playable to many systems across a wide spectrum as well.
 

magoo

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
14,492
Ho-ho! Yup - them GI's are prolly rocking away with the 9800GTX's as we speak!:D

No - I hear what you're saying.

I was in the military.......I have a better rig than 90% of the US Government.
Sad to say.
 

s10010001

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 17, 2002
Messages
7,503
From what I understand the game isn't going to have the highest settings that we've seen in some of the renders and videos. I have read that Crytek will patch in features and graphics options once the hardware catches up, because honestly, by this time next year I bet high end machines will be able to run it at max resolution with absolutely everything on the highest quality settings. Considering the only thing my machine can't do is play the game above 1440x900 and any AA shows that Cevat Yerli's "18 month longevity" for Crysis performance will require patched-in features.


by next year who is going to be playing it?

Really, unless the MP is that good, no one will be. SP games don't get played very long at all.
 

Nenu

[H]ardened
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
20,165
by next year who is going to be playing it?

Really, unless the MP is that good, no one will be. SP games don't get played very long at all.

I occasionally install Farcry and play it through again as its a great game.
Crysis looks to be even better so I cannot agree with you.
 

BladeVenom

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 29, 2005
Messages
7,707
Crytek could have left out the high and ultra high settings for a later patch when hardware can run it at highest resolutions.
Instead they have given us those settings from the start.

I'm happy they have given us high/ultra high from the start as it allows us a preview of what newer hardware will be able to render and the quality we can expect at a later date.
This does indeed give the game more longevity.

Who would prefer that the game was released with lesser quality settings?
I wouldnt.

Maybe they should have just kept the higher settings hidden or hard to find.

For some reason this whole thing reminds of Spinal Tap.

Nigel Tufnel: The numbers all go to eleven. Look, right across the board, eleven, eleven, eleven and...
Marty DiBergi: Oh, I see. And most amps go up to ten?
Nigel Tufnel: Exactly.
Marty DiBergi: Does that mean it's louder? Is it any louder?
Nigel Tufnel: Well, it's one louder, isn't it? It's not ten. You see, most blokes, you know, will be playing at ten. You're on ten here, all the way up, all the way up, all the way up, you're on ten on your guitar. Where can you go from there? Where?
Marty DiBergi: I don't know.
Nigel Tufnel: Nowhere. Exactly. What we do is, if we need that extra push over the cliff, you know what we do?
Marty DiBergi: Put it up to eleven.
Nigel Tufnel: Eleven. Exactly. One louder.
Marty DiBergi: Why don't you just make ten louder and make ten be the top number and make that a little louder?
Nigel Tufnel: [pause] These go to eleven.
 
Top