I remember in the manual for Mechwarrior 2 they recommended a cray supercomputer to run the game with the highest settings
a p1 166mhz??
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I remember in the manual for Mechwarrior 2 they recommended a cray supercomputer to run the game with the highest settings
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?
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.
that way in the future when new stuff comes out we can experience it in even better graphics
Would you have been happier if they removed all the very high options?
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)
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?
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 suitablethe could always render gameplay demos at 30fps or whatever after theyve finished playing it on low settings.
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.
Nope.
Trust me.
This is my job.
You are wrong.
Sorry.
Ho-ho! Yup - them GI's are prolly rocking away with the 9800GTX's as we speak!
No - I hear what you're saying.
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.
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.
Video games are not made to run resolutions over 1280x1024. .