I admit it, I was wrong.

[SPARTAN VI]

I wonder if everyone would be happy with Crysis if they coded out the very high setting and released it with a patch a few years down the line. IIRC, I'm probaby averaging 20-30fps on a mixed med-high-very high config. I'd glad there's a "poorly coded" very high setting out there. Still blows me away every time I load up the game.

 

[cannondale06]

I wonder if everyone would be happy with Crysis if they coded out the very high setting and released it with a patch a few years down the line. IIRC, I'm probaby averaging 20-30fps on a mixed med-high-very high config. I'd glad there's a "poorly coded" very high setting out there. Still blows me away every time I load up the game.

why? by the time you can play it on all v high there will be better looking games anyway.

 

[Proxy]

The guy that made float32 for STALKER, isn't he doing one for Crysis? I read some where on his site he was. http://www.thefloatingpoint.org/main/news.php It was on the front page, don't know if it's still there or not.

 

[Dan_D]

I wonder if everyone would be happy with Crysis if they coded out the very high setting and released it with a patch a few years down the line. IIRC, I'm probaby averaging 20-30fps on a mixed med-high-very high config. I'd glad there's a "poorly coded" very high setting out there. Still blows me away every time I load up the game.

Well eventually the bulk of gamers will forget about how poorly Crysis runs just as they have with Farcry. It was several card generations before Farcry could be maxed out with all features enabled. You don't hear people bitching today about how poorly optimized Farcry was.

 

[SPARTAN VI]

why? by the time you can play it on all v high there will be better looking games anyway.

Someone was talking about how it's a "blow to a gamer's psyche" when they find they cannot run at the max settings with their sparkling new diamond plated turbo charged hardware.

If that's the case, if they just hacked out the "very high" settings out of the game, it sounds like at least a handful of [H] members would've been happy. I'd hate to use the typical "ignorance is bilss" cliche, but it fits.

 

[cannondale06]

Well eventually the bulk of gamers will forget about how poorly Crysis runs just as they have with Farcry. It was several card generations before Farcry could be maxed out with all features enabled. You don't hear people bitching today about how poorly optimized Farcry was.

but very very people used the 24inch and bigger monitors when Far Cry came out. heck I played it maxed out with no AA at 1024x768(crt) on a 6600gt and that was just a midrange card from the next gen.

 

[damonposey]

People who run 2560x1600 shouldn't be allowed to complain about performance.

 

[Dan_D]

but very very people used the 24inch and bigger monitors when Far Cry came out. heck I played it maxed out with no AA at 1024x768(crt) on a 6600gt and that was just a midrange card from the next gen.

When Farcry came out I was still using a CRT. I couldn't run the game at 1600x1200 like I did with every other game at the time. In fact I had a ATI Radeon 9600Pro at the time Farcry came out. I quickly upgraded to an X800Pro and a 6800GT later than that. I didn't get acceptable performance out of Farcry until the NVIDIA Geforce 7800GTX came out. The performance on even SLI'ed 6800GT's overclocked to Ultra speeds wasn't very good once the SM3.0/HDR patches came out for the game. My 7800GTX SLI setup was actually the first setup to give me acceptable performance in Farcry as far as I was concerned.

 

[Dan_D]

People who run 2560x1600 shouldn't be allowed to complain about performance.

Why not? What is your basis for saying that?

 

[damonposey]

Why not? What is your basis for saying that?

Well, imo, it's just an uncommon and overkill gaming resolution. I doubt developers even test it for performance in games.

 

[Dan_D]

Well, imo, it's just an uncommon and overkill gaming resolution. I doubt developers even test it for performance in games.

While I admit that 2560x1600 gamers are a minority there are more of us out there than you think and we shouldn't be ignored just because the average gamer won't or can't spend the money on the 30" monitor and the video cards to go along with it.

BTW if the game runs well at 2560x1600 everything else on down should be covered as well.

 

[Chombo]

I don't think Crysis is coded perfectly but, I also don't think its a game that just won't run well. I've never had a game that ran smoothly at 25fps, but Crysis does.

Regardless of your opinions of the gameplay or the coding of Crysis. Until there is a game that is more demanding/better looking than Crysis it will be the make or break point for hardware.

Honestly, I haven't seen a game in developement that could dethrone it with the exception of Far Cry 2. I think Crysis will be the crucible for most GPUs for a while to come.

I believe it's more of a pr move to hopefully change mentality. The game ran fine on most machines. But people think they had to have High and Ultra high for everything. The game is suppose dto be scalable for 5 years ahead and everyone just ignored that. Medium looks great especially for a high end machine.

But mentally your thinking "I'm on medium. I JUST spent $500 or so on my graphics card and it's just medium. This sucks"

If they called Medium >> High and some how unlocked the game later for more detail, this wouldn't be an issue.

I couldn't agree with you more.

A $620 pc could easily have a 8800gt class video card. A 8800gt can already run Crysis on high settings. I don't think Crytek got extra performance out of the engine...just the prices on hardware dropped

QFT

Yeah I know, I just wanna see a grown man in a pink dress.

Didn't Hulk Hogan do that in The Nanny?

 

[cannondale06]

Well, imo, it's just an uncommon and overkill gaming resolution. I doubt developers even test it for performance in games.

well that has become a somewhat common resolution for enthusiasts. there should always be at least a dual card solution that can handle any game at that res. its just ridiculous that in 2008 it takes two newly introduced $650 cards to run a game on very high settings and still not have good experience at 1920 much less 2560.

 

[Litfod]

It depends on whether a) it's true that Warhead is significantly more efficient, and b) what compromises are made to image quality to achieve that efficiency.
Whatshisname also said it would be difficult to apply the changes to Crysis, which implies he's not talking about simple tricks but more fundamental changes. That could mean a lot of things including map changes rather than simply replacing shaders with more efficient versions. Hell, maybe the maps are just smaller.
I stand by the claim that the vast majority of people who have cried "poorly optimised" have no idea what they're even talking about. As I've said before, and I believe Dan has too, games that crapped on the latest hardware used to be more common and you took it for granted that your machine wasn't up to the job. Now everyone expects PCs to be like consoles, and unfortunately so do developers so games like Crysis are the exception.

 

[Deviationer]

WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG!

I'm sorry but this is just utterly fallacious reasoning, could we cut this crap out please?

"Top settings" is totaly arbitrary and decided by the developers, setting object quality to very high could mean that objects reach their max LOD at 100m away from you, or they could equally tweak that so very high object settings means that the LOD drop off is 100000000000m away from you, it's completely and utterly up to them how they scale the settings.

DO NOT ASSUME THE scaling of the low/med/high/very high settings is linear and that we simply need twice the power to go from high to very high. That is just a pure assumption.

Sorry about this rage response but this rubbish is getting out of hand now, people need to start thinking about what they're claiming here.

sounds like someone needs to calm down a bit. if you get that worked up about some random persons comments on the internet, then something is wrong.

For example, I'm pretty sure Doom 3 scaled really nicely with newer hardware. Granted it did run quite well on decent hardware when it came out.

Also look at the jump in performance between the 7XXX and 8XXX. Maybe nvidia isn't trying enough with the brand new cards since ATI has been pretty meh for awhile. When I jumped from a 7800GTX to a 8800GTS there were many games that I was then able to run at their max settings.

It's also pretty damning when the developer comes out and finally says, oh yeah, we can make the performance better. (after everyone ASSUMES that crysis just need uber rigs and brand new next-gen hardware to run at max settings)

 

[Deviationer]

WTF are you talking about on the Halo 1 port. I ran it perfectly fine on the highest settings with a Geforce 6800GT, granted the card came out after the Halo 1 port but still...

yeah from what I remember, it did ran fine, if you like gaming at 30-45fps. I remember loading it up and playing when I had my 7800GTX, it still was only 30-45fps

 

[v0idm33h]

way to man up. +1

 

[bigdogchris]

Played fine on my system. The only time I had to turn it from very high to just high was the end battle.

 

[Duro]

I never understood all the hubbub about Crysis performance problems, to be honest. The IQ-Performance ratio wasn't that unreasonable to me, but then again I had extremely low performance expectations prior to playing the beta, and I also have very little knowledge about what would define a game as "poorly coded" aside from it running like shit.

 

[cannondale06]

Played fine on my system. The only time I had to turn it from very high to just high was the end battle.

ok sure

 

[Obi_Kwiet]

You could code an engine in assembly, but by simply adding more complex shaders, higher res textures and higher polygon models, you could bring computers a thousands times more powerful than we'll ever see to their knees.

 

[sculelos]

yeah from what I remember, it did ran fine, if you like gaming at 30-45fps. I remember loading it up and playing when I had my 7800GTX, it still was only 30-45fps

What resolution where you using though? I played the game at 1152x864 with no AA and 8 AF at a steady 60fps throughout the entire game. The game did have some huge performance problems with AA though.

 

[mastercheeze]

I knew it was poorly optimized all along, like many other titles, it was pushed in development because the hype machine got ahold of it.

I'll answer this nonsense with my post from the Warhead thread in the PC Gaming subforum:

I love how everyone is running around saying Crysis is unoptimized, yet not one person can say how or why. Crytek is not a lazy developer, they have delivered twice now, in large fashion.

IANAGD (game developer), so I have no fucking clue what features cryengine2 has that make it perform the way it does. Can someone please enlighten us and shut everyone else up?

So, can anyone do it? Can any one of you specifically point out to all of us unwashed plebes what exactly makes Crysis so unoptimized? And if it was "pushed in development", why not fix it with a patch?

 

[Tantrix]

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........................

I've been saying the same thing about Crysis being so hard on systems because of shit optimization and all I got was flak from the Crysis fanclub.

 

[Frostex]

Scalable is only relevant to crytek. When you're a company, your main concern should be NOT disappointing your customers in the here and now.

There's a certain blow one takes to their psyche when having to resort to medium settings. You know what I mean, the feeling where you want to set it to high but you know you can only set it to medium. feels like shit. Crytek has made the majority of their customers feel like shit, and its costing them.

I'm sorry but if you're just looking at whether something is in low/med/high to judge how your hardware is fareing then you're a moron.

How the game ACTUALLY LOOKS for the kind of performance you need to power it, is what you should be looking for. As i've already said the whole low/med/high thing is completely arbitrary, the developers could set these things to be almost anything they want.

You CANNOT argue bad performance/quality ratio by simply refering to low/med/high settings because this is completely meaningless. "High" could mean anything, it could mean a view distance of a million miles, not being to render that on todays hardware is not unreasonable and it doesn't make the game unoptimised.

If you want to argue that the "very high" settings are setting the bar too high then that's at least a better start. However just because you cannot run the "Very high" settings and so it's hurting your ego (and e-peen) doesn't mean we should remove them to make you feel better, what about the people that CAN run it? (Tri SLI 280's confirmed playable frame rates for 2560x1600 very high settins) I'd argue that it's pathetic and selfish and has an overal negative effect.

I expect the same out of Crysis. However it seems clear from the acknowledgement made by Crytek themselves that the game isn't optimized as well as it could be.

Refer to my post above your quote on this. However I think that while Crysis is probably not a total pile of shit it seems clear that it isn't as well optimized as it could be. This can really be evidenced by its' terrible Crossfire and SLI performance. The scaling with multiple video cards is seriously bad and worse than the scaling typically is with those types of solutions.

First of all Crytek are doing damage control, they admit they didn't sell as many copies as Crysis as they expected. They're addressing the biggest issue gamers have with the game, that it doesn't run very well or takes very powerful hardware. Whats the easiest way to do this do you think? I'm willing to bet that they're going to make "high" settings LOD distance 10% less, and grass distance 10% less, maybe turn down the resolution of the shadows etc. How is this helpful in the slightest? All that it does is it makes people feel better about their hardware purchases and fades out the top end of the market, no doubt they'll do the same for "very high" and suddently all the people who can run "very high" get a cut in graphical fidelity, how is that reasonable at all?

Do you have any proof what so ever that this is a problem with Crysis's scaling, and nothing to do with how xfire and SLI scales?

People who run 2560x1600 shouldn't be allowed to complain about performance.

I agree in the sense that they (me being one) should accept that it's a unusualy high res and requires vastly powerful hardware to power it, most 2560x1600 gamers DO accept this and have the funds to build decent rigs anyhow.

sounds like someone needs to calm down a bit. if you get that worked up about some random persons comments on the internet, then something is wrong.

It's also pretty damning when the developer comes out and finally says, oh yeah, we can make the performance better. (after everyone ASSUMES that crysis just need uber rigs and brand new next-gen hardware to run at max settings)

Yeah but in all fairness all this moaning about crysis not being optimised is completely baseless, I've never seen one shred of evidence put forward to backup this statement other than "OMGZ I CANT RUN HIGH SETTINGS IT MUST BE CRAP!!!" which just isn't a good logical arument, it's just peoples knee jerk reaction to crysis stepping on their e-peens and squashing it in front of everyone.

I've been saying the same thing about Crysis being so hard on systems because of shit optimization and all I got was flak from the Crysis fanclub.

What proof did you provide that this is the case? I am MORE than happy to entertian the idea of Crysis being "unoptimised" if someone provides some good evidence for it.

And if someone tries to reply saying its because it dosn't run on high settings on their 8800 GTS then I'm going to strange them!

 

[Draax]

Crytek is so full of shit. PC gamer has the specs to this magical $653 computer that, and I quote, will run warhead "silky smooth, with all the bells and whistles turned on". This system includes an E2180 2Ghz dual core CPU and an 8600GT 512 video card.

In addition to this they state "you will be able to max out ALL settings in warhead with your dx9-capable videocard" (why are they using a DX10 card then in their BS machine), such as global ambient lighting and enhanced particle effects that will "run on machines which currently run crysis, and with no framerate hit". Oh by the way, they also state they have not yet added these "dense and intense" particle effects to the game, and yet they already know how they will effect performance?

Careful where you step, or you are bound to wind up in the bullshit.

 

[Netrat33]

Why not? What is your basis for saying that?

You get one or the other. You're asking way too much of technology advancement vs current hardware expecting Crysis-like graphics and resolution. Any game you are currently playing at massive resolutions are not giving you that level of detail. It is also not a common resolution and purchasers of monitors capabilible of doing this need to be realistic in realizing they make such a SMALL market and don't influence sales.

 

[Dan_D]

You get one or the other. You're asking way too much of technology advancement vs current hardware expecting Crysis-like graphics and resolution. Any game you are currently playing at massive resolutions are not giving you that level of detail. It is also not a common resolution and purchasers of monitors capabilible of doing this need to be realistic in realizing they make such a SMALL market and don't influence sales.

That's bullshit. Having a 30" monitor makes me no less eligible to complain about anything. The high end cards today can usually handle 2560x1600 with most games using only one card. So I fail to see what difference it makes between having a 22" or a 30" LCD in regard to my "right to complain". What I'm reading out of your post here sounds like reverse elitism.

If a game like Crysis doesn't run well at 2560x1600 I can damned well be dissappointed and I can certainly want for more performance. Now I'm realistic and I think most of us are. I don't expect Crysis to run at 80FPS at my monitors native resolution. Frankly I'd have settled for 1920x1200 with some AA and AF stretched. It sure beats 1680x1050 0AA/0AF or less on this thing which is all I could get before.

Personally I'm ok having to drop the resolution but I don't like dropping the eye candy.

 

[Blown 89]

The rig in my sig played it on the highest DX10 settings at 1600x1050 with two settings dumbed down a notch (shadows on high, AA on 2 or 4). I'm not understanding why nobody could play this game on new computers.

 

[Netrat33]

That's bullshit. Having a 30" monitor makes me no less eligible to complain about anything. The high end cards today can usually handle 2560x1600 with most games using only one card. So I fail to see what difference it makes between having a 22" or a 30" LCD in regard to my "right to complain". What I'm reading out of your post here sounds like reverse elitism.

If a game like Crysis doesn't run well at 2560x1600 I can damned well be dissappointed and I can certainly want for more performance. Now I'm realistic and I think most of us are. I don't expect Crysis to run at 80FPS at my monitors native resolution. Frankly I'd have settled for 1920x1200 with some AA and AF stretched. It sure beats 1680x1050 0AA/0AF or less on this thing which is all I could get before.

Personally I'm ok having to drop the resolution but I don't like dropping the eye candy.

No that is the elitism of thinking you're going to run a game at 2560x1600 with everything turn on. You have to be realistic. Take all the games your running at 2560x1600. With all eye candy turned on, do ANY of them look as great as Crysis? I can put money down now saying "No" Just because you can run (OLD GAME A) at 2560x1600, means nothing since Crysis is pushing a more advanced engine. Somewhere along the lines PC games feel they have to have native resolutions with everything turned on. LCDs did start this mentality.

It makes as much sense as me saying "I can run q-bert at 2560x1600. Why doesn't Crysis?"

You're not realizing that you are asking more and more processing power the higher a resolution you go. You want 2560x1600? Lower your physics, lower your textures, lower something! because you are asking too much of the technology you own in your system.

It's the same with regular TVs (Sort of) There are TV capabily of outputting more than 1080p. But you cant complain because movies aren't at 1080p now. You're above the norm.

 

[Dan_D]

The rig in my sig played it on the highest DX10 settings at 1600x1050 with two settings dumbed down a notch (shadows on high, AA on 2 or 4). I'm not understanding why nobody could play this game on new computers.

I've played Crysis on a QX9770 with 3-Way 8800GTX SLI and I still couldn't run Crysis at max settings at 1680x1050.

 

[Netrat33]

The rig in my sig played it on the highest DX10 settings at 1600x1050 with two settings dumbed down a notch (shadows on high, AA on 2 or 4). I'm not understanding why nobody could play this game on new computers.

And I'm sorry, that's BS unless you really don't care about frame rate. My PC is slightly faster than yours and I don't get that.

 

[Dan_D]

No that is the elitism of thinking you're going to run a game at 2560x1600 with everything turn on. You have to be realistic. Take all the games your running at 2560x1600. With all eye candy turned on, do ANY of them look as great as Crysis? I can put money down now saying "No" Just because you can run (OLD GAME A) at 2560x1600, means nothing since Crysis is pushing a more advanced engine. Somewhere along the lines PC games feel they have to have native resolutions with everything turned on. LCDs did start this mentality.

It makes as much sense as me saying "I can run q-bert at 2560x1600. Why doesn't Crysis?"

You're not realizing that you are asking more and more processing power the higher a resolution you go. You want 2560x1600? Lower your physics, lower your textures, lower something! because you are asking too much of the technology you own in your system.

It's the same with regular TVs (Sort of) There are TV capabily of outputting more than 1080p. But you cant complain because movies aren't at 1080p now. You're above the norm.

So your telling me I don't have the right to want more?

Whatever.

If you had read my post you should have noticed that I do in fact have realistic expectations for how Crysis should run given what it looks like vs. everything else.

 

[skadebo]

Can you imagine how much this game has fuelled hardware sales? As far as I'm concerned I don't need to upgrade from my 8800GT for at least 2 more years, haha, because I don't see any indication of anything coming out that looks better than Crysis in the foreseeable future.

 

[Dan_D]

Can you imagine how much this game has fuelled hardware sales? As far as I'm concerned I don't need to upgrade from my 8800GT for at least 2 more years, haha, because I don't see any indication of anything coming out that looks better than Crysis in the foreseeable future.

Well I don't know what its' really done for hardware sales but it certainly has become the benchmark for system performance. If a system handles Crysis even half-assed decent it should rip through every other game out there no matter what the resolution. (Well almost anyway.)

 

[Netrat33]

So your telling me I don't have the right to want more?

Whatever.

If you had read my post you should have noticed that I do in fact have realistic expectations for how Crysis should run given what it looks like vs. everything else.

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.

 

[Red Falcon]

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.

You know what your mentality is? Communism.

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...

 

[Netrat33]

You know what your mentality is? Communism.

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...

speechless.

 

[mastercheeze]

You know what your mentality is? Communism.

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...

Nominated for "WTF? Post of the Day".

Falcon, you're not getting what he's saying. There's a tradeoff between next-next-generation quality (let's be honest - Crysis probably is 2 generations ahead of every other game out there) and current hardware evolution.

What is remarkable about all of this is the bruised egos and epeen-emoness that this situation invokes. People aren't happy the game looks great; they're pissed they can't run it at full settings! Part of it is understandable - if you've got the balls-to-the-wall $4k skulltrail/qx-eleventybillion/16GB/tri-sli and you still can't max it, you're not feeling the value. On the other hand, people who do have those systems and bitch and moan surely feel some sort of ego bruising.

Anyone remember that article from this week about us tech people being type-A douches? Is there anyone who wants to dispute that after reading a thread like this?

 

[SouLXIV]

HA UR WRONG. LAWLLYSKATES.