We're in a gaming Crysis!

H

heatlesssun

Extremely [H]
Joined
Nov 5, 2005
Messages
44,154
If the 8800GT had been released before this past Friday, I would have been very impressed. The 8800GT is a great card it seems, but it doesn't solve the current problem.

Here's a unique opportunity for AMD and/or nVidia to really impress gamers. Crysis at max settings is obviously not playable on ANYTHING right now. I would be happier than a monkey that just robbed a banana truck if we see a new, readily available high-end part before Nov. 16th.

There has to be something coming one would think. I guess EA just wanted to get Crysis out in time for the Holidays, but I do hope that they may have also arranged the date arround a new high-end part, probably from nVidia since Crysis carries the TWIMTBP logo.

Crysis looks to be a technical masterpiece. It would be a shame if it took months for the hardware to play it right to come out.
 
The cynic in me wonders how often games are released that require new hardware because they were coded like shit, not because the existing 500million transistor marvel simply lacks the horsepower to run it.
 
if u check my thread few below u can see im asking the same question. TBH why would Nvidia release a GT card which nearly outperfoms gtx range of cards? same with the GTS series if the benchies are right then GT owns them. So i reackon there must be new mid-high end card coming out soon. if u check my thread i have got info off another forum suggesting a revised GTS card coming out on 16th nov.
 
I agree. I almost pulled the trigger on a 8800 GT but then I saw the Crysis performance at the TechReport. No thanks. Hopefully AMD can do better.

 
aldamon said:
I agree. I almost pulled the trigger on a 8800 GT but then I saw the Crysis performance at the TechReport. No thanks. Hopefully AMD can do better.

Click to expand...

Hey, at least it's faster than the GTS 320MB and old GTS 640MB so I wouldn't bitch...
 
The game is not fully baked, the drivers are not fully baked. Let's see where it is at in a few weeks.
 
Monkey God said:
The cynic in me wonders how often games are released that require new hardware because they were coded like shit, not because the existing 500million transistor marvel simply lacks the horsepower to run it.
Click to expand...
You mean the 681 million transistor marvel (or 754 million for G92)? Yes, I've been thinking the same for I don't know how long. I don't think Crysis is any particular indicator that the current generation is failing -- I think it's just an indicator that Crytek is failing at fully utilizing the hardware.

farmergoggin said:
if u check my thread i have got info off another forum suggesting a revised GTS card coming out on 16th nov.
Click to expand...
Kyle has already made us aware of this.
 
Sorry for rehashing, its just that this game is a PC exclusive showcase, and to me there's just no game like a beautiful FPS on a PC.

This game isn't by any stretch revolutionary, save it graphics. While a slide show on my sig rig at max settings at all resolutions worth borthering , its simply the most visually stunning game I've ever seen, and I'd hate to see it go down in flames because of performance issues.

We PC gamers are always complaining about the so-so console ports or games that don't take adavantage of high-end PC hardware. Crysis breaks that mold, though maybe it might be a little overboard.

Hopefully Kyle is right and some bake time will help.
 
aldamon said:
NVIDIA has been price gouging and sitting on its hands for a year. Woohoo!

Click to expand...

What make's you say nVidia is price gouging? That tends to be more of the retailer's doing most time.

As for sitting on their hands, they no doubt have there next gen part at hand, and close to releasing it. About now would be a good time though.
 
The problem is not one of hardware, the problem is software: The problem is Crysis. They apparently decided to target a good bit above what is available in terms of hardware. That's their fault, not the hardware companies' fault. nVidia and ATi both seem to do everything they can to push things to as high a level as possible in a perpetual bid to one up the other one. As such you get what you get, you can't go to them and say "We need more power," as they are giving you what they can.

It is not hard to design a game that uses well above what current hardware provides. Generally speaking, your artists are modeling at rather high detail to begin with, then cutting down from there to live with the limitations of the hardware of the day.

Basically what it comes down to is they decided they wanted to be the "best" by producing a game that is ahead of what can be done. Ok, fair enough, but that doesn't make it the hardware's fault, or mean that a fix is forthcoming.

The real answer is just to not buy Crysis if this bothers you. If you are the sort of person who doesn't want to settle for anything less than max quality, just don't pick Crysis up until you've got hardware that can do that. If that means you've got to wait, well then so be it.

Personally, that's the camp I'm in. I don't particularly lack for good games to play, and UT3 certainly has my eye so I'll be getting that. I also don't believe in rewarding companies for being "Ahead of their time." To me, the sign of a good game is one that runs well and looks good on the currently available technology. UT does that so I'll probably buy it. Crysis I'm more likely to wait on until some significantly higher speed hardware comes out. They want more than is available, then they are going to have to wait until then.
 
Companies that push hardware is just what we need... Maybe not all the time
But a swift kick in the hardballs was long overdue.. the last generational leap for me where Far Cry/Doom 3/HL2... those set the bar for me at the time
Oblivion sorta did too

UT3 engine looks terrific, but its nothing short of current gen tech for me

Anyway, for me i got to do the waiting game... so no biggie for me
I just hope that a true new high end is released by april next year
 
I don't get why people are complaining about how slow Crysis is... duh! Its way more demanding with graphics than any other game. No matter how well they optimize it, it will still take newer cards to play on anything over medium settings.

Crysis is a game we have needed because it pushes the graphics envelope.

I don't get it, WiC is almost as demanding yet people aren't bitching all over about how under optimized it is. Crysis takes place in a dense jungle/beach environment, so of course it will run slower than games like Bioshock thats in an enclosed space. HL2 looks nice, but Crysis models are more detailed and the level is very open compared to HL2's very linear gameplay and small areas that are loaded.
 
Excellent post Sycraft. I've never been a heavy PC gamer but I have quite a collection of games that's gathering dust since I sold my old 6800GT to get a fanless 6600GT for noise reasons.

I've been considering getting back into PC gaming without breaking the bank. As usual, the biggest debate is which video card to choose. I like to get the most bang for my buck so the 8800GT just released seems to fit the bill.

If that means I can't play Crysis because of it's excessive bling bling then so be it. I realize there are always early adopters that want the newest card and the newest game but it really isn't cost effective.

As you said, it might be better to hold off on buying Crysis until the hardware catches up. It seems the creators of the game did make a game like this just to prove they could.

I don't think it's fair to expect a video card company to rush to keep up because of a single game that's pushing the envelope. There has to be some expectation of balance and compromise.
 
I love how everyone is throwing a bitch fit because they can't play it on the absolute highest settings Cryengine2 supports. To those people: I understand that you'll want to wait and not ruin the experience by playing the game first on lower settings than possible. However, let me reassure you, this game looks amazing - even with a mix of medium and high settings. I mean, I have a 8600gts, and I thoroughly enjoyed (and am still enjoying) the demo. Just set textures, water, and shaders as high as your rig supports, and you'll be blown away.
 
No my biggest beef with Crysis is the lack of aa. I don't mind not having all the bells and whistles but jaggies and blurry foliage mess with my eyes. Still, the game is MUCH improved from the beta just a month or so prior. I expect the game to run better by release and really well in a month or two.

COD4 runs great and looks awesome too lol.
 
Sycraft said:
The real answer is just to not buy Crysis if this bothers you. If you are the sort of person who doesn't want to settle for anything less than max quality, just don't pick Crysis up until you've got hardware that can do that. If that means you've got to wait, well then so be it.
Click to expand...

Think you're missing the point.

We WANT Crysis
We DON'T want it to run like shit.

500-600 dollars on a graphics card and you think it'll at least make the game run nice, that isn't the case.

Most people upgraded their rigs to play this, and their UPGRADED rigs run it like molasses.

I'd be pissed seeing as how i'm one of em.
 
When Farcry came out I wasn't able to play it at the absolute highest in-game settings with the current hardware at the time. It took the next gen of cards to fully maximize the game.
 
Brent_Justice said:
When Farcry came out I wasn't able to play it at the absolute highest in-game settings with the current hardware at the time. It took the next gen of cards to fully maximize the game.
Click to expand...

We should be on the next gen now.


 
The Avalon said:
Think you're missing the point.

We WANT Crysis
We DON'T want it to run like shit.

500-600 dollars on a graphics card and you think it'll at least make the game run nice, that isn't the case.

Most people upgraded their rigs to play this, and their UPGRADED rigs run it like molasses.

I'd be pissed seeing as how i'm one of em.
Click to expand...

Should have done like me and upgraded with the first cards that come after the game :p (if u didnt absolutly have to ofc)

I think ppl get spoiled when graphics only take minor improvements in a cumulative fashion

Before Far Cry games where looking abit better every realase no doubt, but Far Cry set a new standard in graphics... and even the top dog at the time 9800 Pro (or XT it think) wouldnt run this game on insane resolutions
1024*768 High and gameplay/ fps wise we are in the same situation

If games didnt push the limits, we would only be getting Oblivion graphics now instead of Crysis

It also doesnt helpd that LCD gave us High Res (16*10 and above) to the masses... and now everyone wants native
 
aldamon said:
We should be on the next gen now.
Click to expand...
Well it wouldn't be next gen if it was out now, as Crysis hasn't been released yet.. ;)

Also, people haven't tweaked settings enough yet to see what gives the best fps/eye candy. I know the Crysis demo runs @ all High and avg 30's in fps @ 1280x1024 on my 8800gts 640 (OCed). I'm sure I could drop things like shadows to med and get even better fps, but the game feels very smooth anyway.
 
Hopefully its just a glitch in the demo, that making it run so poorly on alot of good pcs. When the final product comes out we will know for sure. But the main question which one of us will buy it first and let the rest of us know how well it runs. So at this moment in time, I like to stand up, raise my hand and kindly nominate someone else to buy it and let us know if the final product runs better than demo:D
 
jmackay said:
Well it wouldn't be next gen if it was out now, as Crysis hasn't been released yet.. ;)

Also, people haven't tweaked settings enough yet to see what gives the best fps/eye candy. I know the Crysis demo runs @ all High and avg 30's in fps @ 1280x1024 on my 8800gts 640 (OCed). I'm sure I could drop things like shadows to med and get even better fps, but the game feels very smooth anyway.
Click to expand...

Ditto. (It's almost tiring that I agree with you as often as it is :p = similar rigs) It's a real shame that AF is bugged on Nvidia cards (takes a huge hit on ATi). Although it's hard to notice AF in this game because of the draw distance, which is effected from the Object Detail setting. That setting controls the distance and detail at which rocks, debris, foliage and trees are rendered. Low setting doesn't render anything until you get closer and High/Very High renders it earlier or from a farther distance.

The info on AA support in the game is interesting too, since it implements it's own type of "foliage AA" (akin to TRSS/MS AA). You can change the config and enable it at High settings without having to select "Very High". I'll try the setting when I get home (r_UseEdgeAA=1) and see what the performance is like. Aliasing on the your gun, other objects and enemies isn't that bad, it's the enviornment that needs it imo. I've toyed with the cfgs and I don't think it brings on a large hit. What I'm unsure of is what the AA setting needs to be in-game (if at all) or under the Nv CP (App. Controlled?)
 
Monkey God said:
The cynic in me wonders how often games are released that require new hardware because they were coded like shit, not because the existing 500million transistor marvel simply lacks the horsepower to run it.
Click to expand...

Finally, somebody agrees with me. Crysis is a little too advanced for our current hardware, or it is just plain unoptimized. It's the plain and simple truth. WiC is the same way.

syn0s
 
having a game that is more advanced than current hardware is not a bad thing

it beats having a game that won't utilize current or future hardware features
 
syn0s said:
Finally, somebody agrees with me. Crysis is a little too advanced for our current hardware, or it is just plain unoptimized. It's the plain and simple truth. WiC is the same way.

syn0s
Click to expand...

So turn down the graphics and it will run and look like other games... just it has the option of looking much better.

Whats the problem?
 
The Avalon said:
Think you're missing the point.

We WANT Crysis
We DON'T want it to run like shit.

500-600 dollars on a graphics card and you think it'll at least make the game run nice, that isn't the case.

Most people upgraded their rigs to play this, and their UPGRADED rigs run it like molasses.

I'd be pissed seeing as how i'm one of em.
Click to expand...

That's the mistake of "futureproofing," in my opinion. I really don't think they have the right to be pissed unless they had some sort of insight on how Crysis would perform on their hardware beforehand. Even then, everything is uncertain until after the game actually gets out on the market for a couple weeks. Anyone who knows how to mange their money would take the precaution of doing research before buying the hardware.
 
I bet if Crytek relabeled Medium settings as High and removed the high and very high options, you would all be happy as pigs in shit because you could run it maxed out, regardless if it looks like shit.
 
I think i have everything on low, except textures, and object detail on high, and shaders on medium, and this game looks better than any other game ive played.
 
Eagle156 said:
I bet if Crytek relabeled Medium settings as High and removed the high and very high options, you would all be happy as pigs in shit because you could run it maxed out, regardless if it looks like shit.
Click to expand...

Except that Crysis on medium still looks pretty damn good, just not jaw-droppingly gorgeous.
 
Simple fact is if Crysis looked any less you all would be bitching.
If Crysis didn't have a worthy plot you all would be bitching.
If Crysis was too easy on your video cards you all would be bitching.
If Crysis was released months ago, half baked you all would be bitching.
If Crysis didn't future proof itself by allotting for future horsepower you all would be bitching.

The truth of the matter is that you all can't stand innovation because it's never perfect. Deal with it. Crysis is an amazing game with amazing graphical features and the making of a great storyline, great visuals, and closing in on real physics.

Quit your bitching. Just make the most of the game with what you've got. :rolleyes:

Oh yeah...I got killed by a freezer door at the KPA snack bar near the command post last night. You don't hear me bitching about how the game should just 'KNOW' that a freezer door shouldn't kill me. :eek:

Just quit your bitching and enjoy this fabulous work. :)
 
All I know is that I can play UT3 and it plays smooth as silk. Crysis will not even run for me as a slide show. I think that Cliffy B is a game making God and all other game developers, makers, etc should get some tips from him. UT series has always ran good on my old ass rig!
P4 3.06
1 gb PC1066 rdram
x1950 pro 512 agp
 
jmackay said:
Well it wouldn't be next gen if it was out now, as Crysis hasn't been released yet..
Click to expand...

I was talking about the hardware but feel free to keep smirking. It's a year later and people are dancing in the streets because NVIDIA has found a way to make last year's tech $250. A year later and $250 still only buys you 90% of a $600 GTX from a year ago.n
 
ANGRYEAGLE said:
All I know is that I can play UT3 and it plays smooth as silk. Crysis will not even run for me as a slide show. I think that Cliffy B is a game making God and all other game developers, makers, etc should get some tips from him. UT series has always ran good on my old ass rig!
P4 3.06
1 gb PC1066 rdram
x1950 pro 512 agp
Click to expand...

Odd, my friends x1950Pro AGP plays Crysis just fine @ 1440x900 on medium...
 
It makes perfect sense to develop a game which can be set to take advantage of more power than is currently available, so long as it still looks and runs nice at lower "moderate" settings ~ it seems absurd to me to complain about that. No one is forcing us to use the highest settings that we can't yet support.

What would be lame is: if they code poorly so that even if you turn the settings down to a level that puts the graphics on par with other recent games which DO run fast and it doesn't run well.

Whenever a game comes out that can scale down to run well on a variety of older/cheaper hardware, but can be turned up to take advantage of newer hardware, that seems like the optimal solution to me.

If Crysis didn't have settings and could only be run on what is the highest settings, and thus, would only be playable at lower resolutions on systems costing hundreds, or even a thousand dollars more than your typical non-filthy rich gamer person's computer, then, it seems more appropriate to bitch at the company that made/sells it (or, more importantly, don't buy it and tell your friends not to buy it either).
 
I love the "shitty optimization" argument, as if the Crytek devs have no clue what they're doing and your video card is just sitting there twiddling it's thumbs waiting for the game code to hurry up. You only have to look at the end result to know the game justifies the horsepower required. UT3 doesn't even come close, because the environments are smaller and much less densely populated. But that's not to slam UT3, which I think is great, because it's designed for a different style of gameplay.
Personally I'm glad they didn't compromise the high-end detail and I look forward to the next round of high-end video cards, which frankly can't arrive soon enough.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top