![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Where the FREAK is the Crysis patch at?!?!?!
- Thread starter Brahmzy
- Start date
TheRapture
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 31, 2000
- Messages
- 6,885
Just don't post that over at the incrysis forums, you'll immediately get banned 
sl3000gt94
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2005
- Messages
- 279
its more useful just to try to read over there anyway. if you ever have anything negative about crysis they all get their panties in a wad
They haven't banned anybody as far as I know but they sure do lock em down quick.
Incrysis forums are near death as activity comes to a screaching halt. The game is a flop (not saying it's a bad game....1st 2/3rds anyway). Should have been released in spring/summer 2008 along with G100 and a whole different story unfolds (hindsight IS 20/20 to be fair though). They could have saved it with that patch actually coming 7-14 days fixing general performance and SLi but at this point, all of the people who bought quad cores and 8800's feel like they were lied too and that Crysis is just a big marketing sham. Consequently, it has been badmouthed into oblivion.
Another EA rush to the holidays crushes what could have been a glorious experience. Nvidia is not totally innocent in this either.
Incrysis forums are near death as activity comes to a screaching halt. The game is a flop (not saying it's a bad game....1st 2/3rds anyway). Should have been released in spring/summer 2008 along with G100 and a whole different story unfolds (hindsight IS 20/20 to be fair though). They could have saved it with that patch actually coming 7-14 days fixing general performance and SLi but at this point, all of the people who bought quad cores and 8800's feel like they were lied too and that Crysis is just a big marketing sham. Consequently, it has been badmouthed into oblivion.
Another EA rush to the holidays crushes what could have been a glorious experience. Nvidia is not totally innocent in this either.
Droc
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2007
- Messages
- 3,424
Typical great game crippled by EA.
I hope someone hits EA with a big bucket of AIDs.
I hope someone hits EA with a big bucket of AIDs.
I have a Quad Core and an 8800GT.
I don't feel like I was lied to.
It's by far the best looking game ever released, and it runs great on my machine.
30+ FPS average with mostly HIGH settings, AF maxed out, AA set to 2X via the system.cfg and even a few DX10 features enabled.
The hyperbole and sensationalism regarding this games performance are the lies.
Admittedly, to get good performance out of this game, you will need either an 8800GT, GTX, Ultra.
A GTS or anything below, will NOT cut it.
If you have one of the aforementioned cards (GT,GTX,Ultra) then you have no reason to complain about performance if you even have a modicum of technical know-how, and can read.
There are tweak guides peppered across the entire net now on how to maximize performance and looks.
There is no excuse if you are a GT,GTX,Ultra owner once again.
silent-circuit
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2005
- Messages
- 16,132
I have a Quad Core and an 8800.
I don't feel like I was lied to.
It's by far the best looking game ever released, and it runs great on my machine.
30+ FPS average with mostly HIGH settings, AF maxed out, AA set to 2X via the system.cfg and even a few DX10 features enabled.
The hyperbole and sensationalism regarding this games performance are the lies.
You're the only one. You also spent 6 or 7 pages defending the game elsewhere, and apparently have been a huge fan since well before release. Can't say any of the above, in light of that, is a great shock.
I most certainly am not.
There are tons of people who can mimic my results.
Besides, I have also posted screenshots when asked, with FRAPS enabled to substantiate every last word I have stated.
The nay-sayers and haters in general who say otherwise are very quick to shut up after I post those screenshots, be it here in this forum or other ones.
Seriously, some of you whining must have just gotten into PC gaming, either that are just about the most delusional bunch I have ever come across.
What do you guys expect? The best looking game ever released by a wide margin, and you guys expect to be able to run it on VERY HIGH at insane resolutions, on hardware that is 1+ year old? The 8800 series have been out since last year, you know.
Nevertheless even the 8800GT, GTX, and Ultra will let you play it at 1600x1200 and lower at 30+ FPS on HIGH -- which is damned impressive considering how technically superior this game is compared to anything to date.
Besides every single generation there has been a game released that has brought current system to its knees.
Crysis is no different than Unreal, Morrowind, Far Cry, Oblivion, Supreme Commander, etc. when they were respectively released. Give it another 6 months before the masses can run it as well, if not better, than I can, with the imminent release of the 9-series NV cards.
purple_haze
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2004
- Messages
- 2,124
lol a game like unreal never brought anybody to their knees.
Crysis doesn't look THAT good in the end. And what about the gameplay? It sucks, just think of the peashooter guns where you hit the enemy and he goes 'ouch, stop that will you?'
There's something seriously wrong when the only weapon to score constant 1 shot kills is a pistol be it close or long range.
There's something seriously wrong when the only weapon to score constant 1 shot kills is a pistol be it close or long range.
Oh yeah.
Tell me, how could you run it in 1024x768 with 32bit color in the summer of 1998?
I await your answer.
QFT!!!
They gave me a final warning. Screw incrysis.com, I am about one more rude comment from an admin away from spamming their forum using proxy servers.
Everything Crytek is getting now as far as sales is 100% justified. I was expecting Quad core benefits and decent gameplay on the highest settings. They made it seem like the scaling would come in the form of a patch with updated graphics to mirror those we'd seen in tech demos and videos. Turns out the scaling will come in the form of Graphics cards catching up over the next 2 years.
Most of us don't FEEL like it was a big marketing scam, IT WAS a big marketing scam. That was the last game I buy from Crytek. I am just glad no one else I know bought the game.
My favorite part is the fact that all these features like 3d waves, sunshafts, and depth of field were touted as DX10 features... yet they perform better in DX9/XP.
I still don't see how you can say that 30+ FPS average on HIGH with an 8800GT, GTX, Ultra at a res of 1600x1200 is anything but remarkable in a game that graphically makes everything else out there look 1-2 years dated.
I can play Crysis @ 1024x768 with a couple of settings set to high (shaders and textures) and the rest set to medium. The game looks beautiful and it runs ok, considering my aging system.
I was not lied to. The game DOES scale back to 2 years. Sure, it's not the smoothest experience ever, but I can't expect to run this game at max settings @ extremely high resolutions. The game is NEW and it brings graphics fidelity to a whole new level. It seems most of you complain, for the sake of complaining. Because Crysis doesn't run maxed out on the top of the line system, is not a reason to complain, simply because software was always ahead of hardware, in terms of evolution and Crysis is just an example of that. Everyone that follows tech related news, knows this. Oblivion and FEAR are two more examples of that. When they came out, there was NO card (or even SLI, Crossfire setups), that could completely max the game @ 1600x1200 or above.
I was not lied to. The game DOES scale back to 2 years. Sure, it's not the smoothest experience ever, but I can't expect to run this game at max settings @ extremely high resolutions. The game is NEW and it brings graphics fidelity to a whole new level. It seems most of you complain, for the sake of complaining. Because Crysis doesn't run maxed out on the top of the line system, is not a reason to complain, simply because software was always ahead of hardware, in terms of evolution and Crysis is just an example of that. Everyone that follows tech related news, knows this. Oblivion and FEAR are two more examples of that. When they came out, there was NO card (or even SLI, Crossfire setups), that could completely max the game @ 1600x1200 or above.
I still don't see how you can say that 30+ FPS average on HIGH with an 8800GT, GTX, Ultra at a res of 1600x1200 is anything but remarkable in a game that graphically makes everything else out there look 1-2 years dated.
It is remarkable...
The 8800 GTX is over a year old and can still run the best looking game ever made, with more than acceptable quality options. Software is always ahead of hardware and Crysis is no different. It's actually one of the reasons why tech evolves. If all the games ran like they did 3 years ago, we would still be using 6800 GTs and X850 XTs, because there was no need for more. We would also not need DX9 / DX10, since DX7 / DX8 would probably be enough, since the graphics of Crysis, don't seem to be all that impressive for some
The funny part is that Crysis is mostly criticized because it's all about graphics and still they are not that good, for these people. But then they complain because they CAN'T have all the graphics options on...If graphics in Crysis are not that impressive, why do you need all of the options turned on ?
I have a quad core and 8800's... and I feel lied to.
Because they said TWO WEEKS until the patch. I still can't run SLI with the 64-bit exe. And some of the triggers in the scripts don't seem to work consistently. I've pretty much stopped playing while waiting for the patch.
Because they said TWO WEEKS until the patch. I still can't run SLI with the 64-bit exe. And some of the triggers in the scripts don't seem to work consistently. I've pretty much stopped playing while waiting for the patch.
You know I have GT and I switched down to 1024x768. Really not as bad looking as I thought it would. There is SO much detail in the game I turned on a lot to high/very high and it looks amazing even at this resolution with a system that can handle it a little higher (turning down some detail the higher the resolution)
Ah, but you were!
Crysis was released in America on 11/13. Today is 12/18. The interview was posted on 11/16.
My sentiments exactly.
The patch is for people who feel like they need it.
I don't need it quite frankly.
It works as promised on release for me.
Only people whose systems aren't up to speed or those clueless masses who can't configure their systems/this game to match their systems are the ones who feel deceived.
Why would I feel deceived on the other hand when I get:
30+ FPS throughout on HIGH, with AA set to 2x via system.cfg file, 16xAF, sunshafts even enabled, all at 1600x1200, on an 8800GT at 700MHz.
It is undoubtedly remarkable what they have managed to achieve.
A game that makes everything else look years dated and still run this good on hardware that is for all intents and purposes 1+ year old.
And yet, if you still must bitch, then by all means Bitch at ATI/NV for selling us rehashes of the same chips for the last 13 months, not Crytek.
The 9800GTX should have been launching around this time of year instead of the 8800GT.
Then of course, if ATI/AMD were even at all competitive with NV, then NV would have launched their 9800GTX by now, but they are holding back because ATI is giving them no reason to release the new 9-series.
Nevertheless, it still runs far more than acceptable for me from beginning to end.
If it doesn't for you guys, tough luck.
As for me, I've posted screenshots already substantiating my claims, so my assertions are far from fabrications.
I've been enjoying it on High at 30+ FPS while you guys can bitch and moan about a patch to help your GTS's or 2900XT's out.
You do know, you could go out there and just purchase a better card right?
Or, if you are really determined to get even more out of this game, just wait for the 9-series cards to come out in like 3 months.
30+ fps is unacceptable, when did we become so complacent about framerate as pc gamers? I remember not accepting less than 80.
seriously, we all need to step into a CRYochamber and wait a year or so till we have hardware that can run crysis adequately. Crysis was not meant to be released this early. Marty Mcfly must have driven his delorean to Crytek in an alternate time frame and done something that made crytek release crysis too soon, and now the whole world has gone to hell.
seriously, we all need to step into a CRYochamber and wait a year or so till we have hardware that can run crysis adequately. Crysis was not meant to be released this early. Marty Mcfly must have driven his delorean to Crytek in an alternate time frame and done something that made crytek release crysis too soon, and now the whole world has gone to hell.
I seriously doubt some of you guys have even played it or have experienced 30+ FPS average in Crysis.
I have had numerous friends over to play it, and not a single one ever mentioned anything about its performance lacking in any respect.
They were all utterly amazed in fact at how well it ran, because they had *HEARD* about its' alleged poor performance across the board.
Instead, they all just assumed that I had 8800Ultra's SLI'd or even in triple-SLI mode, or something along those lines because it felt so smooth and fluid.
I would in fact wager anything that you have not experienced it at those framerates.
For if you have, you would realize that Crysis at that framerate does not feel sluggish.
On the contrary, it feels very smooth.
What's also important is that the min_framerate not dip too low or too frequently into anything below the acceptable threshold.
To that end, I've always maintained framerates >20FPS like 95% of the time (remarkable considering my settings).
Furthermore, it stays above 24FPS like 90% of the time.
Films are played back at that rate for instance, and as long as it doesnt dip below that rate, then it's hard to tell.
And for what it's worth, Crysis only felt jerky for me maybe a total of 3-5 minutes of the entire 15 hours I played it.
If there were a way, I'd seriously like to host a video of me playing it from beginning to end so all of you doubters and nay-sayers can be placated once and for all.
Apparently, posting FRAPS screenshots aren't enough.
FYI:
I used to be a nationally ranked UT player back in the days.
So I know all about the framerate fetishes some of you have.
I used to not play UT on any monitor that didnt at least support 120Hz.
On that note, Crysis does not need such high framerates.
It feels smooth once again at 30FPS.
Oh, and since when has a game even looked remotely as good as Crysis?
This shames every other game out there by miles and miles in the graphics department.
Furthermore, since when have we become so ignorant of history?
Since when have we forgotten about Quake, Unreal, Morrowind, Far Cry, FEAR, Oblivion, Supreme Commander, to name a few?
There's always been games that have pushed current hardware to the limit.
Also, if anyone is to blame, like I said before, it's NV/ATI.
It's ATI who is complacent, releasing sub-par hardware for the last 3 generations, not forcing NV to unleash its new beast upon us.
If the 3850 were actually competitive with NV's 1+ year old hardware (8800 series cards), then don't you think we would be seeing the 9800 series much sooner, perhaps even in time for Crysis' launch?
If so, I'd bet good money that half the people bitching as if they were PMS-laden, would have little reason to be so critical right now.
Even so, for 1 year old hardware to run this game at 30+ FPS on HIGH settings at resolutions ~ 1600x1200 is nothing short of commendable.
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2000
- Messages
- 3,644
uh no, ive got the same proc and vid card as you and it runs good.
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2000
- Messages
- 3,644
Be that as it may, Cevat still lied about the patch. I didn't have any major problems (except for two lovely game-stopping bugs, of course), though some certainly have. SLi enhancements are what many are waiting for.
The issue isn't whether a patch is necessary within 14 days. The issue is that Cevat very clearly stated 7-14 days, and now we're past 30. Telling us how pleased you are, personally, with Crysis performance isn't going to change that. That really isn't the issue, is it?
EDIT: Oh, and I asked you a question in another thread that I'd like to hear your thoughts about if you have a moment or two.
Precisely.
You aren't the only one who shares my sentiments, despite the sensational claims of others to the contrary.
I tried with dual voodoo 2's but those fuckers wouldn't do 32 bit.
Exactly
Well, if it runs great for people such as myself with my type of system, then we personally don't feel deceived, which was also part of the point the poster in question was attempting to make.
Now granted, for those who feel like they need it, then they have a right to feel a little put off by Cevat's claims.
On the other hand, I can imagine their reaction if Crytek released it 2 weeks ago just to keep true to their promise, and only to keep true to their promise, yet the patch itself was unoptomized and rushed.
Imagine that, they would be all over it like hyenas on a zebra...or something like that.
The bitching and moaning would have been exponentially worse in other words.
If Crytek instead feels that it would be prudent to spend more time on the patch in an effort to ensure an even higher quality release, then so be it.
I personally won't lose any sleep over it.
I already "patched" my system by upgrading from a GTS to a GT that can do 700MHz.
That alone made Crysis very playable for me.
Before this upgrade, I would have joined many of you in your sentiments.
Now I have no reason to.
Droc
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2007
- Messages
- 3,424
I donno what planet you were on, but I wish I was there.
The fact is, for our big tech title games each generation, we have never been able to even come close to 80fps.
Each one of "engine" games, at the time of release, has never been able to run fast.
Look back to Quake 3 and Quake 2 came out, the fastest cards at the time of release ran the game at 16-20fps at 1600x1200 with max settings at best...The only time we ever got +80fps in a landmark game with an at level card was if the resolution was dropped down to 800x600 or lower.
Infact, when Quake 3 was released, the current card was the GeForce 256, and at 1600x1200, with max settings, it ran the game at sub 20fps. We didnt see blazing speeds for another 2 videocard generations.
Now, you may say that in those days no one gamed at 1600x1200, but the reality is that 16x12 has been the standard since the day addon cards hit mainstream.
The fact that Crysis runs at 1600x1200 on high settings at 25-45 fps with year old videocards/CPU is amazing.
Without getting into the actual game (most people missed that the point of this thread is about the patch), I have to say I'm disappointed as well. They said two weeks, and we've seen/heard nothing more. I don't care WHO you are, that's being lied to.
Hamidxa - Do you work for Crytek?
You seem personally injured that we have bad things to say about Crysis performance. Rig in sig - I can play it DX9 mode 1280x1024 on high except for carrier........have to stop the game and change settings FTL plus with DX9 settings the game doesn't look like what we were shown, why, because Crytek in cahoots with Nvidia or Microsoft or whoever made all the goods stuff "supposedly" DX10 exclusive. That is heinous, dastardly and despicable behaviour helping to make Cevat and his game look like corporate tools. DX10 means shaders, shadows and post procesing on medium. Whats the point of that. If the 3 most important settings have to be on medium then the game doesn't look as ADVERTISED it looks like any other game out there. I am not getting what I PAID for. Not to mention that the carrier level on the deck is unplayable. This game on medium is just not impressive.
We were told that quad core would offer an advantage. It does not. In fact, many people have shown that dual core barely provides an advantage in most instances getting similar performance with affinity set to 1 core and absolutely no difference in performance between dual and quad.
Sli, which would provide playable framerates at "relatively" high resolution and high to very high quality settings still doesn't work.
Cevat made very specific statements about performance and features that have proven to be flat out FALSE. Right or wrong, people bought hardware based on his statements and the people who would have bought the hardware anyway and were excited to see their investment put to use, only feel dissappointment.
As for configs and tweaks (i can read by the way), I shouldn't have to spend an hour or hours searching the internet and then hacking my game to basically find the best COMPROMISE to the games visual quality so I can maintain above 25 freakin fps @ 1280........rediculous. It's just rediculous.
No matter what you say, I can go to my local Best Buy, Walmart, Circuit City and they have those little cardboard displays and they are overflowing with copies of Crysis. It is so obvious that they ordered WAY too many.
You seem personally injured that we have bad things to say about Crysis performance. Rig in sig - I can play it DX9 mode 1280x1024 on high except for carrier........have to stop the game and change settings FTL plus with DX9 settings the game doesn't look like what we were shown, why, because Crytek in cahoots with Nvidia or Microsoft or whoever made all the goods stuff "supposedly" DX10 exclusive. That is heinous, dastardly and despicable behaviour helping to make Cevat and his game look like corporate tools. DX10 means shaders, shadows and post procesing on medium. Whats the point of that. If the 3 most important settings have to be on medium then the game doesn't look as ADVERTISED it looks like any other game out there. I am not getting what I PAID for. Not to mention that the carrier level on the deck is unplayable. This game on medium is just not impressive.
We were told that quad core would offer an advantage. It does not. In fact, many people have shown that dual core barely provides an advantage in most instances getting similar performance with affinity set to 1 core and absolutely no difference in performance between dual and quad.
Sli, which would provide playable framerates at "relatively" high resolution and high to very high quality settings still doesn't work.
Cevat made very specific statements about performance and features that have proven to be flat out FALSE. Right or wrong, people bought hardware based on his statements and the people who would have bought the hardware anyway and were excited to see their investment put to use, only feel dissappointment.
As for configs and tweaks (i can read by the way), I shouldn't have to spend an hour or hours searching the internet and then hacking my game to basically find the best COMPROMISE to the games visual quality so I can maintain above 25 freakin fps @ 1280........rediculous. It's just rediculous.
No matter what you say, I can go to my local Best Buy, Walmart, Circuit City and they have those little cardboard displays and they are overflowing with copies of Crysis. It is so obvious that they ordered WAY too many.
EXACTLY!
Always good to see another voice of reason and common sense which echoes mine.
I was beginning to think that I was one of a few gamers on this board who can actually remember playing Quake, Q2, Unreal, Q3, FEAR, Far Cry, Morrowind, Oblivion etc. when they were initially released.
guitarguy6
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2007
- Messages
- 1,948
I think the only thing people who bought the game should be angry about is the lack of SLI support. I ran the game pretty much maxed out but I had to lower the resolution to 1440X900 with one 8800 GT. It ran pretty smooth and looked amazing. What bothers me is that I now have 2 8800's and it raised my FPS by 2. The developers obviously knew that this game would require a power house pc to run it. Why would they not include SLI support?
that 'planet' witticism never gets old and always puts me in my place!
Looking back to the quakes, I could get great framerates out of the box easily. But back then 1600x1200 or resolutions that high were not common, it was more like 1024x768 or 1280x960or1024 if you had a high end video card. MOST people ran at these resolutions. The people who couldn't distinguish 30 from 60, let alone 60 from 80 ran at 16x12.
Looking back to the quakes, I could get great framerates out of the box easily. But back then 1600x1200 or resolutions that high were not common, it was more like 1024x768 or 1280x960or1024 if you had a high end video card. MOST people ran at these resolutions. The people who couldn't distinguish 30 from 60, let alone 60 from 80 ran at 16x12.
...And on that note, no matter what you say, I can play this as advertised.
It looks 1-2 years ahead of anything out on the market, and it runs solid as a rock and at very respectable framerates.
I am not the only one.
http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/1211/2
It seems that the ones most vocal are Opteron owners (all single core CPU's for that matter) as well as owners of 8800GTS series cards, let alone the ATI crowd.
The 8800GT, GTX, Ultra crowd with Dual and Quad-Cores have not voiced their concerns as loudly or as ubiquitously as the aforementioned.
FrozenLiquidity
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2007
- Messages
- 1,588
I've got a Q6600 and a 8800GT and I have no qualms about crysis performance, even at 1920x1080 with everything on high except shaders. I don't use any tweak files, though maybe I'd be better off if I gave it a try. I hold steady at about ~30fps in single player and around ~40+ in multiplayer.
The single player game runs smoothly and doesn't chug on my system. While there was a framerate drop in the snowy areas, it wasn't a major deal. The carrier portion was of course chuggy at the end, but I'll deal.
My main gripe is it needs patching for the multiplayer. While as a whole I really do enjoy the multiplayer (my copy of COD4 is for sale, mp is nothing new) though there is a plephora of minor bugs and glitches that greatly detract from the online experience. That's pretty much the only thing that's keeping me from playing it reguarly.
Hurry up with the patch already, my AA should not self destruct!
The single player game runs smoothly and doesn't chug on my system. While there was a framerate drop in the snowy areas, it wasn't a major deal. The carrier portion was of course chuggy at the end, but I'll deal.
My main gripe is it needs patching for the multiplayer. While as a whole I really do enjoy the multiplayer (my copy of COD4 is for sale, mp is nothing new) though there is a plephora of minor bugs and glitches that greatly detract from the online experience. That's pretty much the only thing that's keeping me from playing it reguarly.
Hurry up with the patch already, my AA should not self destruct!
Exactly.
QFT again.
On a side note, I should really compile a list of all people who can echo my sentiments, corroborate my results, as that seems to be what it would take to placate the masses who believe I am unique in this respect.
That's fine with me really, but Cevat needs to say something. It's fairly easy to see why he threw out that date in the first place, and it's just remarkably misleading. He could have said "soon", but he said "7-14 days".
16x12 was a standard, sure, but certainly not the standard. The original Voodoo couldn't even physically render at greater than 640x480 (it couldn't even allocate enough memory for front and back buffers at 1600x1200), so I'm not sure where you got the idea that the first mainstream 3D cards brought us 16x12 gaming. The rags I read didn't even start benchmarking at 16x12 until the dawn of the GeForce.
For what it's worth, didnt the current gen of consoles (X360 and PS3 namely) promise to usher in an era of nothing but 1080P goodness (at least on the PS3)?
Furthermore, didn't MS state that one of its demands of all its publishers were that their games had to feature a certain level of AA and AF on the 360?
And yet what do we get instead?
Games that are mostly rendered at 720P and even 640P, and feature little to no AA or AF.
So, why are PC games that actually do usher in an entirely new era for graphics, all of a sudden expected to be able to run at resolutions 2-2.5 times higher than games on systems that were promised across the board to support similar resolutions?
Tell me, how were you able to run:
Q3 at 1600x1200 when it came out?
Morrowind at 1600x1200?
Far Cry at 1600x1200 in March 2004?
FEAR at 1600x1200 on launch day?
Oblivion at 1600x1200, how did that work for you when it launched?
So why does it surprise people that Crysis struggles on most rigs at 1600x1200? Does history only go back to as far as when we had breakfast this morning for most people? Are we really that quick to forget graphical powerhouse games that have launched in years past?
Nevertheless, if you have an 8800GT, GTX, Ultra, then you have little reason to complain though.
Truly remarkable (bears mentioning again) considering that those cards are 13-14 months old tech wise, and 2 of those 3 actually are that old.