Where the FREAK is the Crysis patch at?!?!?!

[TheRapture]

Well...........the reason people are screaming for the patch is mainly performance.

I want my quad core to run the game better than a dual core.
I want my 8800 series graphics card to run the game on all high 1280 DX10.
I want my 64bit OS to run the game better than a 32bit OS.
I want Sli to work.

Cevat said this is the way it would be.
Make it so.

Yes, he did say this, and it is obvious he (Cevat) was either:
a. lying
b. full of shit

I like the game, it runs OK for me at 1920x1200 all medium, but I hate the lighting that way so I turn that to HIGH...which slows the framerate quite a bit....when I can get MINIMUM framerates of 30fps, NO LOWER, I'll be alot happier....

I will continue playing and replaying the jungle levels, the alien levels, they suck, and suck hard, about like Jenna Jameson does in her best movies. Now that's alot of sucking!!!

 

[Killa|3yte]

Ban Hamixda

 

[Droc]

Well, I'm almost speechless. I've just showed you the HardOCP review proving that Crysis cannot be run on all high @ 1280 with latest 8800 series card and you say false.

October MaximumPC interview for sure he said that but I'm trying to find a place I can link without pissing anybody off.

How can you say the HardOCP review is false?

Are you slow in the head?
Dude, I have a C2D E6400, 2GB ram and a 8800GTS 320mb and I can run crysis on high at 1680x1050

 

[LeviathanZERO]

Also very impressed with Crysis.
At the settings I have it running at, nothing even comes close to looking as real as this game. It runs slow. I expect it to. The amount of effects that are on at once, are way too much for any computer right now. If this is what Crytek was aiming for, they suceeded.

Not sure thats a good thing though. This game was rushed, without a doubt.
I have had 2 specific bugs already, and its not minor bugs, its game stopping bugs.

First bug was on the Island map. A certain save got corrupted, I suppose, because any load of it would result in a Fatal Exeception crash to Desktop, after 15 seconds. (Never seen anything like it. EXACTLY. EVERYTIME. 15 seconds....)

The 2nd bug made me so mad, cause I redid the entire part again, only to have the same bug happen twice. For the sake of spoilers, black text ahead....

After you reach the carrier and a nuke is launched at the island, the ship gets attacked. Once you fend off the attack, you are told to find a bay elevator and go down. Well, I get on said elevator and it goes all the way down. The rest of the level refuses to load and walking off the elevator results in me falling through to my death.

Had to restart the game to continue.

Game is goregous.
But it was no doubt rushed. I'm not talking about better hardware being out later, I'm talking the engine needing better optimizing and these bugs needing to be fixed. 3 extra months would have probably fixed everything, and they could have owned the market in February.

My blame is 100% behind EA.
I knew this shit was going to happen. I told myself when I heard Crytek found a publisher. I told myself when they said it was EA.

Last I heard this game had a March 08 ETA, then all of a sudden in September, it has a November release date.

Video Game release dates DO NOT move UP. EVER.
GG EA.

Glad this came with my video card. I would enjoy the game, but would not have been so happy with spending $50 on it.

 

[markt435]

Are you slow in the head?
Dude, I have a C2D E6400, 2GB ram and a 8800GTS 320mb and I can run crysis on high at 1680x1050

sorry i find that hard to believe. i had an OVERCLOCKED (read: OVERCLOCKED) E6300 @ 3GHz, 2 GB of RAM @ 852MHz and a EVGA 8800GT 512MB @ SuperClocked speeds and that shit crawled on High settings at that res. I had to try 1280x800 just to get some decent speed if i wanted to run high. this pertains to the demo btw, i ain't about to give EA any more money. and notice i said decent speed, not great or awesome or fast....decent

 

[wrangler]

Are you slow in the head?
Dude, I have a C2D E6400, 2GB ram and a 8800GTS 320mb and I can run crysis on high at 1680x1050

Then you need to alert Kyle to your special gifts and have him let you run the video card reviews from now on because obviously, Brent Justice don't know a damn thing about it.

If you can run Crysis 1680x1050 DX10 all on high with above 25 fps through the whole game, I'll join Kyle and the dude wearing the bra driving around Dallas in a Hummer with pink wheels in a tutu.

 

[Opie]

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.

Shill.

 

[tickle_me_emo]

Hamidxa has this magical config that allows you to enable mostly high settings, 2x edge AA, x16 AF and God Rays all within the 25-35 FPS range at 1680x1050 resolution ( i think that excludes the ice levels though).

His screens shots with the FPS number in the corner are very impressive. He even countered the claims that oblivion with texture packs looks better than Crysis (with semi-comparative screen shots).

What would really settle this would be if someone who had a similiar rig as Hamidxa, use his config settings @1680x1050 and see if he was lying about the frame rates he was getting.

Granted the game doesn't run too well out of the box ([H] showed that), but i won't really rip Crytek and EA if someone can get the same gameplay experience as Hamidxa with a quick change of the config files.

 

[Droc]

Then you need to alert Kyle to your special gifts and have him let you run the video card reviews from now on because obviously, Brent Justice don't know a damn thing about it.

If you can run Crysis 1680x1050 DX10 all on high with above 25 fps through the whole game, I'll join Kyle and the dude wearing the bra driving around Dallas in a Hummer with pink wheels in a tutu.

I ran it in high(dx9), not very high(dx10). All settings to high with no special configs. Straight out of the box Crysis. I did however, not use AA as I didnt notice any real difference. I experienced the usual slowdowns on the final level, but thats less to do with the GPu and more to do with horrible coding of that level. Aside from that, I had some barely noticeable, but playable slowdown in the village due to the huge number of AI, but thats probably due to my stock clocked E6400. Other then that, the game shuddered once when the mountain was falling, but my apple ipod update had also popped up at the same time.
I could run the island map (aka demo map) without any slowdowns. I didnt run fraps or anything, but the game ran smooth and never felt stressed at all.

I scaled the res back to 1280 for MP since I sit further back from my screen now. at 1280, SP runs fine.

I dont mean to argue with people, but Im running a basic system with stock clocks (except for the factory clocked 8800GTS), and the game runs perfectly playable and looks amazing...
We know the 8800GT runs Crysis faster then the 8800GTS 320mb

Im sure Im not hitting really high fps or anything, but dropping below 25fps is rare for me, and thats completely playable..

 

[Silus]

Well this thread certainly derailed from the OP...

About the [H] reviews, they are done for the highest PLAYABLE settings, given a certain resolution on specific hardware. They will be the most adequate, in terms of in-game settings turned on and smooth performance. Notice the numbers @ 1280x1024, where the new GTS, GTX and GT are able to have many settings set to high, while the rest is kept at medium. This doesn't mean the cards can't do everything set to high, but it means that it's with these settings that you'll have the smoothest experience possible, while having the best eye candy known in a game.
Also notice that the performance stoppers in Crysis, are settings like Shaders, which are all set to high. If you turn everything to high, you will notice a performance decrease over those numbers and the experience won't be as smooth, but you'll surely be able to play it.
I find it amazing that after all this time, you still didn't get the point of [H] reviews. It's not about raw FPS. It's about the highest playable settings, to provide the smoothest experience possible, at a given resolution and hardware.

To sum up. Yes, Crysis is a system hog, but it's no different than any other new game, that pushed graphics boundaries beyond anything we've seen before. I'll resort to the same examples I already used in two similar threads: Oblivion and FEAR.
When they came out, there was hardly any game that could compare with them, in terms of graphics and no card, not even SLI or Crossfire setups, could handle them at max settings @ 1600x1200 or above.

I actually think everyone with a 8800 was spoiled by NVIDIA, since this year old hardware was able to keep up with everything that was thrown at it, at high-resolutions. Crysis doesn't allow that beyond 1600x1200 and so people complain.
Going back to Oblivion, remember that only when the 8800s were released, was anyone able to max in-game settings in Oblivion @ 1600x1200 and you would still need a GTX for that, which was $650 at the time. The 8800s were released almost a year after Oblivion was out. So, next time, do some research on the history of software vs hardware evolution. What's happening to Crysis right now, is not different, in any way, than what has happened before.

As for the patch, I don't remember Cevat saying 2 weeks, but if that's true, then he obviously lied. I just hope this is not similar to Bioshock, which took 3.5 months to release a patch. I haven't had any problems with Crysis this far. No bugs or crashes that I can remember, but as anything on a PC, it depends greatly on the combination of hardware each of us has. So problems are bound to happen and I hope they get fixed soon.

 

[MurphysLaww]

False.

http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?p=1031815275&posted=1#post1031815275

It can run it MORE than adequately -- very respectably in fact.

Furthermore, I asked you for a source on Cevat's alleged comment.

Oh, and that is a DX10 benchmark you posted.
Blame NV and their driver team, not Crytek for NV failing to get their DX10 drivers up to the DX9 standards.

Secondly, even then it's average ~ 30FPS in DX10.

VERY RESPECTABLE Indeed!
Thanks for proving my point.

Isn't the DX10 framerate performance more of a MicroCrap issue?

 

[Hamidxa]

Well this thread certainly derailed from the OP...

About the [H] reviews, they are done for the highest PLAYABLE settings, given a certain resolution on specific hardware. They will be the most adequate, in terms of in-game settings turned on and smooth performance. Notice the numbers @ 1280x1024, where the new GTS, GTX and GT are able to have many settings set to high, while the rest is kept at medium. This doesn't mean the cards can't do everything set to high, but it means that it's with these settings that you'll have the smoothest experience possible, while having the best eye candy known in a game.
Also notice that the performance stoppers in Crysis, are settings like Shaders, which are all set to high. If you turn everything to high, you will notice a performance decrease over those numbers and the experience won't be as smooth, but you'll surely be able to play it.
I find it amazing that after all this time, you still didn't get the point of [H] reviews. It's not about raw FPS. It's about the highest playable settings, to provide the smoothest experience possible, at a given resolution and hardware.

To sum up. Yes, Crysis is a system hog, but it's no different than any other new game, that pushed graphics boundaries beyond anything we've seen before. I'll resort to the same examples I already used in two similar threads: Oblivion and FEAR.
When they came out, there was hardly any game that could compare with them, in terms of graphics and no card, not even SLI or Crossfire setups, could handle them at max settings @ 1600x1200 or above.

I actually think everyone with a 8800 was spoiled by NVIDIA, since this year old hardware was able to keep up with everything that was thrown at it, at high-resolutions. Crysis doesn't allow that beyond 1600x1200 and so people complain.
Going back to Oblivion, remember that only when the 8800s were released, was anyone able to max in-game settings in Oblivion @ 1600x1200 and you would still need a GTX for that, which was $650 at the time. The 8800s were released almost a year after Oblivion was out. So, next time, do some research on the history of software vs hardware evolution. What's happening to Crysis right now, is not different, in any way, than what has happened before.

As for the patch, I don't remember Cevat saying 2 weeks, but if that's true, then he obviously lied. I just hope this is not similar to Bioshock, which took 3.5 months to release a patch. I haven't had any problems with Crysis this far. No bugs or crashes that I can remember, but as anything on a PC, it depends greatly on the combination of hardware each of us has. So problems are bound to happen and I hope they get fixed soon.

QFT on a multitude of levels.

Many here however are apparently too ignorant of history to share your sentiments.

Isn't the DX10 framerate performance more of a MicroCrap issue?

As well as the hardware devs for not getting their DX10 drivers up to their DX9 performance levels/standards.

DX10 was supposed to improve performance (at the same settings), however we see the opposite.
Microsoft, NV, ATI all are culpable.

 

[maddude]

I have a 8800GT and a now old Opty 185@2.94 and my native resolution is 1280x1024. The first time playing the game I had the resolution maxed out and turned all the settings on medium. I know I can play around and set some higher, but playing through the first time I did not want any slow downs in the name of eye candy. Now that I've been able to play through it, I'm going back and playing with the settings, seeing what I can bump up. I'm holding out hope that with new drivers and patches I can turn even more settings up.

I also had problems where a level wouldn't load right, and loading a save point would result in me shooting through enemies. Never understood that one, shoot them all day and they wouldn't die, but you would. Had to restart the level on that one, kinda pissed me off a lot.

 

[FrozenLiquidity]

I don't care. I want to PLAY THE FUCKING GAME. If that means setting Crysis to medium at a decent resolution to get 60fps average, then no thank you, I don't like having sub-advertised visuals for playability. I can play COD4 at 1680x1050 maxed out to look better than Crysis and with smoother framerates. I can't stand the bland gameplay of COD4 but I can't stand the lag and stuttering in Crysis, so I am back to Battlefield once again.

Then quit yer bitchin' and play the fucking game.
I want to run Crysis at 1920x1080 with everything on high and get a solid framerate but it's just not possible on my hardware. Though you don't see me crying here about it. I turn down one option to medium, which doesn't seem to have a big visual effect on the game, and it runs acceptably. If you can't stand to play the game on anything but 60fps and maxed out settings perhaps you should stop being so picky, or else wait a year or two for the hardware to catch up.

Enjoy Battlefield. I'll be playing Crysis.

 

[F.E.A.R.]

I have an X1900XT with a single core Opty @2.9 and can run at 14X9 with customized (bellonis) .cfg files. I average 20 FPS and it is still quite playable. 30 frames and the game is smooth as butter, and it looks like a freaking movie. My card is what now almost 3 years old? Am I missing something here?

 

[Dethred]

Then quit yer bitchin' and play the fucking game.
I want to run Crysis at 1920x1080 with everything on high and get a solid framerate but it's just not possible on my hardware. Though you don't see me crying here about it. I turn down one option to medium, which doesn't seem to have a big visual effect on the game, and it runs acceptably. If you can't stand to play the game on anything but 60fps and maxed out settings perhaps you should stop being so picky, or else wait a year or two for the hardware to catch up.

Enjoy Battlefield. I'll be playing Crysis.

With everything on Very High except Shaders at high and shadows at medium at 1280x768 res I get 25fps average. It honestly looks significantly worse than COD4 at that point. The game is a mess, half the time different story cue's don't occur, and many other problems. AI bugs where they literally won't see you uncloaked, etc. Its unplayable. Sure, if you have a low standard for the game then you could force your way through it, but I plan on waiting until I can enjoy it so I don't get sick of it before I can max it out. Of course that looks like it will be a while, if a patch they claimed would take 7-14 days is taking a month and a half.

 

[fallguy]

Hey guess what guys, if a game comes out that look better than any other game out, its going to get worse frames than any other game. Not to mention that if you want to play it in DX10, you have to use a slower OS to do it. A OS which is not known for stability, or performance. Crying about performance, is silly. Its even more silly to think a patch will come out and give you a magical increase in frames.

lol a game like unreal never brought anybody to their knees.

You have not a clue. Unreal brought my, at the time, very fast system to its knees. Had the fastest (two) video cards out at the time. Going from 32 to 64mb of system ram was the biggest performance gain for me.

 

[Techx]

yea i cant wait for a patch too i just HOPE IT DOESN'T BREAK YOUR SAVED GAMES.. that would suck *cough*stalker*cough*.. i got killed by a slowly rolling palm tree

 

[eggrock]

I have a 3700+. 1Gb and an 8800GTS and I would like to be able to play the game at 19x12 with everyting at the highest setting, and get 100fps framerates. Or else the game sucks and COD RULEZ!



That's pretty much where discussion of this game has gone. Every thread gets derailed and sucked into the exact same issue. IBTL

 

[wrangler]

yea i cant wait for a patch too i just HOPE IT DOESN'T BREAK YOUR SAVED GAMES.. that would suck *cough*stalker*cough*.. i got killed by a slowly rolling palm tree

Yea, the slowly sliding boxes are a bitch too.

Well, I hope the patch gets here soon for the literally tens of thousands of people who need and want it. You other 6 dudes are good to go.

Look, I like the game. The first 1/2 to 2/3rds belong in the pantheon of great gaming experiences. I think everyone should go out and buy Crysis right now......OK Cev.....ahem.....Hamidxa.


No matter what you say, though, the game does not perform the way the developers said it would. Quad core offers no advantage. 64bit offers no advantage. DX10 is unplayable on high settings with 8800 hardware at decent resolutions. Forget very high...forget it completely. I don't even think about it being there. Last but not least, this game on medium LOOKS LIKE ANY OTHER GAME IN THE LAST 2 YEARS. Quit trying to tell me it looks great on medium because it does not. It looks OK.

This game was meant to be played on DX10 with at least high settings to take advantage of the post processing, edge aa and other DX10 exclusive features (oooooh, theres that ugly DX10 only exclusive features mention again which turned out to be mostly a sham.....tsk tsk) to give the game at least a modicum of the appearance we were lead to believe it would have.


This game has been openly touted and marketed to:

a) Get people to upgrade to Vista for DX10.

b) Get people to upgrade to DX10 hardware.


This patch needs to address the bugs and it needs to make quad cores work better than dual cores, 64bit offer an advantage over 32bit whether it be performance or visuals, and enable 8800 hardware to run the game on all high DX10 through the whole game.

None of this is new to you. I'm not the only one saying it. It's everywhere and the public has not only spoken on every single forum on the planet but they've also spoken with their wallets. Don't get sucked in by the cries of the weak saying "oh well, COD4 got released and Orange Box and blah blah blah blah.....................every single FPS gamer on the planet was waiting for ONE game...........CRYSIS.

The demo came out. Performance sucked. None of what Cevat said was true. The game did NOT look like we were lead to believe. People stayed away. On forums across the globe the cry went out and we were told, it's just the demo. Full quad core, Sli and 64 bit functionality will be in the retail release.

What a bunch of horseshit.

 

[Big D.]

sorry i find that hard to believe. i had an OVERCLOCKED (read: OVERCLOCKED) E6300 @ 3GHz, 2 GB of RAM @ 852MHz and a EVGA 8800GT 512MB @ SuperClocked speeds and that shit crawled on High settings at that res.

I play the full game in DX9 at 1600x1200 (more pixels than your res) with everything on high + very high settings from the cfg file (sun shafts, motion blur quality 4, parallax occlusion mapping and edgeAA = 2). It runs fine since I consider 25-40fps for Crysis at this high resolution "fine". You might call it "crawling", sure, but my fps DOUBLE if I use 1024x768 - which is more than playable.

Hamidxa has this magical config that allows you to enable mostly high settings, 2x edge AA, x16 AF and God Rays all within the 25-35 FPS range at 1680x1050 resolution ( i think that excludes the ice levels though).

What would really settle this would be if someone who had a similiar rig as Hamidxa, use his config settings @1680x1050 and see if he was lying about the frame rates he was getting.

With my rig (cost me about $1200 before taxes and shipping, including 500 GB hdd but no monitor) I can play it fine at 16x12 (I have a CRT) with the settings I mentionned above. The game runs fine. People only bitch because they're using Vista which is much slower (DX10) and resolutions and settings that are way too high for a brand new game running on a mid-range card or a one-year-old high-end video card. The LCD thing got people going crazy with their native resolutions.

I'll gladly post screenshots from the game with the frame rate on if you guys want when I get home tonight.

 

[Big D.]

Ok here are some screens I just took comparing frame rates at 1024x768 and 1680x1050 (1600x1200 in some cases). The middle image was taken at 1024 and the larger one at the higher resolution, obviousely. Exact same place - all I did was go to the menu, change the resolution, apply and take a screenshot after that glow effect wore off. Images are scaled to 50%.

The first image shows my options screen. I'm using DX9 with the modified cfg to get most "Very High" DX10 settings. Most noticeably, you'll see parallax occlusion mapping, object motion blur, sun shafts and the Very High quality water (waves use parallax occlusion mapping I believe, so they stick in/out way more than on "High").

The following image is using 1024x768 so it's not resized, just to show you that object motion blur is enabled (looks great in motion):

Well, I hope that settles it. Crysis runs VERY well (40-60 fps on this level) even with the highest settings enabled as long as you turn down the resolution. With "High" settings or lower, it runs noticeably faster at all resolutions so anyone with a mid-range or high-end PC should be able to play it. Also, I didn't take screenshots while shooting people because they move around, so I can't get similar screenshots with diff. settings. Frame rates drop, of course, but it's still very playable and looks amazing. Btw, at 1024, I get 40fps average in the GPU benchmark with these settings. All High I get 50.something, so most people should get 25% more fps under Windows XP than what I got here.

Using an LCD and are stuck at very high resolutions? Well, sucks for you. You'll have to play with lower settings.

 

[Silus]

I have a 3700+. 1Gb and an 8800GTS and I would like to be able to play the game at 19x12 with everyting at the highest setting, and get 100fps framerates. Or else the game sucks and COD RULEZ!



That's pretty much where discussion of this game has gone. Every thread gets derailed and sucked into the exact same issue. IBTL

Exactly my point in my previous post. People expect to run the most stunning game ever made, with everything set to very high @ extremely high resolutions. If they can't then the game sucks, is unoptimized and CoD4 / HL2 Episode 2 are better.

It makes no sense really...

 

[Finn]

It makes no sense that the touted DX10 effects shown at the expo are completely missing in the final product and DX10 runs much slower than DX9 with same quality settings.

This is the issue here, not anyones hardware or how 'advanced' crysis is. They didn't deliver half what they promised and people are disappointed with reason. The conclusion is that Crysis DX10 was 100% hype and misinformation and false marketing.

 

[Yoshiyuki Blade]

I played through Crysis at 1280x720 with High settings the first time around. It was easily playable. When I wanted to replay it, I cranked all the settings to Very High at the same resolution. Barely playable framerates, but the visual quality increase was astounding and it was even more enjoyable than the first time just by the eyecandy alone.

Instead of bitching and moaning about the crap performance, I sucked it up just to see how it looked, and enjoyed every minute of it. I'm pretty shocked that some people are still waiting out on the patch for the SLI fix. People are just gonna set themselves up for disappointment because when it finally comes out they'll just say "I held off on playing Crysis and waited X days just for this?" According to most of the people's attitudes around here, Crysis doesn't seem to be worth waiting longer for especially if you have it in your possession.

I started playing Crysis with very low expectations and was pleasantly surprised by what it offered. Meh. I guess I was used to playing games at 10-15 fps NON-MAXED (and sometimes even at minimum) for years before I became an "enthusiast."

 

[Hamidxa]

Exactly my point in my previous post. People expect to run the most stunning game ever made, with everything set to very high @ extremely high resolutions. If they can't then the game sucks, is unoptimized and CoD4 / HL2 Episode 2 are better.

It makes no sense really...

QFT,

Too many sophomoric half-wits running around here quite frankly.

Ok here are some screens I just took comparing frame rates at 1024x768 and 1680x1050 (1600x1200 in some cases). The middle image was taken at 1024 and the larger one at the higher resolution, obviousely. Exact same place - all I did was go to the menu, change the resolution, apply and take a screenshot after that glow effect wore off. Images are scaled to 50%.

The first image shows my options screen. I'm using DX9 with the modified cfg to get most "Very High" DX10 settings. Most noticeably, you'll see parallax occlusion mapping, object motion blur, sun shafts and the Very High quality water (waves use parallax occlusion mapping I believe, so they stick in/out way more than on "High").

The following image is using 1024x768 so it's not resized, just to show you that object motion blur is enabled (looks great in motion):

Well, I hope that settles it. Crysis runs VERY well (40-60 fps on this level) even with the highest settings enabled as long as you turn down the resolution. With "High" settings or lower, it runs noticeably faster at all resolutions so anyone with a mid-range or high-end PC should be able to play it. Also, I didn't take screenshots while shooting people because they move around, so I can't get similar screenshots with diff. settings. Frame rates drop, of course, but it's still very playable and looks amazing. Btw, at 1024, I get 40fps average in the GPU benchmark with these settings. All High I get 50.something, so most people should get 25% more fps under Windows XP than what I got here.

Using an LCD and are stuck at very high resolutions? Well, sucks for you. You'll have to play with lower settings.

Thank you for the enlightening post.

 

[Silus]

QFT,

Too many sophomoric half-wits running around here quite frankly.

Even though I agree with you, in what Crysis is concerned, that's not nice. Just stick with facts, no need for insults...

 

[TheBluePill]

Guess part of the problem are the large numbers of Super Sized Monitors out there..

Maybe Crytek expected us to all have 19" LCDs..

 

[jimmyb]

30+ fps is unacceptable, when did we become so complacent about framerate as pc gamers? I remember not accepting less than 80.

320*200 @ 25FPS used to be considered good. Compared to that, Crysis runs swimmingly.

 

[Big D.]

320*200 @ 25FPS used to be considered good. Compared to that, Crysis runs swimmingly.

Exactly. I think a lot of the people here never even had to deal with Quake 1 or any of the classics. Textures weren't even filtered and no one complained!

Even when the first Quake 3 and UT came out, I could barely play them at 320x240 and I was still impressed by them. Years later we could get over 300fps. People just aren't being realistic.

 

[Droc]

Ok here are some screens I just took comparing frame rates at 1024x768 and 1680x1050 (1600x1200 in some cases). The middle image was taken at 1024 and the larger one at the higher resolution, obviousely. Exact same place - all I did was go to the menu, change the resolution, apply and take a screenshot after that glow effect wore off. Images are scaled to 50%.

The first image shows my options screen. I'm using DX9 with the modified cfg to get most "Very High" DX10 settings. Most noticeably, you'll see parallax occlusion mapping, object motion blur, sun shafts and the Very High quality water (waves use parallax occlusion mapping I believe, so they stick in/out way more than on "High").

http://www.imageprowler.com/images/uploads/b_38d8af3f150552232db77f019bcf60a3.jpg
http://www.imageprowler.com/images/uploads/b_bc9422c287c673fdb86ea03f215f75fa.jpg
http://www.imageprowler.com/images/uploads/b_d0b9f9699f138506eec6458b91d20a2a.jpg
http://www.imageprowler.com/images/uploads/b_bad593394ed83d68d7ed6cc859afa35c.jpg
http://www.imageprowler.com/images/uploads/b_5d97c72fd112551bd4bdfcb2b5f8271a.jpg
http://www.imageprowler.com/images/uploads/b_585b068d6e58c1a597ce86b45b5adaf8.jpg
The following image is using 1024x768 so it's not resized, just to show you that object motion blur is enabled (looks great in motion):
http://www.imageprowler.com/images/uploads/b_1757ce0973e7bb6aa26cf8e53b6845a3.jpg

Well, I hope that settles it. Crysis runs VERY well (40-60 fps on this level) even with the highest settings enabled as long as you turn down the resolution. With "High" settings or lower, it runs noticeably faster at all resolutions so anyone with a mid-range or high-end PC should be able to play it. Also, I didn't take screenshots while shooting people because they move around, so I can't get similar screenshots with diff. settings. Frame rates drop, of course, but it's still very playable and looks amazing. Btw, at 1024, I get 40fps average in the GPU benchmark with these settings. All High I get 50.something, so most people should get 25% more fps under Windows XP than what I got here.

Using an LCD and are stuck at very high resolutions? Well, sucks for you. You'll have to play with lower settings.

I dont see what people are crying about. One poster earlier said that the game looks like crap unless its maxed out at high resolution, but clearly thats not the case. Even with the reduced resolutions, the game looks generations better then anything else to date, and with totally playable frame rates.
Now tell me, if you played the game at the higher resolutions, its still playable and enjoyable right? Personally, I have been doing the same, playing in high res and lower res and even with 25fps, the game is still stellar. Ofcourse 50 fps is better, but its not the end of the world.

well put tougher post btw

 

[l3ender]

Exactly my point in my previous post. People expect to run the most stunning game ever made, with everything set to very high @ extremely high resolutions. If they can't then the game sucks, is unoptimized and CoD4 / HL2 Episode 2 are better.

It makes no sense really...

Exactly what I've found. People expect to max this game out, and IT'S NOT POSSIBLE. And as soon as they can't max it out, the game automatically becomes "unoptimized." I've said this before, and will continue to say it. People are just too dumb and stubborn to listen/hear.

 

[kenpomasta]

It would be nice for Crysis to get a little better framerate, but one thing is that crysis doesnt play too bad @ 30 fps, compared to other games. Im running it @ 1920x1200 on high, with 8x aa and 8 x af, and its sitting @ around 30.. Granted I have a good amount of money into my system, but for how the game looks, I will take it. I hope the patch unlocks some magical framerate, but I doubt it, we will prob see a couple fps different, but nothing as major as people are looking for, like 20-30 extra fps, just not going to happen with current hardware.

 

[TheBluePill]

And.. This Shot from Above is absolutly amazing! Its 90% Photorealistic!

 

[FrozenLiquidity]

With everything on Very High except Shaders at high and shadows at medium at 1280x768 res I get 25fps average. It honestly looks significantly worse than COD4 at that point. The game is a mess, half the time different story cue's don't occur, and many other problems. AI bugs where they literally won't see you uncloaked, etc. Its unplayable. Sure, if you have a low standard for the game then you could force your way through it, but I plan on waiting until I can enjoy it so I don't get sick of it before I can max it out. Of course that looks like it will be a while, if a patch they claimed would take 7-14 days is taking a month and a half.

I don't like waiting for the patch either. It's the only thing that's kept me away from the multiplayer portion of the game. It's a blast, I've tried it, but the bugs are still too numerous to deal with. Though I have never run into the other bugs you mention. The AI seems to work fine for me, if somewhat predictable the only times they seem to do stupid things is when they can't figure out where I am because of a silencer. (So yeah, lets just stand right here until he shoots us, but that's fine by me).
I guess it's a matter of opinion. I run COD4 @ 1920*1080 with pretty much everything maxed and it looks okay I guess, but crysis at the same res with everything except shaders on high (not very high!) and the game looks fantastic. I did enjoy the COD4 multiplayer for a bit, but I don't think I've touched the game since Crysis was released.

To each his own.

 

[Slade]

would someone mind showing their framerates DURING ice or the later parts of the game...

truth be told, I ran the first portion 16x10 with very high on everything except for shaders and shadows which I either went custom or medium.

Then I played the game, jungle was great... then the game kicked my settings in the ass, not once but twice... I finished the game on a lot lower settings because it's NOT optimized. It's one thing to have a min, it's another when the min becomes your new average.

 

[Revenicus]

320*200 @ 25FPS used to be considered good. Compared to that, Crysis runs swimmingly.

Why don't you crysis apologists just cut to the chase and say, back in the stone age, we just had rocks, therefore be happy that we get this performance with crysis. it would shut everyone up!

What happened back in the day is irrelevant. Today we have consoles with technology and games that are right up there with PC games. Right out of the gate they run well.

Being told that the product we are buying now is not going to run well today, but in the future is just unacceptable in this day and age where there are many competitive alternatives.

Many people here think as a elitist pc gamer, and not from a business standpoint. the fact that crysis takes such a powerful PC to look stunning is NOT a good thing for consumers or for crytek. This kind of thing isn't going to keep happening as it has in the past with so much competition from current gaming consoles.

 

[TheRapture]

Problem is...once you get to the ice world parts....the frame rate drops 10-15 fps across the board....yikes. If you can run 1920x1200 at medium settings (I have a 24" display) and average 25-30 fps.....get ready for a slideshow in the ice parts...got to drop the res quite a bit. Weird.

I love the game...I am replaying all the jungle parts in countless ways, inventing new ways to block/kill/sneak/booby trap the KPA...it's quite hilarious and challenging sometimes. There are lots of physics bugs to play with as well, chickens getting stuck in tin, rifles stuck into the ground and shaking, soldiers flying like a phantom, frogs tossed into orbit (unless you shoot them in the air, then they fall), making helicopters crash on top of other enemies....there are endless ways to fuck with this stuff....

 

[TheBluePill]

Problem is...once you get to the ice world parts....the frame rate drops 10-15 fps across the board....yikes. If you can run 1920x1200 at medium settings (I have a 24" display) and average 25-30 fps.....get ready for a slideshow in the ice parts...got to drop the res quite a bit. Weird.

I love the game...I am replaying all the jungle parts in countless ways, inventing new ways to block/kill/sneak/booby trap the KPA...it's quite hilarious and challenging sometimes. There are lots of physics bugs to play with as well, chickens getting stuck in tin, rifles stuck into the ground and shaking, soldiers flying like a phantom, frogs tossed into orbit (unless you shoot them in the air, then they fall), making helicopters crash on top of other enemies....there are endless ways to fuck with this stuff....

Wonder Why the Ice parts are so taxing on the cards? Most of it is just new textures for Ground and rocks right?

 

[Droc]

i had no issues with the ice parts.