Yerli Defends Crysis System Reqs

T

TerranUp16

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 11, 2007
Messages
1,031
Article

"I think an important distinction that many gamers overlooked was that we designed 'medium' settings to look and play great", Cevat Yerli told IGN. "Our 'medium' setting should run great on 70 percent of gaming PCs".

On the defensive, Yerli said that the tendency for many PC gamers is to automatically whack graphics settings to the highest possible, but "our 'high' settings are truly for high-end systems".

'Very high' settings are reserved for the most state of the art and upcoming PCs, he added.
Click to expand...

Yerli went on to admit that Crysis's hardware requirements were "probably a bit" responsible for surprisingly low sales of the FPS in launch month in the US, but said it's too early to say whether this will have any impact on Crytek's approaches to technology in the future.

"...our primary goal is to always make the best possible games, first and foremost", he explained.
Click to expand...

Here's to hoping they stick w/that last line.
 
The game actually defaults to very high settings, so his point is more PR as usual.
 
There is a thread on the forum that was resurrected back from 2004 where a user was complaining about the performance of Far Cry and how it ran slow on their top-of-the-line (at the time) machine. Sounds awfully familiar.
 
Kowan said:
The game actually defaults to very high settings, so his point is more PR as usual.
Click to expand...

Huh? Even on Vista, Crysis defaulted to Medium at 1024x768 for me. I had to manually scale-up the settings to High for most and Very High for physics, sound, and textures, as well as to change the rez to 1600x1200.

Furthermore, a friend of mine, running a 6800 Ultra, managed to get Crysis running at 1280x1024 on Medium settings, so...
 
Maybe he should stop spending so much money on fancy clothes and shit and then he can give another interview.
 
are you guys serious?
yeah, it defaulted to very high for me too.
OF COURSE IT DID, 3.2Ghz with a 8800 GT

some of you got QUAD CORES, were you really expecting the defualt to be LOW?

the game automatically scans your system before you first load it. check the log files.

I was running a 4800+ X2 with a HD 2600XT previously and it defaulted to all medium on that box.
 
"...our primary goal is to always make the best possible games, first and foremost", he explained.
Click to expand...

Funny that. I seem to recall FarCry and Crysis both being sort of fun for the first half of the game, in parts, and then sucking a fat shaft when the walking/flying organic tanks arrived.
 
They need to get crossfire fixed so some of us can actually play it. I gave up until the patch comes out, disabling crossfire and turning down the settings didn't really make me want to play it.
 
squares said:
So.. is crysis a good game I heard there are many hackers online.
Click to expand...

Actually haven't gone online yet- the inet service had some problems when I first loaded it up and I decided to wait for the patch that was, at that time, coming in a week. I figure it's probably time to try it now- the concept of Power Struggle really appeals to me, so it's just a matter of execution imo, which I'll definitely be assessing.

As far as the singleplayer game, the first six levels (aka, when you're fighting North Koreans) are amazing and present the best sandbox, tactical play around (on Delta difficulty). The AI is convincingly and refreshingly realistic- it reacts the way it should react for the most part (hence, you can manipulate it, but believably- much like applying the concept of being able to smash what you would normally be able to smash in real life but applied to AI; they can't magically see you through the thick jungle vegetation when you want to be stealthy, and it actually is entirely possible to complete those six missions in a stealthy manner w/out ever using the cloak- not easy though).
 
LeviathanZERO said:
are you guys serious?
yeah, it defaulted to very high for me too.
OF COURSE IT DID, 3.2Ghz with a 8800 GT

some of you got QUAD CORES, were you really expecting the defualt to be LOW?

the game automatically scans your system before you first load it. check the log files.

I was running a 4800+ X2 with a HD 2600XT previously and it defaulted to all medium on that box.
Click to expand...
The point was Yerli implying gamers see the Very High setting and changing the defaults from a playable "default" to Very high.
 
Maybe they focus more on learning how to make a quality game all around, instead of being so focused on what they want to keep pushing... the visuals... which don't mean dick.

This is not the first time I've heard this guy talk and thought, "What a dick"... so this post is to "rage back" at such a pompous and unjustifiable attitude of someone who's a little too high on himself and his "flawless, revolutionary creation that is a standard for all games" bullshit attitude.

How many games have they actually made? Far Cry. Yes, it was a great game, but they make themselves sound as if they've a plethora of releases under their belt, and their focus is always on creating the "best gaming experience possible". What?

Yeah... the only reason it didn't sell well was due to the steep system requirements... wrong :rolleyes:. Crysis is an average game at best. There are other reasons, in large part, why people steered-clear of the game, especially after playing a few other titles that were released simultaneously. It's a weak title from many perspectives, and that's why many haven't bothered with it, period. All of the technical "issues" were yet the icing on the cake for why it's sold piss-poorly.

It was an over-hyped fucking "tech-demo", that's it. I'm not going to rehash the plethora of details I've gotten into many times with others, along with others who've agreed, that has put Crysis in it's place and knocked it down a few pegs.

Crysis is a poorly-coded, poorly-written, poorly-designed, buggy, half-assed game, period.

An example of a truly perfectly-designed game (since they want to continually push how "great" their games are) is HL2 and HL2:EP2. Perfect level design, incredible visuals, excellent sound design, fun and truly perfected gameplay and phenomenal aesthetic to everything about both titles.

Funny enough, despite all of this, I don't see Valve running around making such pompous statements. They state that they want to make an incredible gaming experience, then they shut the fuck up, and do exactly that, and that's it.

For the record, I was able to run Crysis well with no bugs personally and everything on "High", and believe me, it could have looked better. So, no... I'm sure medium does not look as good as they want to continually tout about. I've heard as much from people who said yeah, it looked "good", but not friggin' "astounding" as Crytek continually wants to push on people.

I even ran the DX9 "crack", and adjusted more files to really tweak the visuals. Sure, there are things that looked incredible, but not through-and-through, and regardless, graphics do not a game make. Not everything in Crysis looked better than any other high-end title I've played either.

HL2: Episode 2 (to name a more recent game) is an incredible experience all-around, and the epitome of how a game should be designed: with impressive, realistic visuals, incredible sound, perfection in level design and gameplay and a tremendous aesthetic to everything about it.

Not to mention that, whether it's version runs as a service or not (there are two different types right now, such as Bioshock's, which does runs as an actual service), it does install SecuROM on your system. I've seen a few people having "mysterious" problems that seem a little too much like what happened with Bioshock. That garbaged does not get installed on my system, and I was rather pissed off when I found it, and as usual with SecuROM, couldn't remove it. So I reformatted, easy enough, but easy or not to reformat, it's the damn principal.

Now I hear they're looking for a "new security measure" (in another recent interview) since they "weren't sure their current one worked" in terms of anti-piracy. So, are they looking at going into even heavier and more invasive DRM? For what... we know these measures don't work... and people are going to accept more invasive DRM shit for another half-assed title? I doubt it.

Even for those who loved Bioshock, I saw many who, once they found out about the SecuROM bullshit, uninstalled the game w/o even finishing it. Believe me, there were more who felt this way than you think.

Crysis was not that revolutionary and not the most astounding thing I've ever seen. It certainly was not, by far, the best gaming experience all around I've ever had in a lifetime of being a gamer.

Maybe they need to focus on truly making an excellent game, and not pushy technology for "future systems", which they didn't get right anyway. The game isn't nearly as "scalable" as they said it would be, from what I've seen and heard from countless individuals.

I'm starting to think that the whole "for future systems" shit, which didn't even start being pushed as a "concept" until right before the game's released, was due to the fact that, while sitting in their offices and failing to play the game smoothly in SLi with 8800 Ultras and eight fucking quad-core CPUs, they realized it ran like shit, so they figured they'd state they did it on purpose and are just hoping that some uber-hardware can come along to "make up for" their piss-poor coding.

Either way, Crytek needs to get the fuck over themselves already.
 
Kowan said:
The point was Yerli implying gamers see the Very High setting and changing the defaults from a playable "default" to Very high.
Click to expand...

I'm sure Crytek initially wanted people to test the game on Very High settings to see it in its full glory and check how it ran (if the game felt the player's hardware could handle such settings at least somewhat)- I'd think it to be a logical assumption that gamers would be smart enough to recognize that the performance at such settings simply did not sit well with them and that they should try lower settings and see how those look and work. If you took the time to do that, you'd realize that Crysis just on High pwns everything else out there (I'm assuming that if you have a rig that defaults to Very High that your rig can handle High settings at 25-30fps at least, which is a very acceptable framerate range for Crysis).

In response to ObscureTerror, the first half of Crysis has very, very strong gameplay. Only in the second half does Crysis become sub-par. But because of the infinite replayability and just extreme awesomeness and excellent design of the first half, I am more than willing to entirely forget about the second half of the game. Crysis may be pushing some of the most advanced technology around as far as video games go, but beneath that it puts forth some of the best tactical gameplay of all time. The first half of Crysis constitutes the best FPS experience I have yet played through- and I have indeed played all of your mentioned alternatives.
 
Of course we tried lowering the default settings.. :p
The good news, those with SLI, Nvidia is not sure why SLI still isn't scaling as it should in Crysis and are working on improvements.
Post #96
ChrisRay said:
http://www.nvidia.com/Download/betadrivers.aspx

give these drivers a try.

169.28 are the drivers. They are brand new. Not even I have seen them yet. I should note this is an issue where even Nvidia is a little surprised by whats happening. The results were not what they ((Or I expected)). They're working with Crytek on it right now. I dont like appearing foolish on the forums regarding things that were promised. So I will keep you updated as I get updated on the situation as I find out more.
Click to expand...
 
This thread sounds like a rerun of several other threads. Must be the writers strike.

The game was expected to sell 60,000 in it's first month in the USA, and sold 86,000. So sales weren't bad. It was number one in Germany. http://www.gamedrone.net/2007/12/18/the-american-sales-debacle/

Yes, the default settings should have been lower. It's not that big a deal. Turn them down; it's not that hard.
 
ObscureTerror said:
This is not the first time I've heard this guy talk and thought, "What a dick"...
Click to expand...

I kind caught the same vibe from your post. Some people don't like that style of gameplay, quite a few (me and 86,000 more people) think differently.

Every Crysis thread I see reminds me of every thread posted back when Far Cry first came out. Top dog then was the 9800pro's I believe? Ton of people with 20"s crying about not being able to run very high at native res. Is it surprising that Crysis is doing the same again?
 
BladeVenom said:
This thread sounds like a rerun of several other threads. Must be the writers strike.

The game was expected to sell 60,000 in it's first month in the USA, and sold 86,000. So sales weren't bad. It was number one in Germany. http://www.gamedrone.net/2007/12/18/the-american-sales-debacle/

Yes, the default settings should have been lower. It's not that big a deal. Turn them down; it's not that hard.
Click to expand...

Excellent point and article.

Also, the patch has helped performance across the board for most users, so that should placate the masses.
Oh, and SLI has been working for a few weeks now since 169.13, and performance has only gone up even more since the 1.1 patch.
 
The guy made a perfect point. People crack up the details and resolution to the max then go, "this game sucks! It's slow and unoptimized!" Well, it's not. It's simply demanding AT HIGH SETTINGS. At all medium with High Shaders and High Post Processing it looks amazing. Anything beyond that will make it look way better than any other game ever made...so of course it'll run slower.

I had a high-end video card ($650 + tax) and a high-end CPU ($800 + tax) when Far Cry came out and I couldn't get a decent 30fps outdoors with high settings at 1024x768. Now I can make Crysis look amazing and play really well with a mid-range-priced computer. ($1200 without a monitor - $250 video card, $270 cpu) That's really good! I feel like I'm one of the only people here who's actually played games long enough to know that brand new games generally can't be maxed out the day they're released. 2007 was probably the first year in PC gaming history where we've been able to play most new games at very high or max settings on mid/high-end video cards. I don't think people realize that.

And again, I shall point you to three of my videos for proof that Crysis runs fine:

-Crysis - Jungle Gameplay (dense jungle, stealth, strength)
-Crysis - Gas Station Battle (gas station blows up, rocket kills, etc.)
-Crysis "Left Behind" Shotgun Video (lots of shotgun gameplay)
 
ObscureTerror said:
Crysis is a poorly-coded, poorly-written, poorly-designed, buggy, half-assed game, period.
Click to expand...
I totally disagree. The engine is without doubt the most advanced seen in a released game, and considering the incredible visual fidelity it can spit out, it's very well optimised. Just sit back for a second and think about how much is going on, how much shit that engine is handling in realtime. No other game has made my PC work harder, I actually had to reduce my CPU/GPU overclock because it was constantly overheating.

The game itself may not be the most revolutionary FPS ever, but I think you're being overly harsh.

I mean look at those videos posted by Big D, what's poorly coded about that? It's running flawlessly on a modest system.
 
Big D. said:
The guy made a perfect point. People crack up the details and resolution to the max then go, "this game sucks! It's slow and unoptimized!" Well, it's not. It's simply demanding AT HIGH SETTINGS. At all medium with High Shaders and High Post Processing it looks amazing. Anything beyond that will make it look way better than any other game ever made...so of course it'll run slower.

I had a high-end video card ($650 + tax) and a high-end CPU ($800 + tax) when Far Cry came out and I couldn't get a decent 30fps outdoors with high settings at 1024x768. Now I can make Crysis look amazing and play really well with a mid-range-priced computer. ($1200 without a monitor - $250 video card, $270 cpu) That's really good! I feel like I'm one of the only people here who's actually played games long enough to know that brand new games generally can't be maxed out the day they're released. 2007 was probably the first year in PC gaming history where we've been able to play most new games at very high or max settings on mid/high-end video cards. I don't think people realize that.

And again, I shall point you to three of my videos for proof that Crysis runs fine:

-Crysis - Jungle Gameplay (dense jungle, stealth, strength)
-Crysis - Gas Station Battle (gas station blows up, rocket kills, etc.)
-Crysis "Left Behind" Shotgun Video (lots of shotgun gameplay)
Click to expand...

Hey Big D,

What did you use to record those with, FRAPS?

If FRAPS, don't your framerates get reduced quite noticably as you are recording, meaning that in actuality it's performing even better than what we see in those clips?
 
Defaulted to very high on my system too. Are we seeing a pattern of blatant PR spinning? I wouldn't be so ticked off at my purchase of this game if the game detected my system and said, here, medium for you to be playable. From the moment the first screenshots and in game video came out to days before it's release the game was touted as something that would play well on all hardware. Out of the box left at default settings, it's not quite playable.
 
Hamidxa said:
Hey Big D, what did you use to record those with, FRAPS?

If FRAPS, don't your framerates get reduced quite noticably as you are recording, meaning that in actuality it's performing even better than what we see in those clips?
Click to expand...
Yeah, when recording with FRAPS, you need to set a frame rate cap so that it can make a video file with a stable frame rate. I recorded at 30fps (best for a video and playable too), but without recording I get much more. I've posted some screenshots showing frame rates here:
http://www.hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1031916016&postcount=79
 
meatfestival said:
I totally disagree. The engine is without doubt the most advanced seen in a released game, and considering the incredible visual fidelity it can spit out, it's very well optimised. Just sit back for a second and think about how much is going on, how much shit that engine is handling in realtime. No other game has made my PC work harder, I actually had to reduce my CPU/GPU overclock because it was constantly overheating.
Click to expand...

Halle-effin-lujah. The number of times "it's poorly coded" and "it's poorly optimised" have been rolled out by people who can't bear to admit the game is too demanding for their precious rigs is depressing. Have they seen the source code? Is there any other game which demonstrates the same visual complexity while running more efficiently? Maybe they'd like to put one together themselves to show us how it's done. And no, the likes of (the deceptively well-art-directed) CoD4 or HL2 aren't even close.
Maybe the rise of consoles has taught people to expect new games to run perfectly out-of-the box, and they've forgotten that it's not really how it works in PC-land where everyone's machine is different and we can upgrade incrementally rather than wait five years for the next-gen.
 
Litfod said:
Halle-effin-lujah. The number of times "it's poorly coded" and "it's poorly optimised" have been rolled out by people who can't bear to admit the game is too demanding for their precious rigs is depressing. Have they seen the source code? Is there any other game which demonstrates the same visual complexity while running more efficiently? Maybe they'd like to put one together themselves to show us how it's done. And no, the likes of (the deceptively well-art-directed) CoD4 or HL2 aren't even close.
Maybe the rise of consoles has taught people to expect new games to run perfectly out-of-the box, and they've forgotten that it's not really how it works in PC-land where everyone's machine is different and we can upgrade incrementally rather than wait five years for the next-gen.
Click to expand...

I suppose you are correct in that brand new game engine should not be pit, (performance wise), against two; engines that have had a few years worth of optimization and refinement, or two games that have such exceptional art direction.

However, if a dev is out there talking smack about how great his shit looks and runs on typical pc hardware, shouldn't they be called to the mat when they don't deliver?
It does look good at high and very high settings, at medium settings it only looks OK, and at low settings not very good at all imho. Game play wise, I guess I'm with some of the others. Thought it was an awesome game til the halfway point. After that I kinda lost interest.
Maybe next year, or later this year the vid cards we need to play Crysis maxed out will be available for purchase.
 
At the end of the day we've all got to accept that Crysis looks quite good and you can shoot down trees, and that this makes it better than anything else on the planet, including the perfection of cold fusion and winning the lottery.

Y'big bunch of pontificating invalids.
 
A year from now or so when we can run Crysis maxed out at 2560x1600 with AA and AF no one will care or remember how bad it ran on today's hardware.
 
Slade said:
Defaulted to very high on my system too. Are we seeing a pattern of blatant PR spinning? I wouldn't be so ticked off at my purchase of this game if the game detected my system and said, here, medium for you to be playable. From the moment the first screenshots and in game video came out to days before it's release the game was touted as something that would play well on all hardware. Out of the box left at default settings, it's not quite playable.
Click to expand...

I can't remember a PC game where I didn't have to tweak the default settings to improve either quality or performance, so that such is even an issue... Crysis even comes with benchmarkers (albeit, hidden away in the game's folder), so you can get an idea of how the game will run before you ever actually run it (I would say I would have preferred a system for that which mirrored CoH's, but CoH's in-option-panel benchmarker was somewhat inaccurate).

Also, when did Crytek say that the game would "play well on all hardware"? They've said the game would scale back ~3 years, but you obviously should not expect to play the game at max settings on a 6800GT. Furthermore, I will reiterate a point I have stated a few times now- a friend of mine, using my old 6800 Ultra, managed to get Crysis running at Medium settings at 1280x1024- the 6800 Ultra is dangerously close to Crysis's minimum reqs, and yet even that can pull Medium settings. Really, I'm thinking that the entire 8800 series, and even parts of the 7900 series, can get Crysis going rather well with a mix of Medium and High settings- and that mix alone will kick the graphical stuffing out of every other game available. If you're just setting every setting to Medium, you get what you deserve as far as graphical quality goes, and if you just set every setting to High when your PC is having trouble w/that, you get what you deserve as far as performance goes. Such is PC gaming- you get more out of it, but you have to put a little more into it.

Finally, on High, Crysis is asking your gpu to deal with 1 million+ polies per second every second. You do the math.
 
Is Crysis only pushing 1 million polys? That would surprise me. Hell, Segas model3 arcade board from 1999 pushes 1 million polys.
 
Dan_D said:
A year from now or so when we can run Crysis maxed out at 2560x1600 with AA and AF no one will care or remember how bad it ran on today's hardware.
Click to expand...

Wrong. We won't remember because our eyes will explode from too eye candy. ;)
 
strend said:
Is Crysis only pushing 1 million polys? That would surprise me. Hell, Segas model3 arcade board from 1999 pushes 1 million polys.
Click to expand...

Well, Crysis is pushing pretty much at least 1 million polies/sec (rarely does it seem to drop below that) and upwards of 2.5 million polies/sec (performance drops-off to like 17fps at those points). I could be mistaken and those #'s could be in thousands of polies, but I'm thinking that would be a little extreme. Either way, that's a fair amount, and those are just polies. We haven't even begun to talk about normal, specular, diffuse, etc... maps, shaders, shadows, etc... Fyi, I pulled those numbers from the DX10 version- not sure if it makes a difference or not, but I *think* DX10 may be able to produce a lower polycount but is more shader-intensive hence offsetting the performance gained from fewer polygons. And, ofc, this is with model quality (aka, poly count pretty much) on High.
 
I have no complaints, game looks great. My neighor upgraded from his 9600Pro to a 7800GS. Even on low settings, Crysis looks pretty decent. I was impressed that he was able to play at 1680x1050 on low at 20-40fps with a (AGP) 7800GS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top