Gaming Can it play Crysis 3?

[BlueFalcon]

A lot of people just don't want to admit that PC gaming graphics have completely stagnated in the last 5 years aside from Metro 2033, BF3, Trine 2 and Witcher 2. They are also bitter that Crysis destroyed their GPUs over the years. Even today, a GTX680 can't crack 60 fps at 1920x1200:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6096/e...ified-review/5

While some posters have already covered it, Crysis / Warhead was not properly optimized for multi-core CPUs. Having said that, we have to look at the performance of Crysis vs. more modern games and how they compare. 3 games that come to mind that can give Crysis a run for the $ graphically are Witcher 2, Metro 2033 and BF3. BF3 still has terrible textures and pre-scripted physics model that's less advanced than that of Crysis. Its main standouts are character animation due to EA sports and lighting model far superior to Crysis. The actual in-game models, polygon count, vegetation are not more advanced. More importantly, you cannot get 60 fps avg in any of those games maxed out on a single HD7970Ghz. You can almost get there in Crysis. So while Crysis could have been optimized better, it's not that bad compared to its graphical competitors.

Now let's compare some games that came out in 2012 that hamerred performance and don't look anything special: Sleeping Dogs, Assassin's Creed 3, and Hitman Absolution. The reality is when we compare performance of Crysis, it actually runs faster and looks better than any game that came out in all of 2012.

It's shocking but it's true. Even compared to Far Cry 3, Crysis still has superior graphics in many areas. The vegetation is fully dynamic, the physics model is far more complex and character models are way more detailed in Crysis than in Far Cry 3. We shouldn't have a situation of a 2007 game giving a run for the $ compared to a 2012 game and it does:

Crysis vs. Far Cry 3 - Crysis wins
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3ohqbEn1v8

Thank you consolitis!

And that's the point - Crysis was made as a PC game only, for the PC from the ground-up. We need more games like Crysis that showcase what the PC hardware can do when developers push the limits of available graphics tech.

Crysis made GPU hardware exciting again. It puts the PC at the forefront of technology. Obviously gameplay >>> graphics but if the future of PC gaming are just higher resolution console ports of PS4/Xbox 720, it will make PC feel less special/exciting. One key advantage of PC gaming is being on the cutting edge of graphics innovation. Furthermore, it's not dissimilar to supercars. The tech used in supercars eventually trickles down to every day cars. Games like Crysis showcased what was possible for all game developers to accomplish. It set a new base to which all future games would be judged graphically. Someone has to make strides in physics, AI, graphics, sound/music, animation, etc. Any game that pushes the limits of any one or many of these aspects is great for PC gaming. If games are just console ports with high resolution texture packs and weak DX11 effects thrown in as an after-thought, those are not next generation PC graphics.

@ rollo,

I don't know how you think Uncharted 3 looks better than Crysis. Let's not confuse artistic design (Uncharted 3, Trine 2) with technical graphics. Uncharted 3 technically is a very weak game. It has static shadows, no dynamic area lights, pre-scripted physics model, low polygon character models, a ton of static pre-rendered walls/scenes and the vegetation is not interactive.

Uncharted 3 - just avg. graphics actually:
http://i.imgur.com/hQDEx.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/KRJi2.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/ONxsb.jpg

even at its best, it's nothing special:
http://img252.imageshack.us/img252/3...2022921180.jpg

You can't even begin to compare Crysis 1 technically vs. Uncharted 3. Artistically, sure Uncharted 3 looks great, but so do plenty of other games like Journey, Trine 2, etc.

I hope Crysis 3 brings GTX690 to its knees but actually looks stunning. All too often we see when increasing graphics from very high to ultra results in a huge performance hit with limited improvement in graphics. Aslo, MSAA frequently contributes to a 30-40% performance hit in modern games which use deferred lighting game engines. Small graphical changes like going from HBAO to HDAO resulting in an exponential drop in GPU performance for limited graphical gain.

[theshadow2001]

Sure a game that tests graphics card is great. But at the same time I don't like the idea of having to wait several generations just so a game can be played on high. I'm on a 670 at 1080p and I'm still not happy with the frame rate the original crysis puts out when maxed.

[Spreadie]

Originally Posted by theshadow2001

. I'm on a 670 at 1080p and I'm still not happy with the frame rate the original crysis puts out when maxed.

There's something wrong there.

I still run through the original Crysis every time I get a new GFX card, and my 670 plays it just fine at 1600p with everything turned up.

My problem with Crysis was the reviewers - every last frikkin one of them sang it's praises and scored it based on the pretty graphics. Nobody can say it was a really great game, from a gameplay standpoint - it had some neat gimmicks and certainly did look pretty but, once you got to the floaty alien zero grav ship level, it turned to pants.

Yes the reviewers had the latest tech to play the game - they have to - and they all said it was very demanding, but how about scoring it for the masses? 95% of PC gamers never got to experience the game in the same way as the reviewers did until YEARS later.

Developers who release demanding games with piss-poor optimisation should get some kind of punitive score from the games journos - but no, they all gave it high scores and everyone wanted it; and most were disappointed that they didn't get the experience described in the reviews.

When was the last time a checkout assistant at Game or some other store asked you "are you sure your PC can run this?" when you arrive at the counter? I know it happened because two different people rang me from the store to ask if they should buy it. It seems like the store staff were willing to lose a sale rather have yet another customer bring it back to moan about the pretty slide show on their monitor.

Don't get me wrong, I like Crysis. I think it was a good game (but not a great one), however deeply flawed it was.

[/rant]

[digitaldunc]

Originally Posted by Spreadie

When was the last time a checkout assistant at Game or some other store asked you "are you sure your PC can run this?" when you arrive at the counter?

This used to happen to me most times when I went into GAME, I used to just bite my tongue to avoid being an ass.

To be fair it must be a PITA to have to repeatedly explain it isn't their fault that little Johnnies P4 with integrated graphics can't run the latest and greatest.

[Madness_3d]

Originally Posted by BlueFalcon

A very good point well made

^ This, couldn't have said it better in my view. +rep to you sir

[LordPyrinc]

Originally Posted by Mister_Tad

I played Skyrim on the PS3, and it was still great. The only reason I would have rather played it on the PC was the mods available, not the graphics.

I agree with that, the Skyrim PC mods are pretty sweet. SLI is better than it used to be, but expensive if you go bleeding edge. With two 550Ti's, I didn't spend too much money, at least for me... obviously cost varies from person to person. I game only on a PC and wanted to run Skyrim with everything maxed out. It ran ok on one 550, but there was definitely performance issues before I bought the second card.

I also agree with you that gameplay is far better than graphics quality. The best thing about gaming on a PC is backwards compatibility. Except for my really old games (circa 1990s), I can still install and play them on my current machine. If only I could get "Lords of the Realm II" to install on a 64bit OS I would be in bliss. But 16bit exe's aren't supported. For now, I will keep either my backup PC or my laptop on 32bit OSs so I can still play that game.

[Xir]

Don't forget it's also a question of optimisation.
Technically, every game that runs smooth on an xbox should run smooth on a very mediocre pc. (at the same settings)
That they don't indicates at poor porting/optimisation.
This in turn means the problem is home made, they're not supposed to run well on pc.
Check the prices for ps3/xbox games vs. pc prices and you'll see why the studio will prefer to shift consoletitles.

[damien c]

Well after playing the Alpha of Crysis 3, I saw that a GTX680 wouldn't run it maxed with stable frame rates it was the whole reason for me going out and, buying a 2nd GTX680 for some SLI goodness .

I tried to play the original Crysis on a various selection of graphics setup's.

8800 GTS 320Mb SLI
8800 GTS 512Mb SLI
GTX 280 1Gb SLI
GTX 480

I am looking forward to Crysis 3 and seeing what happens with it in terms of performance.

[Spreadie]

If it can't be played on my 670, I simply won't buy it. I have no plans to upgrade my card for another couple of years. Here's hoping they optimise it properly, before release.

[lacuna]

Originally Posted by digitaldunc

To be fair it must be a PITA to have to repeatedly explain it isn't their fault that little Johnnies P4 with integrated graphics can't run the latest and greatest.

I played through Crysis on my P4 with a 7950GT (AGP) and 2gb ram. The same pc I'm running now.

[Shirty]

Originally Posted by Spreadie

If it can't be played on my 670, I simply won't buy it. I have no plans to upgrade my card for another couple of years. Here's hoping they optimise it properly, before release.

I agree with you mate, same boat, same attitude.

Also, BlueFalcon that was a great post, I imagine you'll have a full rep bar before long

[OcSurfe]

Originally Posted by BlueFalcon

A lot of people just don't want to admit that PC gaming graphics have completely stagnated in the last 5 years aside from Metro 2033, BF3, Trine 2 and Witcher 2. They are also bitter that Crysis destroyed their GPUs over the years. Even today, a GTX680 can't crack 60 fps at 1920x1200:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6096/e...ified-review/5

While some posters have already covered it, Crysis / Warhead was not properly optimized for multi-core CPUs. Having said that, we have to look at the performance of Crysis vs. more modern games and how they compare. 3 games that come to mind that can give Crysis a run for the $ graphically are Witcher 2, Metro 2033 and BF3. BF3 still has terrible textures and pre-scripted physics model that's less advanced than that of Crysis. Its main standouts are character animation due to EA sports and lighting model far superior to Crysis. The actual in-game models, polygon count, vegetation are not more advanced. More importantly, you cannot get 60 fps avg in any of those games maxed out on a single HD7970Ghz. You can almost get there in Crysis. So while Crysis could have been optimized better, it's not that bad compared to its graphical competitors.

Now let's compare some games that came out in 2012 that hamerred performance and don't look anything special: Sleeping Dogs, Assassin's Creed 3, and Hitman Absolution. The reality is when we compare performance of Crysis, it actually runs faster and looks better than any game that came out in all of 2012.

It's shocking but it's true. Even compared to Far Cry 3, Crysis still has superior graphics in many areas. The vegetation is fully dynamic, the physics model is far more complex and character models are way more detailed in Crysis than in Far Cry 3. We shouldn't have a situation of a 2007 game giving a run for the $ compared to a 2012 game and it does:

Crysis vs. Far Cry 3 - Crysis wins
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3ohqbEn1v8

Thank you consolitis!

And that's the point - Crysis was made as a PC game only, for the PC from the ground-up. We need more games like Crysis that showcase what the PC hardware can do when developers push the limits of available graphics tech.

Crysis made GPU hardware exciting again. It puts the PC at the forefront of technology. Obviously gameplay >>> graphics but if the future of PC gaming are just higher resolution console ports of PS4/Xbox 720, it will make PC feel less special/exciting. One key advantage of PC gaming is being on the cutting edge of graphics innovation. Furthermore, it's not dissimilar to supercars. The tech used in supercars eventually trickles down to every day cars. Games like Crysis showcased what was possible for all game developers to accomplish. It set a new base to which all future games would be judged graphically. Someone has to make strides in physics, AI, graphics, sound/music, animation, etc. Any game that pushes the limits of any one or many of these aspects is great for PC gaming. If games are just console ports with high resolution texture packs and weak DX11 effects thrown in as an after-thought, those are not next generation PC graphics.

@ rollo,

I don't know how you think Uncharted 3 looks better than Crysis. Let's not confuse artistic design (Uncharted 3, Trine 2) with technical graphics. Uncharted 3 technically is a very weak game. It has static shadows, no dynamic area lights, pre-scripted physics model, low polygon character models, a ton of static pre-rendered walls/scenes and the vegetation is not interactive.

Uncharted 3 - just avg. graphics actually:
http://i.imgur.com/hQDEx.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/KRJi2.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/ONxsb.jpg

even at its best, it's nothing special:
http://img252.imageshack.us/img252/3...2022921180.jpg

You can't even begin to compare Crysis 1 technically vs. Uncharted 3. Artistically, sure Uncharted 3 looks great, but so do plenty of other games like Journey, Trine 2, etc.

I hope Crysis 3 brings GTX690 to its knees but actually looks stunning. All too often we see when increasing graphics from very high to ultra results in a huge performance hit with limited improvement in graphics. Aslo, MSAA frequently contributes to a 30-40% performance hit in modern games which use deferred lighting game engines. Small graphical changes like going from HBAO to HDAO resulting in an exponential drop in GPU performance for limited graphical gain.

Brilliant post mate!
i for one hope that CRYSIS eeeeps every little bit of power out of current gpus, graphics need a step forward, i blame console ports, but looks like developers are starting to do a little more with pc

[psychoti]

I do find the prices of the graphics these day dramatic! i remember the days that you could get the best graphics with £60, but thats in the past. But Since the 8800 prices on graphics going up every year. I find it frustrating paying around £200 for a 560 and getting mid-range graphics, just!!
I m playing GW2 with a 460 and its doing amazing in 1,920 x 1,080, high setting-shadows off. I only have some low fps in big battles in wvw. Not planning to upgrade for at least one more year, i am happy with it so far.

[OcSurfe]

Originally Posted by psychoti

I do find the prices of the graphics these day dramatic! i remember the days that you could get the best graphics with £60, but thats in the past. But Since the 8800 prices on graphics going up every year. I find it frustrating paying around £200 for a 560 and getting mid-range graphics, just!!
I m playing GW2 with a 460 and its doing amazing in 1,920 x 1,080, high setting-shadows off. I only have some low fps in big battles in wvw. Not planning to upgrade for at least one more year, i am happy with it so far.

yeah i know what you mean mate, im hoping that the 2 7970's will last a while!

[theshadow2001]

Originally Posted by Spreadie

There's something wrong there.

I still run through the original Crysis every time I get a new GFX card, and my 670 plays it just fine at 1600p with everything turned up.

Its not that its unplayable. I can't get a constant vsync going. This means that you end up with tearing on screen and I don't think the frame to frame smoothness is as good without vsync.

[somidiot]

my 2 cents: I've found that when I get new hardware I pull out all the older games that I was never able to crank out to max settings and see if I can now. I usually only upgrade once every 3 or 4 years because I can't afford to re-dress my machine each year. So it's fun for me to take a turn around memory lane and also possibly enjoy all the fun graphics things I didn't get to before.

I will say that my GTX 560 Ti has been wonderful but I'd like to make a step up to the 670 to get smoother frame rates on some games. Plus I'm curious to see if they'll make bioshock infinite hard on a system.

[MjFrosty]

Not sure if it's been mentioned by anyone in the comments, but it's definitely worth noting that Crysis didn't really support multi GPU until many weeks (possibly months) after launching.

Not really what you'd expect from a game that was supposed to push the pinnacle of hardware, is it?


I had an 8800 GTX, since launch till it's replacement. It's definitely up there with the greats

Ti500
Ti4600
9800 Pro
X600XT

Before the age of silly incremental performance.

[Shirty]

Originally Posted by somidiot

I'm curious to see if they'll make bioshock infinite hard on a system.

I doubt it, even stuff based on heavily modified UE3 engines should be a cinch for a high-end system. Unless they do some serious damage to the engine during "optimisation" of course.

But I agree, it'd be nice.

[SubtleOne]

Although it is true the reference was Crysis for a long time, there were numerous other games that were legendary in their demands if you wanted the 'maximum' experience. Oblivion with all the sliders at max is an example, and if that was not enough, you had the mods.

As a matter of fact, the mods help illustrate what is needed to help PC gaming keep its punch. The strength of consoles has always been their ease of use and peace of mind knowing a game would run. However, only on the PC was Oblivion recreated with new areas (by users), endless perks and refined graphics packages the console owners could only dream about.

Game designers need to to their job and make use of the PC's capabilities, since if the quality is identical on Xbox360 and PC, not only have they not done their job, but the users are quite correct in seeing no point in preferring PC gaming.

[.//TuNdRa]

I think the issue with this argument is always going to be one of time - How long is too long? Should developers spend every last minute up until release just trying to optimize what they've got, or should they just keep adding features with the plan to patch it post release? (I'm looking at you, Most Wanted 2012. You still don't support SLI and run like crap.)

I think the issue with Crysis was that it changed all of the current ideals. "I have a high-end card! I can run any-Wait, WTF? THIS DOES NO WORKETH?!" the other issue was that, as mentioned, it was a bit of a pig for doing far too much at once on not enough cores, so it did run out of room to work with and lagged, this is why Warhead seems so much better, simply because Crytek seemingly sat down and cleaned up some of the existing issues, improving performance for all players. (This does beg the question; Why wasn't it done for the Original Crysis? But I think only Crytek can answer that one)

I'd say Metro 2033 is the most recent game that has come close to Crysis in terms of System Bashing. I love the game, personally, but it's also an absolute pig to run maxed out. AFAIK: Only GTX 580(s) can manage it at higher resolutions, simply because it was coded so specifically for the GTX 400/500 series - This is the cost of "Too much" optimization, the opposite side of the coin from too little, the risk that the optimisations will cause issues later on in the games life as people upgrade to the new greatest hardware out there for more performance.

It's something to mull over, at least, as a new lot of games peek over the horizon.