Blogs Crysis - Did you upgrade?

I hear what you mean.

You believe that CryEngine is not very efficient, and that its lack of new special optimized technology is the reason a lot of machines were brought to their knees.

It may not be the most efficient engine. However, I would say that it's no coincidence that the game that pushes the photo realism boundaries the furthest is also the game that requires the highest hardware spec to max out its full graphical glory.

Other games such as Call Of Duty simply cannot come close when you compare closeup shots of objects such as a wall or the sand on the beach, or the leaves on a tree in Crysis. You may be able to look at the interior of a vehicle in Crysis and see that a certain driving game has better looking vehicle interiors. But look at the overall graphics details in the frame and see that no other game compares to the amount of overall graphical photo realism. In this respect, Crysis is 'the game' that has taken graphics to the next level. What really counts is the end result that people witness on the screen rather than whether it's the most optimized engine.

So even if someone considers the engine to be poorly optimized, most people would still agree that it's the most photo realistic game, therefore requiring the most power to run it.

 

I have to say the bit where you are sniper in Chernobyl on COD4 looks more 'photo realistic to me, and I have ran Crysis maxed, but only recently, when I had the hardware to do it. I just 'looked' at the game, didn't really play it, as frankly its a crap game ! (IMHO). The worst part (although BF2 suffers the same, but is so good its forgiveable) is the fact you have to shoot people so many times to kill them and the guns sound and 'feel' crap.

I think BF2, which I've spend over 1000 hours playing was worth upgrading, when I first got it in 2006, even after it had been out a while I had to upgrade my 6600GT to a 7900GT to max it out at 12x10 and I thoroughly enjoyed it.

Last upgrade I did was for Arma2, now like Crysis that game is as well optimised as a Labour party Electoral campaign. The more cynical amongst us could just see Crysis as a con to get one to upgrade.

Other games I upgraded for were COD2 and before that as far as I can remember I needed to install a sound card to play some incarnation of Leisure Suit Larry.

 

Crysis Did you upgrade

Like the topic saise, What do you think about the game?

Me, well, i like it allot

Didnt think the MP would as fun as it is. Lots of action and nice guns I actually thought that it would be kinda boring, that they hade focused theire work on the SP and grapichs, but it seems as i had verry wrong there

 

Imagine the platform they have developed it on!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I mean JUST or MUST have it to play it. No????????????????

 

I like graphics..

Its great to have atleast one PC-game that looks good, It will help justify my £1000 computer to people. People come visit and ask if I have a good pc, so I have to turn up some eyecandy to not look like a noob I also hate when my parents see me game on my cheapo-laptop, and say "gee the games now a days looks completely real", and I play Red Orchestra or some other old game

Unfortunately Crysis is still the game to show, despite being from 2007. I also show Race Driver: Grid, and now Shattered Horizon, but still I don't think any of them looks and feels as alive as the forests in Crysis :/

I bought my computer in august of 2007, and it didn't really handle crysis well, despite q6600 and 8800gts. Later bought 4870 and doubled the ram, but It didn't handle Crysis either.

 

Unfortunately game engine's don't work that way. You can't make every scene have over the top polys and expect it to look good. For starters games need more than polygons to look good, add in bump mapping photorealistic textures, shaders, lighting physics, etc. and you get closer to a modern game. Do you honestly believe that graphics have not developed since quake 3 (which is openGL)? There is a reason microsoft releases new versions of DirectX, and that developers throw millions into developement of new features, and new technologies to make their new game the latest and greatest!

Sure cryengine wasn't the most efficient engine but it was ground breaking example of how far modern graphics has come. why not try making the quake 3 engine blow-up houses in a realistic fashion , or add parallax occlusion, ambient occlusion, sun shafts, realistic water and all the other features cryengine 2 brought to the table.

 

Crysis is an unoptimized piece of crap game that really in the long run wasn't that fun to play and for me had ZERO replay value but had some very pretty visuals. Crysis was more hype than innovation and bleeding edge programming techniques.

It did however spurr a relentless assault of Gamers (including myself) trying to tweak, overclock, and overhaul their systems so we could proudly say "Yes I can run Crysis on high settings above the 1280 x 1024 resolution at 30 fps" even though the gameplay doesn't change "linear" and Crysis actually runs good at 24 FPS.

But in the end it made alot off people smarter about PC hardware and alot of PC harware companies rich. So in the end Crysis and Crysis Warhead were good for the industry and gamers all around. I'm not buying the new one cause i hate Ea and if their track record is the same I predict the new Crysis is gonna suck especially since they are console gung ho with this version.

So I will sign of by letting my Phenom II 550 x2 3.91 ghz 4gb OCZ ddr2 1066 ram and my twin XFX HD 4890's (running at 1ghz each) say Fudge Crysis I can run that game maxed the hell out at 1920 x 1080 getting well over 40 fps with AA turn up and yes I am missing a kidney.

 

P.S. if I see one more game using the Unreal Engine I'm gonna puke.
Thank you Cry Tek and GSC (Xray engine) for being innovative with your graphics engines.

 

thats not the only thing your missing.

 

I didn't have to upgrade for Crysis, my PC very obligingly died 18 months ago, so built a new one which could handle the game after I upgraded the GPU cooling for optimal performance at 12 x 10. Thankfully Warhead didn't have any of the same issues and as far as I'm concerned, had a much better structure with no zero-G nonsense to break up the action. Now I'm getting my software moved over to Vista, will have to give the first game another go in DX10 and with a bunch of mods.

 

I take it you are calling it an unoptimized piece of crap, as you have checked the code, and examined all the different techniques, such as environment, lighting, shading etc that were used in the engine, and now offer us your experienced programmers knowledge.

I am sure you are not just jumping on a bandwagon, I'm sure you do know the difference between playing a game that has been designed beyond current capabilities (at the Very High level, it is very scalable at lower res and quality, as games should be) to give a graphical awe which gets better over time, giving it a better look when people pick it up in 3 years time.

Many different games have used this technique in the past, and I plan to do this myself in some of my own games, but the mode will only be unlocked when there is the hardware to run it, so people won't even know it exists

 

To the remark about Quake 3 being written in OpenGL, it doesn't matter. Everything they did in DX10 you can do in OpenGL 2.0.

 

I actually completed Crysis with my Q6600 and 8800GTS (640), but I've been replaying it with each new graphics card and have been getting enjoying the boost in framerate each time!

 

I had a gtx8800 when Crysis and Warhead were released and had to scale down the resolution and my settings to play through them. When, two and a half years later, I was forced to upgrade my gfx to a 5850 I relished the prospect of playing through both games at full resolution and high detail - which I did. Funny thing was though, the higher resolution and prettier graphics made no difference to how much fun they were to play. Kinda summed up for me how it easy it is to get caught up in the graphics advancement game - IMO it's all just a corportate/game developer d*** size contest!

 

I upgraded around about the same time as Crysis appeared, but it was more of a case of my hardware was several years old and it coincided with a large redundancy pay-off from my last job.

However, it was a bit depressing that a £600 QX6800 quad core couldn't get above medium settings at the time though!

As a primarily multiplayer gamer though, i do think that the best games offer a good balance between eye candy and playability (e.g. Valve's source engine and the COD engine games).

Crysis was a good game, but not a great game, if the overall story had been consistently good all the way through the game, then it would have been more of a selling point for PC games as well as hardware sales.

I think we'll see very few titles like this now though, although it would be good to see several DX11 games built from the ground up with the PC in mind.

 

Yeah there probably won't be many more of this kind, but atleast the consoles are getting older, so sometime there has to come some good pc-only titles to challenge new hardware.

The Stalker games are currently one of the most demanding games I have tried, and I can't wait for the new one, but once again, I will have to cope with consistent load-time giving me stutters and reduced immersion. Unless someone can find excactly what I need to upgrade. Unfortunately, i think it's not only the gpu I need to buy

Maybee Futuremark can give us some sweet pc-titles, I recon they sold pretty descent with SH. I wish we can go back to the golden age of pc gaming when consoles didn't matter and pc gaming was the big thing.