1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Gaming Can it play Crysis 3?

Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by Baz, 5 Jan 2013.

  1. jimmyjj

    jimmyjj Member

    Joined:
    20 Jul 2010
    Posts:
    663
    Likes Received:
    15
    heh, this.

    I loved Crysis Warhead though and I still load it up when I get a new graphics card. Some of the graphics have dated but some scenes still look incredible.

    I must have benched this game on at least 3 cards starting with my 8800 GT and up to my current 570. Maybe the one before the 8800 as well,can not quite remember - maybe a Radeon X850 or something?

    Some of the graphical techniques in the game were so far ahead of their time....
     
  2. play_boy_2000

    play_boy_2000 It was funny when I was 12

    Joined:
    25 Mar 2004
    Posts:
    1,420
    Likes Received:
    49
    Somethings gotta give, and it's not specific to GPU's. The whole PC component market is starting to become stagnent, and despite recent attempts (windows 8 + touchscreens) it seems likely that R&D budgets are going to take a huge hit in the next 5 years.
     
  3. ya93sin

    ya93sin New Member

    Joined:
    18 Oct 2011
    Posts:
    46
    Likes Received:
    3
    The thing is, even though Crysis 1 pushed and Crysis 3 will push hardware to the limit, this is not necessarily because of graphical splendour, rather a terribly optimised game engine.

    Of course I may be wrong for Crysis 3.

    For the record I think the EGO engine used for the Dirt Series and Formula 1 games is probably one of the best I've experienced in recent years from a graphical quality:system reqs. ratio perspective.
     
  4. keir

    keir S p i t F i r e

    Joined:
    5 Oct 2003
    Posts:
    4,377
    Likes Received:
    48

    brap brap brap
     
  5. Elton

    Elton Officially a Whisky Nerd

    Joined:
    23 Jan 2009
    Posts:
    8,575
    Likes Received:
    189
    But the first half is why it's great. It's like Far Cry 1. Terrible end game (well not really, because the trigens were masochistically difficult) but hilarious human interactions.

    That said, I don't think Crysis was poorly coded as much as it was ahead of it's time. It didn't have 3+ core support for the reason that at the time Quad Core machines weren't commonplace yet. That was probably a terrible idea but it happened. Admittedly the frames dipped heavily, but the game engine was and is still amazing. To all the people who say it's poorly coded, I can see why. I'll also offer that the game was excessively coded (which is just as bad but more respectable) in the sense that many things were over done. (think the Tank mesh/model for Crysis 1.)

    You also have to remember that the game had a ton of stuff in the background too.

    I just remember that almost everything was rendered in real time 3D. Even the clouds. Which is insane to be honest. The Engine is epic. As long as Crysis 3 continues in the tradition of the first one with the expansive maps I'm good.
     
  6. Podge4

    Podge4 Oi, whats your game?

    Joined:
    17 Nov 2009
    Posts:
    428
    Likes Received:
    5
    What i should have made clearer in my last post is i found the gameplay in that part of the game dull and tedious.
     
  7. Gunsmith

    Gunsmith Maximum Win

    Joined:
    23 Sep 2005
    Posts:
    8,857
    Likes Received:
    1,178
    [​IMG]

    :thumb:
     
  8. wafflesomd

    wafflesomd New Member

    Joined:
    22 Oct 2005
    Posts:
    1,719
    Likes Received:
    23
    If you spent that much every 12 months on a computer then you're doing it way wrong. Crysis wasn't the only pc game you know.
     
  9. LordPyrinc

    LordPyrinc Legomaniac

    Joined:
    7 Mar 2008
    Posts:
    596
    Likes Received:
    5
    Crysis... never played it. I did go SLI in order to make Skyrim run smooth with all of the graphics settings maxed and with the high rez texture packs loaded. Skyrim looks better on the XBox360 than the PS3, but neither are as good as what a decent PC can achieve.

    Upgrading your PC hardware every 12 months is a waste of money. If your favorite new game can't run at max quality when you desperately want it to, then upgrade, but that shouldn't happen every 12 months unless you are buying crap hardware everytime.
     
  10. SazBard

    SazBard 10 PRINT "C64 FTW"

    Joined:
    28 Apr 2009
    Posts:
    326
    Likes Received:
    5
    At the time when Crysis was released I was still limping along with a 6600GT so I never even bothered to check Crysis out, and to this day I still have never played any of them... I've got a 570gtx now so when a new Crysis is released I'll still be playing catch up and will give it a miss again...

    I'm a bit oldskool so I remember the days when games had 8 colours and looked like **** but I played them for weeks/months on end because they had this thing called gameplay.
     
  11. bluc

    bluc New Member

    Joined:
    4 Apr 2012
    Posts:
    284
    Likes Received:
    3
    Crisis is my fav shooter played it start to end five times so far. Love it because it has open world rather than a tiny little corridor to run along. Loved the anti gravity as at first it really screwed with my sense of direction. Love the game and will be playing it again ? just my two cents.



    Sent from my Windows 8 device using Board Express
     
  12. Mister_Tad

    Mister_Tad Super Moderator Super Moderator

    Joined:
    27 Dec 2002
    Posts:
    12,292
    Likes Received:
    781
    How so? I always had the latest and greatest kit installed, and water cooled (which adds £100 to any graphics card), what's wrong with that? I would think on a tech forum, users would be understanding of this. There are plenty of members here that spend more than that, more regularly than that on a PC.

    SLI was what put me off PC gaming quite a bit - why buy one graphics card when you can buy two at twice the price? That along with the issues a the time in so many games, namely that 4 years ago it simply didn't work (or barely worked) in half of the games out there - no dice.

    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 very nearly did revamp the PC for Skyrim, but bottled it at the last minute, didn't make sense for just one game).

    I agree, that's why I binned the PC in the end. There was always something that came out that started to stutter on max settings (and I wasn't buying crap hardware). Perhaps that has changed now, given that the article suggests that an 8800GTX would have had some longevity - I wouldn't know, as I got rid. I simply came to the conclusion that PC gaming in it's entirety was a waste of money.

    I spent £300 on a PS3 4 years ago and it still plays the latest games. Are the graphics as good as on a PC? Probably not. Are good games still good and crap games still crap regardless? Yep.

    Perhaps controversial on a PC-centric forum, but discussion is what forums are for :thumb:
     
  13. Panos

    Panos Member

    Joined:
    18 Oct 2006
    Posts:
    288
    Likes Received:
    6
    The PC hardware market will only get better when games like Skyrim/Fallout, come at 64bit (not 32bit which impedes everything), DX11/DX11.1 and needs GTX680 to play.

    Crysis, was too small as game (9h never touched it afterward) to worth any vast investment. Played well in my BFG 8800GTS640 back then also. :)

    Most demanding game atm is WOT, for heaven sake.
     
  14. fdbh96

    fdbh96 New Member

    Joined:
    29 May 2011
    Posts:
    1,894
    Likes Received:
    33
    I seriously hope that games don't require a 680 to play, as that would turn a lot of people away from pc gaming. The one reason console gaming is more popular is that its fairly cheap, and the hardware doesn't need upgrading often.
     
  15. law99

    law99 Custom User Title

    Joined:
    24 Sep 2009
    Posts:
    2,382
    Likes Received:
    59
    I get what you mean... I'd take playable any day. Personally, there are effects that I don't even like. Motion Blur for instance, so it's a win win to turn it off in my case. However, I still want it cranked as high as possible with smooth framerate.

    Playable to me is just consistent. It could be 24fps for all I care, but as long as it isn't spikey and annoying with drops in performance, I'm happy as Larry I am.
     
  16. mikeyandrewb

    mikeyandrewb New Member

    Joined:
    31 Oct 2011
    Posts:
    105
    Likes Received:
    5
    ^^ Yes I agree, there is a fine line between bench-marking and accessibility in this case.

    People want to have the latest game that pushes their hardware to a lump of melted aluminium. But not everyone wants to fork out £800 for the latest top end card to play the same game.
     
  17. Yslen

    Yslen Lord of the Twenty-Seventh Circle

    Joined:
    3 Mar 2010
    Posts:
    1,966
    Likes Received:
    48
    Can't we just have scalability? You know, a game that runs well on anything from current consoles upwards but for those with top-end kit, it looks amazing. Games that require top end cards to be played at all are never going to do themselves or the industry any favours.
     
  18. Gradius

    Gradius IT Consultant

    Joined:
    3 Feb 2009
    Posts:
    284
    Likes Received:
    1
    I use a GTX580 and I'm NOT planning to upgrade for 3~5 years.
     
  19. SonnyJim

    SonnyJim Member

    Joined:
    19 Jan 2011
    Posts:
    176
    Likes Received:
    5
    I think that the quality of graphics for the amount of power needed to run some games smoothly, isn't good enough.

    Take a game like Sleeping Dogs for example. For it to run smoothly, I have to turn AA from 'Extreme' to 'High'. No big deal. I can live with that. What really irks me is that, the fps drops from 60 (vsync on) to around 40 while driving in certain areas. The GPUs aren't even close to full load on these occasions.

    What I'm getting at, is that the game looks stunning, but not so stunning that my rig should be struggling at certain points in the game. I think this is the case with other games to. They look great, but should they bring our PCs to their knees? Do they look THAT much better than their console counterparts? I don't think they do.
     
  20. digitaldunc

    digitaldunc New Member

    Joined:
    4 Oct 2010
    Posts:
    629
    Likes Received:
    24
    Many lament current generation gaming as stifling progress and while I agree to an extent, I'd also argue that it's fantastic that you don't need to drop loads of cash on a rig to play games well.

    Ironically I now have the cash to spend on a decent machine but I would have loved for gaming to have been more affordable when I was a student -- I limped along on a budget Geforce 2/4 for ages before I could afford a 7800GT.

    Additionally, what is true of gaming 20 years ago is still true now -- gameplay always goes before graphics. Crysis 3 doesn't interest me in the slightest if it's a glorified benchmark.
     
Tags: Add Tags

Share This Page