Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by Cutter McJ1b, 15 Dec 2009.
It was (and is) as stepping stone.
It's not just graphic demand that went up, also standart resolution went up tremendously from 1280x720 to 1680x1050 and now 1920x1200 (1080). So there's 2,5 times more pixels to be filled.
Still Crysis wont run well on older hardware even with the old 1280x720 standard ;-)
For me...still waiting to get new hardware and haven't touched crysis yet ;-)
I mean, the ATI5870 is the fastest single core card yet, right? Will it doe Crysis with everything on full at 1920x1200?
I think a game like Crysis is good once in a while. It makes GPU makers happy, it makes other game companies try harder on their games.
Nope, the hype about the system requirements put me off & I didn't buy it. No point in upgrading for a single game, especially when everything else is limited due to needing to run on consoles.
indeed. IMHO graphics card development have almost stopped before Crysis came out.
and now, most people owning 8800GT or above would look at the games say they've got a good enough card, thus limiting the graphical advances in games.
we need more games like Crysis, pushing the envelope and making progress.
No, I didn't upgrade for Crysis. When I bought Crysis I had an X1950XTX, and that served perfectly on medium settings at 1920x1200. Didn't find any spots where the framerate nosedived. OK, so it was medium settings but it still looked incredible!
I picked up an 8800GT some considerable time after I bought Crysis (after getting three that were DOA) and thought I could try high settings... which were fine until I hit ice. As soon as that happened, it, too, needed medium (or a custom selection of medium/high) to get it playable.
First time I played Crysis all on High was with a 4850. It did very well. But even a 4870X2 didn't give what I consider playable framerates on very high at 1920x1200.
Well, Crysis should have the gameplay that matched the graphics. It started in an awesome way, but then it funnelled and placed aside it's strengths in favour of a linear approach and boring enemies.
We don't need more games like Crysis. We need games that not only raise the bar in graphics, but in gameplay too.
With 2xAA yes. With higher AA, no.
I didn't upgrade, mainly because I had no rig at the time. I don't ever upgrade PC's (would rather run it out of its useful life and then build a new one), but I may have for Crysis.
People see it as upgrading for just one game. But the fact is, the intention may only be for one game, but it's not like the upgrade would only apply to Crysis; surely your other games would benefit? If you can already play everything else at max, upgrading would be a waste in my eyes, but under any other circumstance it wouldn't be a bad idea.
I don't know if Crysis helped or hindered the market, but I sure as hell want another one. Maybe not as stupidly unplayable, but definitely omething that stresses my card more than any of the other console ports would be nice.
Not only did I upgrade to a DX10 card, I upgraded to Vista from XP.
I guess i spent half an hour just watching the sunrise ... The engine is awesome, even the ingame menus (suit controls, gun mods) are really great and inventive but the gameplay wasn't up to the graphics.
I vote for more games like crysis (btw, crytek is hiring so there might be something new coming) but they really should care a bit more about the story and character development.
I didn't upgrade for Crysis. That was a byproduct.
In truth it was Oblivion that compelled me to upgrade. Well from an X1600XT at least.
I bought the super-computer, THEN bought Crysis.
Aside from beating the snot out of that first turtle, I've not really played it much!
I upgraded after the release of Crysis, but mostly for other games. If Crysis was my favorite game, then yes I would have upgraded for it as I am a hardcore gamer who values cutting edge graphics.
A lot of other PC gamers upgraded around that time, mostly for the ability to run Crysis at a decent framerate on very high detail settings.
I don't think Crysis was a step too far at all. It was highly scalable for people to play on reduced quality on older hardware, and nobody is forced to put up their settings to very high.
So it's a win-win situation: those who don't want to upgrade can play it on lower (console-level) details, and those who care enough to want to experience the (then) revolution in graphics, can upgrade.
For the quote: "PC gamers who have defected to consoles was that they refused to spend hundreds of pounds upgrading their PCs to play one game"; my response is that either PC gaming was not supposed to be for those persons in the first place, or the excuse they use is flawed: If they 'defect' to console gaming because they didn't want to upgrade for Crisis, then they lose the ability to play Crysis at all. Or they may prefer to wait for Crysis 2 on a console and play it with new optimized lower graphics textures.
what was Crysis developed on?
Judging from its power, I'd say Mars.
IIRC Crytek admitted from the start it wasn't playable at max settings on any hardware that was available at that time it was developed - they instead wanted to 'future-proof' it by making higher settings available for when more powerful GPUs were available so those settings would become playable.
I think it was a good kick in the pants. It still does tons of things that most games implement in extremely limited forms (or not at all), and while some might claim it's unoptimised, it's more that it attempts more than any other game in one of the most difficult environments possible (large open environments, which are hard to optimise for every situation). Some games may get by on art design, but I think Crysis is raw technical mastery (with good but somewhat bland art direction). It really just does not compromise very often.
I did plan on upgrading solely for playing Crysis, but it soon became apparent that even the best GPUs at the time (8800 GTX) were not up to the job. I waited a full three years before finally upgrading. I still wanted Crysis and Warhead, but really I just wanted a good gaming PC. I paired a GTX 275 with a core i7 920 and ran Crysis/Crysis Warhead on enthusiast settings at 1280 * 1024. I for one was very impressed with both the graphics and gameplay.
yes, and we need another Crysis like game in this sea of console ports with comparably poor graphics. Maybe more console gamers would turn to PC gaming if they saw what the PC is capable of in more games.
Also I really enjoyed Crysis, even before I upgraded and saw the graphics on high I thought the gameplay was fun, the story wasn't fantastic but I don't think it needed to be.
Separate names with a comma.