Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

So, so tired. Or why Crysis is a poop head.

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
June 15, 2008 5:20:32 PM

You know what I'm tired of? Crysis. It is inefficiently programed and a poor benchmark for any graphics card. Games should serve us a perfect cup of tea not lard poured on our motherboards and chips. The game is a mess and should not be the standard. Please just stop talking about it. You want efficient gaming? Look at late releases for consoles, and ask yourself how they got so much, from such a dated system.

We need to have games tailored to specific cards released every three years that cost no more than 250.00 on release, and I guarantee that the mess of modern computer gaming and it's current slump would disappear. Sure you could buy higher or lower cards but if you got ati's or nvidia's console card every three years you'd be playing all games trailered to those cards at maxed settings.

You might say. Well who will program for just one card? They won't, they will be optimized to one card, or two if the game was cross console. This would make computer gaming cheaper than console releases, create unified quality, and cause you not to have to separate your console from your pc. And here would rise a new pc gaming age. Or at least a few million more people playing WOW. heh.

Am I wrong here? I know this idea can be illiterated much more but I want to hear some questions first. Then I'll get out my efficient blade of reason and cut up the fat/Crysis. I know the last statement was pretentious but who isn't when you spend so much time eating doritos and glued to a pc screen.

More about : tired crysis poop head

June 15, 2008 5:41:07 PM

the thing is, Crysis is the only game that will make the best gfx card run below a million FPS, and comparing 1,000,000 with 1,200,000 is immaterial (exaggeration for the noobs out there :p , 60+ is all we can see), so Crysis has a place
June 15, 2008 5:44:13 PM

I'm having difficulty understanding your point.
But as far as I gather, you want...

1.A few GPU's to be supported by all games
2.All the GPU's to be under $250
3.All of the GPU's to be released in 3 year intervals

There are many problems with this, especially in the PC market.

1.There is no way that you will get games to support specific cards. There are far too many manufacturers, and it is far too limiting for a game to be made ONLY to work on a specific card. The game will fail - it won't make any money.

2.HA! There is no way that a company will sell an enthusiast class card for $250. Dream on.

3.Fast realease of new technology is what the PC industry runs on. Limiting this will slow it...and it will become EXACTLEY like the console universe - which no PC user wants. No PC user will ever opt to wait 3 years for a GPU. They want it now. That is part of the reason they game on PCs - upgradability. If parts became segmented like that, it would take sooo long to advance technology. Think about it. Games push PCs to their computing limits like no other thing. It is because of games that we have things like Tesla, and many other technologies that we built to speed a game, and it turned out to be a good way to develop the rest of the PC industry.

Sorry, but none of your ideas would work. The market won't accept it, and I don't think the user base would either.
Related resources
June 15, 2008 5:45:46 PM

Are you pissed because your PC won't play Crysis?

anyhow yeah i don't feel like paying $2000 for a CPU plus $1200 for GPU just to smoothly watch some bad AI and horrendously animated aliens on a laughably cliched storyline?

The visuals were breathtakingly gorgeous though... and the suit/weapon customization was downright sexilicious. The female doc was hot lookin too.
June 15, 2008 6:10:22 PM

frozenlead- The market dose accept it. See all consoles. The current high end market is choking, the current model is not working.

and a few corrections.

All games to be optimized to a few affordable graphics cards. But games would also run on lower and higher cards. This is my main distinction. Optimized is the most important thing.

Two or three console cards under $250. Not all.

All console GPU's to be released in 3 year intervals, hence twice as fast as consoles, this would be an edge not a disadvantage.

Pc enthusiasts don't have to wait they can spend their silly money. But the common gamer could have nearly equal performance at a fourth of the price because of optimization. Please consult current console platforms for an idea of how this would work.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
June 15, 2008 6:15:59 PM

then get a console...

not that hard...


with PCs your always going to be paying more for the freedom of an operating system and your always going to pay more for the innovation... but consoles are for people like you so why not just buy one
June 15, 2008 6:20:00 PM

I agree with the OP. Crysis, while definitely the best looking game out currently, is poorly optimized. There are games like COD4 and UT3, that look damn good, yet have great optimization, and most recent video cards can run them like a dream.
June 15, 2008 6:23:42 PM

trueflu said:
frozenlead-
Pc enthusiasts don't have to wait they can spend their silly money. But the common gamer could have nearly equal performance at a fourth of the price because of optimization. Please consult current console platforms for an idea of how this would work.


If you want to be a common gamer then go be one. Go buy a generic platform and have all the same hardware as everyone else, go twiddle your thumbs on two little sticks, I'll be popping headshots with pinpoint accuracy. I'd prefer (1) To know the hardware I'm using (2) To be able to change my hardware (3) Have some fun with it-it's not all about performance in games half of the fun for me is the ENTHUSIAST part, which is what PC gaming is centered on.
June 15, 2008 6:31:29 PM

Mihirkula- you attribute my reasoning to penis envy? Traditionally in pop culture the joke goes the other way, the bigger the car the smaller the shifter.

We could all have run Crysis beautifully with optimized specs.

June 15, 2008 6:34:59 PM

Brendano you represent a small portion of the market, and no pc gaming is centered on the common player. Note WOW and sims. I don't want to kill modding I want the common gamer to support extreme game. Get it? They work for the nerds, let the little man feed us.

Again extreme gaming is dieing. Look at sales figures.
a b U Graphics card
June 15, 2008 6:54:46 PM

Quote:
The current high end market is choking, the current model is not working.


Quote:
Again extreme gaming is dieing. Look at sales figures.


Really? I didn't know that. :lol: 

-----------------------
I agree that some games should be optimized, but it is VERY hard to optimize a game or any other program for that matter. It takes a very knowledgeable developer(s) and a few thousand( may be 10k+) lines of extra code to optimize a piece of software. The money and the time that will be spent on optimizing a game/software is currently not worth it. This could soon change with the multi GPU/CPUs become mainstream.
June 15, 2008 6:55:55 PM

Now its confirmed that you're extremely sad because you can't play Crysis on your rig.

Don't worry... in a few years time when you get a $5000 Nehalem rig you will be able to play.

Regarding your extreme gaming argument... there are two reasons why the sales are declining:

1) Sh!tload of piracy

2) System requirements.
June 15, 2008 7:09:14 PM

mihirkula said:
Now its confirmed that your extremely sad because you can't play Crysis on your rig.

Don't worry... in a few years time when you get a $5000 Nehalem rig you will be able to play.

Regarding your extreme gaming argument... there are two reasons why the sales are declining:

1) Sh!tload of piracy

2) System requirements.


I'd say the latter is a bigger issue. I've seen numerous people buy PC games and try to play them on their overpriced rigs they bought from Best Buy, and they run like crap. Then they theorize that it can't be their PC, it's the game that sucks. Hence I believe ignorance is a significant factor.
a b U Graphics card
June 15, 2008 7:09:22 PM

+1 for piracy causing bad sales.
a c 130 U Graphics card
June 15, 2008 7:11:50 PM


Sorry but you really are missing the point and are completly wrong when you say Crysis isnt well programed. Most games will spit the dummy when presented with a low spec graphics card and not play at all. Crysis will play on cards ranging from a 6800GT or 9800pro all th eway through to the top end cards. This is what it says on the back of the box and i know people with these cards and it does run it. Yes sure the detail and resolution have to scale as well but what else would you expect.

Every once in a while we need to get a game come out that chalanges the hardware or else we wouldnt get any advancement as it wouldnt be needed. lets face it why put money into R&D when its not needed.

What you are basically sugesting about the tailoring of cards is what the norm used to be anyway, Far cry ATI 9800 series was the top card and was recomended and played it well. Half life even had a deal going with a voucher for the game bundled with certain cards.

The reason we are where we are now is because of the whole DX10 mess we ended up with, thats why cards are behind games and not vice versa.

mactronix
June 15, 2008 7:20:12 PM

also, with games costing close to 60 dollars a pop...not everyone has that kind of money to blow on a game...
a b U Graphics card
June 15, 2008 7:26:57 PM

I dont get this. First of all, there isnt a console made today that can touch Crysis, at any decent res, with any eye candy, and its not made for them either. Thats the point of Crysis, a game the devs themselves said wouldnt be conquered for awhile, and guess what? No console port, cant have one cause theyre too weak. This is what consoles become eventually, and without our pc gaming and out upgrades itd never happen, unless of course youd want to slow progress, which this seems to me to be.
June 15, 2008 7:51:08 PM

crysis is 40 bucks. i found it for 34 bucks new at fred meyers for sale. at most a pc game costs 50. xbox 360 and ps3 games cost up to 60. do ur research
a b U Graphics card
June 15, 2008 8:05:58 PM

Personally, I think they should never charge more than 100 bucks for Nehalem, then we can spend more on our cards and games. This shouldnt slow progress, since supposedly cpus arent the problem, then make the cpu suffer, not the gpu heheh
June 15, 2008 8:17:33 PM

Definitely sounds like you are trying to make the PC market into the console market. If games were optimized for specific cards, why would anyone buy something that wasn't optimized? They'd be wasting their money. You said they could still buy better cards or worse cards, but why drop more for something that isn't optimized? All of your ideas are faulty and if you are upset about the backlash, perhaps you should look at the type of forum you are on. This is a PC enthusiast forum. 90% of the people on here are avid PC builders and the other 10% are here for advice on if they should build or buy a pre-built system. Think about your audience before you post something. Go on myspace and write a blog about it if you are this bothered, but don't come to us and bitch.
a b U Graphics card
June 15, 2008 8:31:54 PM

Do we really need ultra graphics realism for a game to be fun? Obviously Warcraft 3 had better graphics than 2, but did that make it more fun? Do we need more realism than Oblivion, HL2, and Doom3 offer? Will Starcraft 2 be better than the first?

Diablo 2 was a lot better than the first, because it was a much bigger game.

Do you really need to play Crysis at high resolutions with everything maxed out for it to be fun?
a b U Graphics card
June 15, 2008 8:34:50 PM

trueflu said:
frozenlead- The market dose accept it. See all consoles. The current high end market is choking, the current model is not working.


I see all consoles and what I see is.... NONE can play Crysis, nor will they ever with the same level of features, which is the point. You pay for power. Consoles are heavily subsidized but they age quickly, and the X360 is the most powerful console out there and it's just about to become 2 generations old after already being 2 years old.

Quote:
All games to be optimized to a few affordable graphics cards. But games would also run on lower and higher cards. This is my main distinction. Optimized is the most important thing.


They are already. Go into the HUD and take the graphics sliders and move them to the left.
Not everyone nor every card can play at full setting, nor should they if they can add features that can be exploited in the future just like HDR in the FartCry 1.3 patch.

Quote:
Pc enthusiasts don't have to wait they can spend their silly money. But the common gamer could have nearly equal performance at a fourth of the price because of optimization. Please consult current console platforms for an idea of how this would work.


It's not that enthusiasts want to waste money, it's that they want more and better, why would you think that a 'common gamer' should get nearly equal performance for 1/4 the price? That doesn't happen in other similar markets.
What you see now is governed by supply and demand, and the companies know it far more than you do. The prices have already changed in a marketplace that used to involve every launch at $500+ for the top card and just over half the performance at just under half the price (edit: to explain 1/2 for 1/2 in the mid-range).

That you have issues with Crysis is more your problem than anyone else's, I played it on a GFGo6800, GFGo7600 and my HD2600 fine. Sure I had to push the sliders to the left, but it still looked better like that than many DX8/9 games of their generation. Then add to that the ability to play it on high graphics later or if I had spent the money for an SLi GF8800M rig instead is a nice benefit and covers both ends of the market. It doesn't scale as well as the HL2 series which is the best at that IMO, but it scales well enough.

Why should someone who has the money for an SLi or Xfire suffer poorer graphic simply to satisfy those who value other things other than gaming? If you're passionate about gaming and passionate about any one game, then spending the money necessary to play it well, especially nowadays, isn't too much to ask for. Not even 2 years ago $150 would get you nowhere near the power you can buy nowadays (GF8800GT/HD3870), so no, I don't agree with either that premise or that we should take one of the most stressful games of the list of test games and replace is with QuakeIII and UT2K4 or the original Counter Strike just because more people could play it. No one cares about getting 400fps in those games when purchasing, they care about the games that are hard to render at their desired resolutions.

Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
June 15, 2008 8:35:20 PM

^ lol pwned

Just read tgga's post and also pwned... but he made me laugh FartCry 1.3 lol
a b U Graphics card
June 15, 2008 8:36:31 PM

lambofgode3x said:
also, with games costing close to 60 dollars a pop...not everyone has that kind of money to blow on a game...


And equally, not everyone should be playing those games.

Not everyone has the money for an Aston Martin, Ferrari or Porsche does that mean they should be forced to sell them for less?

That's what classic titles are for, those who spend their money on kids, travel, cigarettes, booze, etc instead. Then there are those of us who buy them all, that' the nice thing about a free market, you're free to spend your money how you want.
June 15, 2008 8:37:50 PM

mihirkula said:
Are you pissed because your PC won't play Crysis?

anyhow yeah i don't feel like paying $2000 for a CPU plus $1200 for GPU just to smoothly watch some bad AI and horrendously animated aliens on a laughably cliched storyline?

The visuals were breathtakingly gorgeous though... and the suit/weapon customization was downright sexilicious. The female doc was hot lookin too.


Halflife 2 looks just as good and is 4 years older and runs maxxed , so yeah crysis is not all it's hyped to be, plus the gameplay...ahhh, farcry remake.
June 15, 2008 8:39:13 PM

Yes...agreed regarding gameplay....disappointing when you compare it to COD4 or FEAR .......... and the ending was just ludicrous and underwhelming.

But nah, HL2's visuals maxxed are nowhere near Crysis maxed.... especially with the entirely destructible environment.
June 15, 2008 8:43:24 PM

mihirkula said:
Now its confirmed that you're extremely sad because you can't play Crysis on your rig.

Don't worry... in a few years time when you get a $5000 Nehalem rig you will be able to play.

Regarding your extreme gaming argument... there are two reasons why the sales are declining:

1) Sh!tload of piracy

2) System requirements.


where are you making up these prices from? I can play crysis on very high and i have an 80 dollar mb, 88 dollar cpu, 35 dollar ps, and a 169 dollar videocard, how does that equal anything NEAR what your making up ?
a c 130 U Graphics card
June 15, 2008 8:45:57 PM

DXRick said:
Do we really need ultra graphics realism for a game to be fun? Obviously Warcraft 3 had better graphics than 2, but did that make it more fun? Do we need more realism than Oblivion, HL2, and Doom3 offer? Will Starcraft 2 be better than the first?

Diablo 2 was a lot better than the first, because it was a much bigger game.

Do you really need to play Crysis at high resolutions with everything maxed out for it to be fun?


No we totally dont need it some of the games that have given me the most fun over the years have been simple flash games. However as with all things the need is for the hardware to do what is needed, not flat out but with some degree of ease. This brings with it extra performance. Then you need something that makes your card stand out from the competition so your devs take some of this extra power and turn it towards making better image quality, enhanced AA etc. so then the game devs codes a game to use these new features and the competition makes a card that can do what yours did and better. Of course this cards is invariably bigger better and faster than yours. And so it goes on untill they get over the top and start concentrating on power saving and efficiancy. So that turns out to be a short history of graphics cards that i didnt intend to write when i started but never mind. :) 
It comes down to basic human nature to always want better, bigger,faster etc. Its not just Computing it happens all over.
Mactronix
June 15, 2008 8:48:29 PM

royalcrown said:
where are you making up these prices from? I can play crysis on very high and i have an 80 dollar mb, 88 dollar cpu, 35 dollar ps, and a 169 dollar videocard, how does that equal anything NEAR what your making up ?


oh boy you're bad at catching up with sarcasm.

anyhow those aren't DESIRED framerates you get on your rig. As far as i know you were actively posting on the GTX280 benchies thread.. so you should know what i mean.
June 15, 2008 9:17:38 PM

Crysis is the most advanced graphical game currently available and probably for a while to come, well until the next big release comes around. There have been those who say things like "well COD4 looks just as good and runs faster" that is just not true, COD4 is nowhere near as good graphically. It stands to reason that such a game like Crysis needs a fast machine to make the most of it.
There seems to be much misinformation when it comes to consoles, I've played many games on a variety of platforms that are anything but Smooth and suffer choppy framerates.
June 15, 2008 9:20:43 PM

mihirkula said:
Yes...agreed regarding gameplay....disappointing when you compare it to COD4 or FEAR .......... and the ending was just ludicrous and underwhelming.

But nah, HL2's visuals maxxed are nowhere near Crysis maxed.... especially with the entirely destructible environment.


Yeah, the destructibility is good, but I'll tell you specifically where (in the demo at least) that crysis is way over hyped..

1. when crawling through the vegetation, large groups of branches and weeds move like 1 solid triangle, and the textures on them look flat and pixalated, same for certain objects like lockers, generators and what have you (ie the signal jammer).

2. the cartoon koreans, especially their ARMS

3. The water in hl2 looks just as good.

4. trees tend to look exactly the same and fall the same way, no matter where and how you shoot them.

5. the nuke animation is WEAK.

So yeah, I think halflife 2 looks just as good, not necessarily as destructible or complex
June 15, 2008 9:23:11 PM

mihirkula said:
oh boy you're bad at catching up with sarcasm.

anyhow those aren't DESIRED framerates you get on your rig. As far as i know you were actively posting on the GTX280 benchies thread.. so you should know what i mean.


well yeah, but my epeen doesn't need 60 fps, just a solid 30 and I am good.

June 15, 2008 9:35:50 PM

royalcrown said:
Yeah, the destructibility is good, but I'll tell you specifically where (in the demo at least) that crysis is way over hyped..

1. when crawling through the vegetation, large groups of branches and weeds move like 1 solid triangle, and the textures on them look flat and pixalated, same for certain objects like lockers, generators and what have you (ie the signal jammer).

2. the cartoon koreans, especially their ARMS

3. The water in hl2 looks just as good.

4. trees tend to look exactly the same and fall the same way, no matter where and how you shoot them.

5. the nuke animation is WEAK.

So yeah, I think halflife 2 looks just as good, not necessarily as destructible or complex


1) u can't crawl like that in HL2

2) Agreed

3) Disagreed

4) Trees don't fall at all in HL2 ainnit... and they look the same there too

5) No nuke anim at all in HL2.

anyway i'm not saying HL2 is a cr@p game.... i'm a huge fan ..... and i was more satisfied after i played HL2 than after i played crysis ...thats mostly because i hated the ending of Crysis ... to say the story was a cliche is an understatement. My point is graphics wise Crysis outperforms HL2, thats all.
June 15, 2008 9:47:28 PM

royalcrown said:

So yeah, I think halflife 2 looks just as good, not necessarily as destructible or complex


Half Life 2 still looks, but I'm sorry I don't see how it looks just as good as Crysis. Crysis is absolutely breathtaking, I stopped several times to admire the scenery :lol: 
June 15, 2008 9:59:00 PM

mihirkula said:
1) u can't crawl like that in HL2

2) Agreed

3) Disagreed

4) Trees don't fall at all in HL2 ainnit... and they look the same there too

5) No nuke anim at all in HL2.

anyway i'm not saying HL2 is a cr@p game.... i'm a huge fan ..... and i was more satisfied after i played HL2 than after i played crysis ...thats mostly because i hated the ending of Crysis ... to say the story was a cliche is an understatement. My point is graphics wise Crysis outperforms HL2, thats all.


I don't think it does outperform it strictly on graphics because:

Everything looked good even close up in HL2, not A lot of things looked good and some crappy like crysis, there was no nukes true, but the only thing that really looked canned wqere dents when you hit something with the crowbar and bullet marks.

I do however think that that is because crysis has a lot more to render and keep track of, so they had to take some rendering shortcuts. I agree that they probably can't render every leaf independently, BUT considering how people hype it as the most graphically awesome came ever and the devs basically said it was godlike, my opinion is that it is vastly overrated looks wise.
June 15, 2008 10:07:48 PM

^... maybe you're playing in low settings.. because it IS one of the most graphically GODlike games ever.
June 15, 2008 10:10:40 PM

Indeed, overhyped? well no , I think it is a great game, that pushes hardware developers further. Half Life 2 comparing to Crysis? You have got to be kidding me.

The water was beatiful in HL2 certainly, but it looks good in Black and White 2 and AOE3 aswell.

In HL2,
Not as much freedom as in Crysis
You cannot destruct as much,
Not nearly as realistic.

Are there any leaves in half life 2 !?!?!?
I haven't been able to shoot leaves and see them move in HL2? Do you?

I, myself have been staring at crysis it's view. And it is absolutely amazing... The rocks in HL2 were also allot square like.

Great games both though... I just like Crysis, cause it is simply breathtaking. And you can adept, strategize and rethink. I remember paying 300 euro for my old 6800 GT , now with my GTS 512 i've spend money well.

Just thought i'd clear that up.

June 15, 2008 10:20:35 PM

no, i played the demo on very high, DX10 on the system in my sig, and I played hl2, after it, finished last week.
June 15, 2008 10:25:17 PM

radium69 said:
Indeed, overhyped? well no , I think it is a great game, that pushes hardware developers further. Half Life 2 comparing to Crysis? You have got to be kidding me.

The water was beatiful in HL2 certainly, but it looks good in Black and White 2 and AOE3 aswell.

In HL2,
Not as much freedom as in Crysis
You cannot destruct as much,
Not nearly as realistic.

Are there any leaves in half life 2 !?!?!?
I haven't been able to shoot leaves and see them move in HL2? Do you?

I, myself have been staring at crysis it's view. And it is absolutely amazing... The rocks in HL2 were also allot square like.

Great games both though... I just like Crysis, cause it is simply breathtaking. And you can adept, strategize and rethink. I remember paying 300 euro for my old 6800 GT , now with my GTS 512 i've spend money well.

Just thought i'd clear that up.


That is what I am saying, because there are so many more objects and the state of each destructible object has to be kept track of and other things like AI, I think they had to short crysis on the rendering dept to free up some horsepower, whereas hL2 was not as destructible and more static, so they did not have to take shortcuts on certain objects or up close textures.
June 15, 2008 10:27:57 PM







Compare for yourself... I own both games, Also I think that HL2 is pretty much straight forward all the time... and it doesn't give a lot of freedom in some missions.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
June 15, 2008 10:35:49 PM

if you wanna make crysis look better at the same frame rates try TRIPLE C PACK

look it up on google... makes it look better in my opinion with better frames
June 15, 2008 10:37:10 PM

also FYI, half life 2 was on 16xAF and 4 keer AA and crysis @ zero aa. and high settings. on DX9
June 15, 2008 10:49:35 PM

Anyone remember when the head of Crytek claimed he could play Crysis with a x1900 on high settings and get smooth gameplay?

Anyway, I don't think it's all that well optimized, and BTW, that should mean less code, but I also think it could have been much worse.

It also wasn't a great game, alright, but I prefer most of the other first person shooters that I have. I thought a lot of the reviews were much too generous because of the graphics.
June 15, 2008 10:52:47 PM

Yah, I payed both, Crysis does look awesome at some things, like the shadowing, weapons, suit, but they also have some not so awesome things in there, like the koreans, cartoonlike and fake...combine were much more realistically rendered, some close up textures look super dated and like they are rendered 640x480, and the foliage looks good till you crawl through it, I can actually tell which parts of the bushes are triangles because the texture looks flat, not transparent, and large blocks move like a well...large block. That's not how things move in the real world, I have a tree branch 8 inches from my window to prove it.

When you look at things in HL2 close up, they don't look blocky, or flat, but they are static also.

In crysis things look really good till you get super close to SOME things, HL2..EVERYTHING looked good close up, but not a lot of stuff moved or blew up either.
June 15, 2008 10:57:11 PM

About HL2 vs. Crysis: Freedom is way overrated, and I didn't think there was all that much in Crysis, more of an illusion for most parts. Hell, the Delta Force games gave you more freedom. HL2 didn't bother with freedom because the game was like playing through a movie or a TV series. The structure of the game allowed the devs to pace the game much better as well as make a more engaging story. Crysis definitely has better graphics (once played on a projector with 5' screen that was sweet), but some things HL2 did better. I think the ragdoll physics and the models of NPCs was better in HL2 and facial animations. I also think the source engine does open space better than any other game.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
June 15, 2008 11:05:42 PM

rag doll physics... crysis? you serious?

there aren't rag doll physics in crysis lol

as soon as they die.... they go stiff immediately... and the only thing that moves them is picked up objects like a barrel or something... even grenades and C4 doesn't move those 4000 pound bodies lol

yeah ... the foliage in crysis looks amazing... until your up close then it looks like sh*t
June 15, 2008 11:14:36 PM

that's what I mean...close up...like the "jammer" and certain surfaces..look like ****..not godlike at all.
June 15, 2008 11:29:39 PM

The visuals in Crysis look significantly better than anything comparable on the market at very high quality settings, for that matter they look better at a med settings with high textures than anything else on the market

Some of you people are nitpicking small details and making a mountain out of a molehill, for the details that Cryengine2 offers, it is well optimized and you will basically find no other game which can do the things Crysis does in the same visual detail.

Comparing screenshots is nice, but the big difference between Crysis and other games is that when Crysis is IN MOTION it looks significantly better than other games in motion.

Having a weak video array is not going to give you the same results as having a strong video array in the game. The fact is that you cannot blame Crytek for ATI's **** and a lack of decent competition driving GOOD mainstream GPU prices up into the 400$+ range.

People like to make comparisons to games like UT3 or CoD4; ahem, CoD4 - non animated low detail skyboxes? I wanted to vomit every time I was in a night mission.

UT3 terrain textures look very washed out, but it is a much better comparison to Crysis than any other game engine on the market at least. I still think Cryengine produces much better and cleaner looking effects than UE3 does.

I've played through half life 2 probably a half dozen times so far from Hl2 straight through to EP2. I think that the best feature of HL2's source engine was textures and lighting effects, they really did exceptionally well with that. However, it still doesn't have near the same detail that Crysis does in its environments, outdoor or otherwise - for its time it was bar none the best, however it is getting dated.

I think 3/4 of the reason why Crysis gets criticized for visuals in the same way that Farcry got criticized is because they try to push the envelope in their games for visuals; because of this both Farcry and Crysis beat the living crap out of PCs when they were released which ultimately drives people to pick them apart minor flaw by minor flaw.

The only thing worth taking potshots at in Cryengine is the KPA AI, but thats the only thing in my opinion.

-end essay, laff
June 15, 2008 11:31:41 PM

Quote:
rag doll physics... crysis? you serious?

there aren't rag doll physics in crysis lol

as soon as they die.... they go stiff immediately... and the only thing that moves them is picked up objects like a barrel or something... even grenades and C4 doesn't move those 4000 pound bodies lol

yeah ... the foliage in crysis looks amazing... until your up close then it looks like sh*t



Get out of your computer chair, go outside, find the nearest rock, hold it an inch and a half away from your eyeball - tell me if it looks like anything "visually impressive"

"GOD, PLEASE FIX RL GRAPHICS! You need better optimization God!"
a b U Graphics card
June 15, 2008 11:44:40 PM

San Pedro said:

It also wasn't a great game, alright, but I prefer most of the other first person shooters that I have. I thought a lot of the reviews were much too generous because of the graphics.


However this isn't a discussion on opinions of gameplay / story content so much as graphics and optimization/playability of the various settings features.

Arguing gameplay is like arguing Coke vs Pepsi. :pfff: 
!