What do people have against Crysis?

[jcorqian]

It seems to me that everybody trashes Crysis everytime someone brings it up as a benchmark for games. I just really don't understand this. People say it's a really piss poor game, which I don't agree with, I thought it was certainly fun and worth the money. I agree it isn't amazing or extremely different from a lot of other stuff. However, it remains the single game that actually challenges graphics cards. Are people just trashing it because their video cards can run it well enough or what?

The fact is that with almost every other game, you can run it with a 9800 GTX up to and including 1900 x 1200 resolution with perfectly playable framerates. Keep in mind LCD's can only display 60 fps. So what is the point of getting a better card at all?

Crysis is the only game that is challenging graphics cards, so what's wrong with using it as a benchmark? If we didn't use it, then I don't see a need to improve performance with the games currently available.

I'd just like to see some arguments against it. Stuff like "no one plays it" doesn't cut it to me, because it seems like there are plenty of people who play it. Even if people aren't, that doesn't magically make it not the only thing challenging graphics.

I don't want this to be a flame war, I am just interested in opinions.

 

[royalcrown]

I could care less about the hardware requirements, but the demo I tried was too much like farcry to make me pay a lot for crysis.

 

[Annisman]

First of all, I will agree with you that Crysis was an excellent shooter. Did it deserve the stellar reviews it got? maybe not, but I still played the whole thing thru and enjoyed every minute of it. Secondly, I think the reason people give it a bad rep. as a benchmark is that it seems to be coded very poorly. Crysis Warhead, the sequel, is no doubt going to look as good, or better as the original, and it is rumored to run very well on modest hardware setups. This tells me that Crysis could have been MUCH better optimized, maybe it was rushed.

 

[mathiasschnell]

What I have against it is that people seem to base the worth of a video card solely off of how well it can play Crysis, which is wrong for many reasons, one of the main one's being it's Nvidia biased.

Also, while it does challenge cards a lot, you have to wonder why it does that when the same people who made it are coming out with a 2nd Crysis game that will run all the bells & whistles using the same engine, but with half the requirements. It just seems to me like the (original) game was either made JUST to be a benchmark or else the underlying engine was poorly made and needs tons of processing power to accomplish the same thing that would usually need only a modest amount. Also, didn't Crytek even admit that Crysis was poorly optimized?

I'm not knocking the game as a game. I don't know if it's fun or not, but people seem to enjoy it. I just have suspicions about the way it was made and the way it runs.

 

[V3NOM]

IMO, its a playable benchmark pretty much. crappy storyline, nothin new in it...if all you do all day is sit there and go "ooh ahh look at the pretty trees and butterflies" on your screen go ahead...

 

[bobbknight]

What do people have against Crysis?

1) DRM
2) Mediocre Game Play
3) Runs poorly on very good equipment
4) More time was spent making super wiz bang eye candy at the expense of gameplay.
5) Restricted User Rights
6) DRM
7) The head of the company calling gamers criminals.
8) DRM
9) Not making the second crysis game first so that it would be playable.
10) DRM

 

[mactronix]

Firstly you cant use a single Game /application/ benchmark to get a correct view of how well a system is performing. A lot of the time people will say it runs Crysis well so it must be a good set up. While that may be partially true to an extent, i think its this kind of statement that gets to people who understand the need for balanced testing.

Secondly i dont understand how poeple like Annisman can say that its poorly coded. Assasins creed, now thats a poorly coded game basically dragged from a console and chucked at PC users with totally insane system requirements.
Crysis ran perfectly well on my kids single core Athalon and x1650xt (my old rig).

Mactronix

 

[jcorqian]

Some of the more active posters on this forum have stated that Crysis was in fact well coded (I can provide links if need be). Anyways, I think a few responses so far have missed the point of my post. I was specifically wondering what people have against using it as a benchmark. I don't really care what people think of the game itself, since that's their own business and isn't really relevant to a graphical discussion. Perhaps I should have reworded the topic title.

 

[BustedSony]

I was specifically wondering what people have against using it as a benchmark.

That's been answered, it strongly favours Nvidia hardware, Crytek worked with Nvidia to optimize the game, in fact Crysis was offered on the Nvida site as an Nvidia benchmark, THAt'S why it makes no sense as THE benchmark betwen Nvidia and ATI cards, causing much confusion and bias.

 

[night_wolf_in]

^didnt u hear what MathiasSch said regarding the nvidia bias. im not sure how true is that. but i've seen other people stating that. how true is that. im not sure.

 

[aznguy0028]

i have nothing against crysis as a benchmark...

people can do what they want, although it won't be a very fair benchmark to base new computer components off...but hey, to each his own.

i personally liked crysis a lot, i found it to be a lot of fun, and it's a game that isn't afraid to push the envelope of graphics...

call me vain, but i built my computer to play the latest and greatest games at high/max details at the best resolution my LCD can handle. if your computer can't handle crysis, tough...either get a new one or don't b*tch about not being able to handle it decently.

im glad developers are pushing the limits beyond the current generation of hardware...

lastly i think because crysis isn't conquered yet, people are still looming over it. maybe in a years time or so, when crysis could be ran at 2000+ resolutions...ppl will forget about it and move onto the next game that isn't conquered at the moment.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Heres one good reason. People arent buying it and playing it. Sure theres a few, but many more scared off by hearing how demanding the game is on HW. Its not an obscure game, just not like Far Cry or oblivion or a half a dozen others. Its somewhat obscure tho, making it a non common game, which still hasnt been decided whether the coding is good or bad. It doesnt get played by alot of people. That in itself brings questions as to its worth as a benchmark. Had it been more popular, more common, then yes. Its all this combined IMO. Alot of people want the best, buy thousands of dollars of HW and then, on a game that not alot of people play, isnt as well liked as other games, and then shows bad on those top rigs, people get miffed. Others whove got lessor rigs, tried it and once again found it lacking for inventiveness, and intrigue. Too many strikes against it, and it becomes a failure. Its not one thing, like I said, its alot of things that chip away at it, and diminishes its importance as a benchmark

 

[Hatman]

Heres one good reason. People arent buying it and playing it. Sure theres a few, but many more scared off by hearing how demanding the game is on HW. Its not an obscure game, just not like Far Cry or oblivion or a half a dozen others. Its somewhat obscure tho, making it a non common game, which still hasnt been decided whether the coding is good or bad. It doesnt get played by alot of people. That in itself brings questions as to its worth as a benchmark. Had it been more popular, more common, then yes. Its all this combined IMO. Alot of people want the best, buy thousands of dollars of HW and then, on a game that not alot of people play, isnt as well liked as other games, and then shows bad on those top rigs, people get miffed. Others whove got lessor rigs, tried it and once again found it lacking for inventiveness, and intrigue. Too many strikes against it, and it becomes a failure. Its not one thing, like I said, its alot of things that chip away at it, and diminishes its importance as a benchmark

What makes you think people wont play it more when ahrdware can?? Tbh most modern hardware can play crysis just not on high, but who gives a crap :s Medium crysis still looks better than most shooters with decent frames and still has its uniqueness.


I think people simply do not want to like crysis to be a part of something... personally.... sorry but it's a good game its got pretty good reviews everywhere everyone that has actually played it has thought its a great game.


How bout give it a chance guys??? Really..

 

[fyrexia]

talking about graphics in this kind of games... how would the project origin (sequel to fear) be featured? i mean..requirements? suggested card for this game?
How much would it improve in project origin?

 

[Mousemonkey]

talking about graphics in this kind of games... how would the project origin (sequel to fear) be featured? i mean..requirements? suggested card for this game?
How much would it improve in project origin?

The screen shots I've seen look pretty good and I've got my fingers crossed that my current rig will be able to do it justice, but as with all these things we will just have to wait and see.

 

[killtacular]

What do people have against Crysis?

1) DRM
2) Mediocre Game Play
3) Runs poorly on very good equipment
4) More time was spent making super wiz bang eye candy at the expense of gameplay.
5) Restricted User Rights
6) DRM
7) The head of the company calling gamers criminals.
8) DRM
9) Not making the second crysis game first so that it would be playable.
10) DRM

You forgot to mention DRM, lol...

 

[skittle]

Crysis WAS a good game... until the aliens.

Oh, and at the end you get this nuclear device... but you can only use it on the alien ship? wtf is this... I want to see MASSIVE explosions from a tactical nuke used on a enemy camp!

The AI is pretty excellent, except sometimes they have little quirks. They also dont have any ragdoll for the dead koreans. They turn into bleeding rocks.

 

[baddad]

Before Crysis hit the store selves they focused on the eye candy the game could produce which I think was a big mistake on the part of the developers. Crysis can be played on many different computer setups, the more horse power you have the better it looks, and this is the way it should have been advertized. At first I didn’t like the game but the more I played it the more I understood that the game was more then eye candy because each time I would play it I’d find new ways to do battle and better ways to kill the enemy. Could the game have been better coded, could graphics drivers been better, could chip set drivers have been better? The answer is yes and since the game has come out they have all improve especially NVIDIA’s drivers, and I know this by using the Crysis benchmark program to test my system as well as Lost Planets, Futuremark Vantage, Lost Coast to name a few. You don’t have to have a machine like mine to enjoy Crysis, unless you’re like me it’s not just playing the game it’s the eye candy and everything else. BTW I play Crysis with very high setting in 1920x1200 at 39.7 FPS and with 4xAA 27.7 FPS.

 

[homerdog]

Crytek did something bold and went PC exclusive with Crysis. This allowed them to drop the console baggage and make a game that really made use of modern PC hardware. Oddly enough, PC gamers seem to hate them for that

I doubt we'll see another game with Crysis level graphics (aside from Warhead) until the next console generation. Until then we'll get great looking console ports like Far Cry 2 that should run very well on modern rigs, but Crysis will remain king of the graphics hill for quite some time to come.

 

[bpogdowz]

Ok well I'm getting a GTX 280 should handle crysis max setttings no AA/AF @ vsync

 

[goonting]

Crysis here with 1024x768 medium setting with 2xAA
hehehe not quite with a P4 531 3GHz and HD3870 video...still waiting for my 22inch LCD im agonizing with 15inch CRT at the moment with blinding small screen

 

[tomdrum]

People who automatically write it off becuase they dont think their system will handle it shouldnt.

My system is pretty standard
c2d e6400 (o/c myself)
2gb ram
8800GT o/c edition

Yet i can run on Very High and achieve playable frame rates, and even playing on high it still looks and plays amazing.
Maxxing it out will look amazing, but even on medium it is still pretty much on par with other games. Buy it, play it on medium and enjoy.

As for the people saying why couldnt they have optimised the engine originally...well its taken them over a year to optimise it, so it would have been wasted time to hold the game back for a year longer.

The game is actually VERY good, there really is no logical reason to state it as BAD, graphics are good, gameplay is more open and interactive and it stands up as one of the best FPS around.

 

[dos1986]

Crysis is unmatched in terms of what it offers visually. It's both the best looking game ever, and the game that needs to draw the most amount of things ever. You're constantly in a dense forest covered with gorgeous looking, dense foliage and trees and such; and wherever you turn you can see at least 40-50km openly. That stuff needs to be drawn, they're just not photographs!!

Crysis currently defines the absolute highend in rendering engines and what is possible on the pc.

The same thing happenend with Oblivion and Far Cry to a smaller extent when they were first released. Then 8800GTX and Intel Core 2 Duo came out, and suddenly the "badly coded" games ran perfect.

The technology you are seeing now is not that complex, the way the companies are going on, you would think they had thrown billions and billions at R&D for the tech we have now.But that is not true, yes they are throwing billions at R&D but not at 07/08 tech, that stuff is only the average jump over existing tech, tweaks if you like.

The guys throwing $550 at 4870x2/ Qx9550 etc are in for a huge suprise this time next year and just a bit after ( not like guys in 06 that bought 8800gtX, C2D ).

Bottom line the hardware out now is crap compared to the hardware of 2006, of course harware today is not going to max out Crysis when its based on the tech of 06, the 4870x2 is also based on this tech and is not enough for Crysis.2010 will see the new tech, with slight glimpses this and next year.Time will pass and people will find it wasnt badly coded at all, complete opposite infact.

 

[gillagad]

I don't have the actually game (yet) but my Q6600 @ 3.0Ghz, 4GB DDR2, and 7800GT system could handle the demo at Medium settings fine. With my new 4870 can run it Very High 4xAA at 1280x768 fine.

 

[homerdog]

Crysis is unmatched in terms of what it offers visually. It's both the best looking game ever, and the game that needs to draw the most amount of things ever. You're constantly in a dense forest covered with gorgeous looking, dense foliage and trees and such; and wherever you turn you can see at least 40-50km openly. That stuff needs to be drawn, they're just not photographs!!

Crysis currently defines the absolute highend in rendering engines and what is possible on the pc.

The same thing happenend with Oblivion and Far Cry to a smaller extent when they were first released. Then 8800GTX and Intel Core 2 Duo came out, and suddenly the "badly coded" games ran perfect.

The technology you are seeing now is not that complex, the way the companies are going on, you would think they had thrown billions and billions at R&D for the tech we have now.But that is not true, yes they are throwing billions at R&D but not at 07/08 tech, that stuff is only the average jump over existing tech, tweaks if you like.

The guys throwing $550 at 4870x2/ Qx9550 etc are in for a huge suprise this time next year and just a bit after ( not like guys in 06 that bought 8800gtX, C2D ).

Bottom line the hardware out now is crap compared to the hardware of 2006, of course harware today is not going to max out Crysis when its based on the tech of 06, the 4870x2 is also based on this tech and is not enough for Crysis.2010 will see the new tech, with slight glimpses this and next year.Time will pass and people will find it wasnt badly coded at all, complete opposite infact.

+1, all great points. Crysis is by far both the best looking and (surprise surprise) most demanding game out there. It is not coded badly or poorly optimized, the visuals justify the hardware requirements.