Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

What do people have against Crysis?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
July 27, 2008 6:57:14 AM

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.

More about : people crysis

July 27, 2008 7:06:24 AM

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.
a b U Graphics card
July 27, 2008 7:09:53 AM

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.
Related resources
July 27, 2008 7:12:09 AM

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.
July 27, 2008 7:26:04 AM

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...
July 27, 2008 7:38:48 AM

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
a c 130 U Graphics card
July 27, 2008 7:40:48 AM

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
July 27, 2008 7:48:26 AM

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.
July 27, 2008 7:58:14 AM

jcorqian said:
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.
July 27, 2008 7:58:22 AM

^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.
July 27, 2008 8:03:39 AM

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.

a b U Graphics card
July 27, 2008 10:00:09 AM

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
July 27, 2008 10:14:01 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
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..
July 27, 2008 10:26:12 AM

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?
a c 271 U Graphics card
July 27, 2008 10:55:51 AM

fyrexia said:
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. :bounce: 
July 27, 2008 11:21:08 AM

bobbknight said:
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...
July 27, 2008 12:12:41 PM

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.
July 27, 2008 12:57:42 PM

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.
July 27, 2008 12:57:55 PM

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.
July 27, 2008 1:02:34 PM

Ok well I'm getting a GTX 280 should handle crysis max setttings no AA/AF @ vsync
July 27, 2008 1:15:36 PM

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
July 27, 2008 1:27:43 PM

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.
July 27, 2008 1:29:24 PM

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.
July 27, 2008 1:36:21 PM

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.
July 27, 2008 1:53:15 PM

dos1986 said:
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.
July 27, 2008 2:10:12 PM

what we have against Crysis.. hmm let's see

the only thing it has going for itself are graphics,
that's all there is to Crysis gameplay is regular
no real innovation just a generic shooter with
really good graphics.

That would be just fine
but the game was rated as one of the best
of 2007! as for the hardware goes the crysis team was misleading the
gamers that it would run greatly on regular gaming machines.
They've also decided to give us some **** hardware recommendations

The minimum spec and recommended it's all a big ****, recommended
should be a minimum and as for the real recommended goes.....
they should just let that stay blank for few years.... :p 

This game has nothing new to offer.. except for graphics

July 27, 2008 2:10:47 PM

Crysis looked as good as it was hyped to look. But it played kinda stale..

I got Crysis, and at the time I had sli 7600GS 512meg cards...
I figured I could run Crysis.. no problem.. Boy was I wrong...

I upgraded to a single 8800GT 512meg, then to sli 8800GT.. The sli 8800's ran way to hot for me, and I really didn't see much improvement in the frame rates, from using a single 8800GT...

But even after I updated my video cards and was able to play the game.. I found the game kinda boring... It looks great, and I got wasted many a times and just ran around and looked at stuff.. and go .. hmmmm. wow.... This looks great.. Got into some action.. Then the game falls for me... so even as the hardware improves, the basic game will be stale.. Hopefully this new Crysis coming out will have better gameplay...
a b U Graphics card
July 27, 2008 2:40:51 PM

crytek made this game run differently on every pc. ppl who paid alot of cash for there pc deserve the extra graphics while ppl who spent less on there pc get slighty less eye candy. (seems fair) But overall the graphics r stunning and the story kinda lacked in my opinion.
July 27, 2008 3:37:02 PM

The end was lame. Nuff said.
a c 130 U Graphics card
July 27, 2008 4:00:13 PM


^ +1

Was it ever, just spent all that time going thruogh what was a decent enough game and ended up playing a boss from an old Atari game !!! What was all that about.

Mactronix
July 27, 2008 4:32:46 PM

I didnt read through the whole thread, but I thought that I would add that I absolutely love Crysis (except for the alien ship level) and cant wait for warhead. The MP is ok, but hopefully will be better in warhead. I am not a big single player guy and I am currently working on my 4th run through of the game. If that tells you anything. It runs around 30 - 35 fps on my system with 1680x1050 no AA, which I dont really need on my 20" monitor at that res, but it would be nice and a mix of high and very high settings with the winXP hack.

30 - 35fps in crysis runs quite well in comparison to other games such as CoD 4. CoD 4 needs to be above 60 fps for the gameplay to be smooth where as Crysis is pretty smooth at 30+, so I wouldnt say it is programmed all that badly. Maybe not all to well optimized to run at higher frames, but definitely programmed well enough to be quite playable at lower frames unlike many other games imo.

P.S. I totally loved the ending. It had me begging for me, but what I never understood is why people thought the game was going to continue. Everyone was disappointed with the ending saying that they felt like the game just ended. After the last fight and watching the video...I damn well knew the game was ending and I thought it was very well done for setting up a sequal. Same goes for all of my friends. We just cant figure out why people felt it just ended when it was pretty clear that it was the end of the game imo.

Best,

3Ball
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
July 27, 2008 4:33:39 PM

the ending makes me want to finish the trilogy...

anyways I liked crysis a lot... and @ foxhound... it was one of the best shooters of 2007... whether you think it sucks or not... even if it did suck... it was one of the best... most shooters in 2007 sucked a**...
July 27, 2008 4:51:16 PM

1. Nvidia biased so that answers your bench marking.
2. What I call Crysis part 2 AKA the alien part blows. Yes. It blows. And it makes me dizzy as hell.
3. You can't pick up dead bodies or but that matter do anything to it.
4. Hardware masturbation. (Runs bad on good equipment) No point for me running it on DX10 very high detail if I'm watching a slideshow.
5. I didn't have too much problem with DRM. But other people are.
6. Over-hyped. -_-
7. I could've sworn it looked much more detailed (Not like more shadows, like 10x better looking) and better in trailers.
8. You can't interact with people on the ship.
9. My E6600 is loaded to 60% when I'm throwing things up in the air 40 feet while shooting a rocket launch at a building.
10. The ending.
11. It just overall wasn't as impress as it's suppose to be.
July 27, 2008 5:01:15 PM

guys u're all talkin about vedio cards and totally forgettin about cpu requirements ..
the game requires a very good cpu to run well .. lots of objects (trees being the big reason behind this of course) , heavy physics calculations (explosions , distructable environment, moving trees and planets) and very good AI for usually a relatively large number of units comin in one punch make this game very cpu intensive ... set the physics to low and u'll get 30% ~ 40% increase in frame rates as long as ur GPU doesn't become the bottleneck , but u'll also get very poor game play. crank it up to high or very high and u'll be gettin a totally different game
July 27, 2008 5:16:50 PM

the alien bits themselves werent bad....the zero gravity bit was pretty intuitive and new. It wasnt as good as the NK aspect, but didnt think it bad. Obviously people want the end to continue...but the big battle hinted it was the end. It had the right effect of making us was more.

As for the dead bodies, it is illegal for a german game to have ragdoll effects on dead bodies, and it was developed in germany
July 27, 2008 5:17:43 PM

Quote:
the ending makes me want to finish the trilogy...

anyways I liked crysis a lot... and @ foxhound... it was one of the best shooters of 2007... whether you think it sucks or not... even if it did suck... it was one of the best... most shooters in 2007 sucked a**...


Exactly, I also enjoyed the game very much, and found it to be a very good shooter, just like the others have stated, I really disliked the whole spaceship level, but other than that, it was fun. What might have made it bland for some people was the cloak, personally I thought the cloak was too much, even for Delta, that's why I restrained myself from using it, even though it was a lot harder, I can honestly say it made it overall a far more enjoyable experience.
July 27, 2008 5:37:17 PM

I played the demo....yawn....nothing new......

Kinda like the same reaction when Doom III came out.........cool graphics but nothing really new.........
a b U Graphics card
July 27, 2008 6:20:46 PM

Hatman said:
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..

Youre making my point for me. People will play it once its playable, but by then, therell be newer better games out. The game plays towards eye candy. Who cares about eye candy the nost? People willing to spend mucho buckaneiros on their rigs. Who cant have max eye candy on Crysis? Everyone, including those who have top rigs. Can we use a game that cant be maxxed out for a benchmark? Should we hold a benchmark so high , as one of the top ones, if not the most important, when at max settings its unplayable? I think of course itll be more popular when it can be played on more common HW, of course. Thatll give the middle and lower something of a treat, as far as eye candy goes. But the OP asked his question, and I think I covered some of it. As someone else mentioned, its not just the gpus thatre the problem for this game, but cpus as well. Unless we see Nehalem do some serious threading with this game, the cpu will become a major bottleneck for it, no matter how good the cards become, and even more so the better the card. Sure, give it a chance, and hope we see both gpus and cpus thatll improve soon, or, as I said, itll go ho hum as newer games come out
July 27, 2008 6:33:39 PM

Crysis is perfectly playable on my rig, that doesn't stop it from absolutely sucking compared to the dozens of excruciatingly better games. Most gamers actually care about gameplay, they're not going to stare at god shaft's underwater and jack off to it.
July 27, 2008 6:39:43 PM

jcorqian said:
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.


Well I mean just because it challenges graphics cards doesn't mean it should be used as a benchmark. I think the reason for that is because its technology is different and that its engine focuses on different things, such as huge draw distances, volumetric clouds, great water effects and such. Other games don't necessarily have all these features so using it as a benchmark is a little unfair. Now if you were to use it as benchmark while comparing it to a game that has a similar draw distance, similar volumetric clouds and similar water effects and found that the frame rates were better on this other game, I think that would be a viable comparison. You could ask a question like "Why does this game basically have all the features of Crysis and runs respectably on even modest systems, while Crysis has frame rate issues at various stages throughout the game?" Thats the way I look at things. I think a separate benchmark for those features should be utilized with games that match its features, but if there is only one, I don't think its fair to use it. The fact that it is optimized for one brand of video card doesn't help either. I think it would be an ideal world if every game developer went to all graphics card manufacturers (intel included) and said "We're going to help you optimize this game for your cards and get them the running the best they can for your entire line-up."

Personally I think that unless there are other games that have similar features to Crysis, using it as a benchmark doesn't make sense because the Cryengine 2.0 stands out as having I guess you could say "non-standard" features that most games probably won't use or have a need for. Carmack himself said that he doesn't think the Cryengine is the direction things are going to go. I mean if Doom 3 levels were five times as expansive and were on the outside surface of Mars instead of in closed facilities, I'm sure everybodys' graphics cards would be challenged. Thats why I consider it more a tech-demo than anything else.

Besides the benchmark aspect, Crysis as a game is kind of laughable. I mean come on. "Adaptive Tactics?" Thats just a label for having no system at all, whilst running around and avoiding attacks while hiding behind things and shooting people when you have a chance. I think every FPS has that to some degree. I remember the original Doom, which had that in almost every level, specifically e3m8, the Spider-demon. There were so many guys in that level that if you just ran out and made a circle around the center pillar, all of them would be be awakened and then you'd really see how hard it was to avoid rocket and fire projectiles, while simultaneously avoiding bullets and the like.

July 27, 2008 7:10:54 PM

All of you have some pretty good points.

However here is a concise answer for the OP:

What do I have against Crysis as a benchmark?
It is optimized for Nvidia cards. When we use Crysis as the number one benchmark, and it has a bias for Nvidia, then people will be misled with what card they should really get. This is because some Nvidia graphics solutions will outperform AMD graphics solutions in Crysis, but then lose to the AMD graphics in almost every other game.

I don't care either way if people buy AMD or Nvidia, I would just like to see an asterisk in benchmarks that mentions which games favor which company.
a b U Graphics card
July 27, 2008 7:27:42 PM

Excellent point. That would help in purchases, as well as evaluations of cards. I think many sites play it too close to the vest and dont comment enough about particular optimized games, which favors which. Theyre the ones who do the benches, and they should better explain it in their benchmarks. To me, its not stepping on toes, and isnt iffy, if theyve done their homework. Ive seen a few sites where theyve said, even on an nVidia optimized game, the ATI cards show extremely well, wish all did this, as it only gives credit to their knowledge, as wwell as their honesty
July 27, 2008 7:36:14 PM

njalterio said:
All of you have some pretty good points.

However here is a concise answer for the OP:

What do I have against Crysis as a benchmark?
It is optimized for Nvidia cards. When we use Crysis as the number one benchmark, and it has a bias for Nvidia


More waffle once again.

HD3870 didnt take on 8800gtx/gts in that game, but what did people expect?

Its a crap card.

HD4870 is having no problems outpacing gtx 260 and keeping with gtx 280 in that game, yet its cheaper than both ( for now anyway )

Hows that?


a b U Graphics card
July 27, 2008 8:00:52 PM

Oblivion wasnt optimized for any gfx maker. It demanded the most from any card and then some at the time. What shows the success of Oblivion to this day is, when it came out, the 2 cards that could play it the best were the 7900GTX and the 1900XTX. Those 2 were the top cards of the day, and the 1900 beat out the GTX . No surprise there as the 1900 was a lil better than the GTX. What can we learn from this? It shows true performance gains from each card, rather than favortism. Thats just 1 more notch against Crysis as being "the" benchmark. If people cant understand this, and the other points made in this thread, theres something wrong. I dont care either way, if a game is optimised on one certain gfx maker, then its only, or only more relevant to that side. That being said, then its lopsided and diminishes the importance of the bench
July 27, 2008 8:11:54 PM

Just ignore my post.

1 more notch, you havent proved a thing.

Games have there favourite cards you know?

They are not Corollas
July 27, 2008 8:29:51 PM

dos1986 said:
More waffle once again.

HD3870 didnt take on 8800gtx/gts in that game, but what did people expect?

Its a crap card.

HD4870 is having no problems outpacing gtx 260 and keeping with gtx 280 in that game, yet its cheaper than both ( for now anyway )

Hows that?


If you are going to quote me, please use the whole post.

What does the HD3870 have anything to do with this? (BTW it is not a crap card, I can vouch)

Here is anandtech's review of the 4800 series:
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3341&p=13

You will notice that the GTX 260 performs much closer to the 4870 in Crysis than in the other benchmarks. Ever hear of the TWIMTBP program?

In this case most people will go with the 4870 anyways since it is better priced (as you pointed out). But if you are just looking at performance, it is misleading to just use Crysis. This is why I don't consider Crysis the standard for benchmarking. I prefer to take all games into account.
July 27, 2008 8:35:21 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Oblivion wasnt optimized for any gfx maker. It demanded the most from any card and then some at the time. What shows the success of Oblivion to this day is, when it came out, the 2 cards that could play it the best were the 7900GTX and the 1900XTX. Those 2 were the top cards of the day, and the 1900 beat out the GTX . No surprise there as the 1900 was a lil better than the GTX. What can we learn from this? It shows true performance gains from each card, rather than favortism. Thats just 1 more notch against Crysis as being "the" benchmark. If people cant understand this, and the other points made in this thread, theres something wrong. I dont care either way, if a game is optimised on one certain gfx maker, then its only, or only more relevant to that side. That being said, then its lopsided and diminishes the importance of the bench

Crysis was certainly faster on NVIDIA cards when it came out because NVIDIA cards were faster at the time... I know it's a TWIMTBP game but come on, it ran faster on the faster cards. The x1K cards are faster than the 7 series cards in Crysis for the same reason; they are faster cards. Now we see the HD4870 outpacing the more expensive (to manufacture) GTX260 for the simple reason that the 4870 is the faster card... I don't really see the problem here :??: 

Crossfire scaling is a point of contention; it does appear that the engine is better optimized for SLI :( 
July 27, 2008 8:36:54 PM

Its exactly where its suppose to be, between Gtx 260 and Gtx 280, but no no it should be faster :pt1cable: 

Like COD4,Oblivion, Assassin's Creed, Assassin's Creed, err no it was slower than gtx 280 in those too.

njalterio said:
This is why I don't consider Crysis the standard for benchmarking. I prefer to take all games into account.


Did anyone say one game only?

July 27, 2008 8:48:32 PM

dos1986 said:
Its exactly where its suppose to be, between Gtx 260 and Gtx 280, but no no it should be faster :pt1cable: 

Like COD4,Oblivion, Assassin's Creed, Assassin's Creed, err no it was slower than gtx 280 in those too.

Did anyone say one game only?



No one in this thread said Crysis only, but every time there is a comparison of cards it is Crysis that is brought up.
Sure the reputable sites like Anandtech include other games, but whenever a flame war starts on the forums about which card is better there is nothing but a flood of Crysis benchmarks because it is the latest and greatest.

The point is, be sure to look at performance across lots of games because there definitely is variance in performance.
a b U Graphics card
July 27, 2008 8:54:38 PM

I know Crysis is very important to the pc gaming market. Thats why I dislike it as a favored bench also. Its exclusive to PCs, but it hasnt been embraced by many people. Why have this post if it wasnt so? Theres better games out there. All Im saying, and have said all along, it has certain things against it that makes it not the top like Oblivion was, but even with all these things against it, yes, its an important benchmark, but will be eclipsed by better games. Ones that arent optimized for certain makers, ones thats visually comprable, ones that gamers actually have to play, and hopefully done exclusively for PCs. Theres a question as to its validity, and a good one to boot. Or many actually. The OP wanted to know, now he knows why
!