Sign-in / Sign-up
Your question

Can games get any more demanding than Crysis Warhead?

Tags:
  • Graphics Cards
  • Games
  • Crysis
  • Graphics
Last response: in Graphics Cards
April 13, 2009 12:48:08 AM

Can games get any better/more demanding than Crysis Warhead? The graphics are so good, almost photorealistic, that I can't see games getting any better than this.

Therefore this brings to the next question. I don't see the need of faster graphics cards after 3-4 years. By that time, a reasonably high end video card should be able to play Crysis Warhead at 2560x1600 with some AA/AF easily. Since games are not getting any more demanding (correct me on this), and resolution can't get much higher for PCs, I don't see the need for faster video cards. Maybe if you're into Folding@home, then yes. Maybe in the future when 2160p or 4320p comes out, then we need POWERFUL graphic cards for gaming consoles.

Since I bought up the point that monitors won't have higher resolutions, and this is in the display section too, I want to ask. What do you think the future for monitors are? Size can't get much bigger, because it'll look too absurd having 30+'' monitors on your desk. Resolution isn't increasing, because there's no point. The only thing I can see is having better quality panels. I think right now (and before), monitors are increasing in size. I think in the future, monitors are increasing in quality, hopefully IPS and S-PVA panels become cheaper. Of course correct me if I'm wrong.

More about : games demanding crysis warhead

April 13, 2009 2:00:01 AM

They can. Haven't you heard of Moore's Law? What do you mean you don't need faster cards after 3-4 years? There is no such thing as the ultimate. People had 20MB hard drives during the 80s and didn't know what to do with that much space. They use 640KB of RAM. They thought that more wouldn't be needed. Today we have 12GB of RAM and TBs of hard disks and SSDs coming up. I don't think there's much to be discussed. How can you not see something getting better than CW? Crytek is not the only game developer.
April 13, 2009 2:23:50 AM

What I mean is, how can it get better than photorealism? Crysis, and Crysis Warhead is pretty damn close, and sometimes is, photorealistic.

Of course I've heard of Moore's Law. I can see the need of better CPU, HDD, and RAM for a very long time. (IMO processors are still too slow right now), but I can't see it for graphic cards after a few years.
Related resources
April 13, 2009 2:38:51 AM

GTAIV is EXTREMELY demanding, as is FSX, if you let it be. :D 

And as we continue to develop monitors, soon you'll have a 24" monitor running at 120Hz, 48-bit Color, and 3840x2400 resolution.
April 13, 2009 2:42:04 AM

But would you see much of an improvement with 48 bit color and 3840x2400 resolution? I doubt it. The resolution is too high for a small monitor, and most of the time, for most of the people, you won't see much of an improvement.
April 13, 2009 2:58:08 AM

chengbin said:
But would you see much of an improvement with 48 bit color and 3840x2400 resolution? I doubt it. The resolution is too high for a small monitor, and most of the time, for most of the people, you won't see much of an improvement.


With 48-bit color, not a ton, but the Human eye can see up to thousands of DPI.
a c 109 U Graphics card
April 13, 2009 3:02:38 AM

The original Crysis is more demanding than Crysis Warhead, mostly because Warhead has more optimizations. Anyway I expect that by the end of the year there will be DX10 games more demanding than either Crysis before we start seeing developers focus on DX11 and give DX10 just for compatibility.
April 13, 2009 3:03:06 AM

raybob95 said:
With 48-bit color, not a ton, but the Human eye can see up to thousands of DPI.


That's true to some degree, maybe when the screen is 10cm away from you. It depends on distance. I doubt you can see a big improvement on a 24'' 3840x2400 than 1920x1200 half a meter away.
April 13, 2009 3:09:42 AM

well there is stalker clear sky... :p 

but thats just bad scaling lol
April 13, 2009 4:43:03 AM

One (compound) word: framerate. No current GPU can run warhead at max details and still maintain 60 fps at all times. That's how can we improve =)
April 13, 2009 5:10:26 AM

I don't think it's about frame rates, i mean u can run Warhead maxed out with a 3way/4way sli solution. But even so Crysis isn't photo realistic, what it's missing is GI. When games will be able to handle GI and hardware too of course, in real time, then games will be truly beyond the "WOW" factor.
As an example ... Look up the differences between rendered 3D pictures with max for example, of images with and without GI.
a b U Graphics card
April 13, 2009 5:26:38 AM

I want to see actual terran deformation, and fully destructible environments....ie. blow a foxhole in the ground to take cover, or fire a tank shell and completely destroys a tower/concrete structure.
April 13, 2009 5:34:15 AM

Bluescreendeath said:
I want to see actual terran deformation, and fully destructible environments....ie. blow a foxhole in the ground to take cover, or fire a tank shell and completely destroys a tower/concrete structure.

I agree with you completely. Cysis was a huge step towards this and hopefully it will get much better in the years to come.
a b U Graphics card
April 13, 2009 5:40:08 AM

what a ridiculous question..

the asker of this question has NO imagination.

yes, games can get better. much better. they arent even close to realistic.

from my limited understanding, active ray tracing will be the next *huge* thing.
April 13, 2009 5:44:34 AM

SpadeM said:
I don't think it's about frame rates, i mean u can run Warhead maxed out with a 3way/4way sli solution.


They still can't average 60 fps, let alone maintain it at all times.



But anyway, my post wasn't meant to be entirely literal. Improving image quality isn't the only way we can advanced in graphics technology.
April 13, 2009 5:45:02 AM

well ya see, we are all human, and humans are never happy with what they got, even if they say they are, their not. So, we will always make bigger, better, fast computer parts, if not for the need, but the WANT! i mean really? There will never be a point where everyone stops and doesnt know what to do next or how to make what they have, faster and more powerful...


just thought i should throw that in there...

;]
April 13, 2009 12:26:44 PM

lol. its evolution baby!
April 13, 2009 12:36:38 PM

efeat said:
One (compound) word: framerate. No current GPU can run warhead at max details and still maintain 60 fps at all times. That's how can we improve =)


Read my post. I said in 3-4 years, when GPUs can easily run Warhead at max detail and resolution.

SpadeM said:
I don't think it's about frame rates, i mean u can run Warhead maxed out with a 3way/4way sli solution. But even so Crysis isn't photo realistic, what it's missing is GI. When games will be able to handle GI and hardware too of course, in real time, then games will be truly beyond the "WOW" factor.
As an example ... Look up the differences between rendered 3D pictures with max for example, of images with and without GI.


Sorry, what is GI?
April 13, 2009 1:03:48 PM

Yes... Crysis Warhead in 3-D. Get a 120HZ monitor, a pair of NVidia 3-D glasses, and a 9800GT and up graphics card and you'll find out how good it can REALLY get. I have the Viewsonic 120HZ monitor with a GTX 295 and it looks AMAZING!!!!
a b U Graphics card
April 13, 2009 4:48:47 PM

Bluescreendeath said:
I want to see actual terran deformation, and fully destructible environments....ie. blow a foxhole in the ground to take cover, or fire a tank shell and completely destroys a tower/concrete structure.


Hence, the need for a Physics API; not an engine, but an actual standard, just like DX and OGL. We aren't going to make major jumps in how a game looks from here on out, texture wise at least. Its going to be lighting, its going to be physics, etc.
a b U Graphics card
April 13, 2009 5:24:26 PM

I think theres a few things thatll improve. Raytracing , used in a blend with rasterization, higher textures, were currently strangled at the 32 bit 2gig scenaio. Having higher textures, and going to a true 64 bit model, allowing for much higher limits, limits we see broken in a game or 2, with max res and all eye candy cranked, and games with mods in them.
Coming in DX11, we also have tesselation, which if used in higher res, will give closer textures more of a life like looking scenario, and an over life like "real" environment. We have AI and physics to add, where gravity, wind, possibly heat or cold could play into an overall experience. Were close from the cartoonish games we had, but far from real "realism"
April 13, 2009 5:32:49 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
I think theres a few things thatll improve. Raytracing , used in a blend with rasterization, higher textures, were currently strangled at the 32 bit 2gig scenaio. Having higher textures, and going to a true 64 bit model, allowing for much higher limits, limits we see broken in a game or 2, with max res and all eye candy cranked, and games with mods in them.
Coming in DX11, we also have tesselation, which if used in higher res, will give closer textures more of a life like looking scenario, and an over life like "real" environment. We have AI and physics to add, where gravity, wind, possibly heat or cold could play into an overall experience. Were close from the cartoonish games we had, but far from real "realism"



My main ways that I think games should improve are:

1) Better AI, in the future maybe as smart as a human
2) PHYSICS (Everything that would come into play in real life)
3) BIGGER WORLDS (GTAIV could have had a world 3x as big if it wasn't for the XBOX360)

Part of the way we can accomplish all this is through new Storage Media.

I foresee three ways:

1) In the near future, all games come on several Blu-Ray discs
2) In the far future, the games come on e.g., 320GB SSD
3) In the farther future, We advance the internet, and with our 64TB HDDs, you download a 1TB game in a 800 Mbit/s connection. (2.8 hour Download)

And for those of you that don't realize it, there is SO MUCH MORE that we can do to computers. We are effectively just beginning to leave the Caveman-era of computers. We haven't even gotten into 3-dimensional 40 GHz Processors with dozens, or hundreds of cores yet.
a b U Graphics card
April 13, 2009 5:41:23 PM

Think about it. Having 64bit, youll have those larger games, longer view distances with more clarity etc, which we simply cant have now due to mem limitations. Turn around quickly in a high res, high textured game, and you get the slows. With faster cards, and an available higher amount of ram etc etc, problems solved
April 13, 2009 5:41:55 PM

Now that you guys mention it, like physics and raytracing, there is some improvement room available.

I've always realized that our CPUs are too slow. I totally agree with the description "cavema-era of computers". I think that's the perfect description for the tech world we're in now. But then if we have FAST CPUs, we'll get lazy programmers using incredible inefficient codes.

Can you guys explain the "memory limitation" thing?
a b U Graphics card
April 13, 2009 5:44:57 PM

Can games become more demanding? What a silly question.. by the time we are able to really emualte "reality" (that is physics, AI, photoraelism, 'perfect' resolution, etc.) games will require orders of magnitude more power. Hundreds and hundreds of times as much storage, bandwitdth, speed, memory, etc. Of course what we recognize as a computer today wont be anything like those of the future which are capable of running a 'perfect' recreation of reality any more than the first mecahnical calculators are similar to the most advanced comptuers of today. Everything will change given time.

Is crysis near the limit of the currenct computer architecture? perhaps.. but we still have lots of headroom for improvements in realism beyond image quality. Even before drastic architechtural shifts occur in computers and the way we interact with them. The other areas of concern are just as taxing to a computer, as mentinoed above with the posts reguarding AI, physics and world size (removing in game loads).

For isntance the first myst games used very high resolution still pictures.. one could make a case that it was just as photo realistic, if one weer to compare screen shots, as what we have today.. but it was far from taxing, and far from realsitic in any other regard.
a b U Graphics card
April 13, 2009 5:49:44 PM

Also.. read:

"The age of spiritual machines" and "The singularity is near" by Ray Kurzweil. Both having to do with the seemingly exponential growth of technology.
a b U Graphics card
April 13, 2009 5:51:25 PM

Good ol myst. Actually, rasterization is stealing and cheating big time currently. View distances arent near what they should be compatively to what our current photo realism is anyways
April 13, 2009 6:26:50 PM

Bluescreendeath said:
I want to see actual terran deformation, and fully destructible environments....ie. blow a foxhole in the ground to take cover, or fire a tank shell and completely destroys a tower/concrete structure.


It annoys me that I can't remember the name of the game that's coming out that enables that.
a b U Graphics card
April 13, 2009 6:47:23 PM

Red Faction Guerrilla, i cant wait
a b U Graphics card
April 13, 2009 7:46:09 PM

I kinda agree with the OP. I still use my 8800gt because I haven't had a reason to upgrade. With bigger and badder graphics cards the development cycle increases. which in my opinion will slow down the need for faster graphics.

Hopefully nvidia and ati can move to a 2 year dev cycle so that every new card they introduce is indeed a new ground breaking product and no just a slight rehash of last years.
April 13, 2009 9:00:57 PM

chengbin said:
Read my post. I said in 3-4 years, when GPUs can easily run Warhead at max detail and resolution.


You said when a card can run it easily - I didn't know you meant flawlessly >.>
April 14, 2009 1:51:08 AM

Well, I was thinking, games once used to come in floppies. Now they come in blu-rays/dvd-9s. Its only logical to think that for more detailed textures you need a lot more space all though I find it difficult to believe that programmers can write code for a 50GB game. Have you observed Warhead/Crysis closely? Have you shot down any trees? If so, you would have noticed that the way the tree breaks is soooo unrealistic. Take a closer look at the plants on the ground. They need improvement too. There can be much more complex features. For eg. wind direction will change the direction in which the leaves rustle. Wind speed and direction is affected by so many factors. And I really don't think much of Crytek's AI. You could bring animals into the Jungle which would require much more graphics. I don't mean animals that just roam around like in FC2, but which are actually influenced by the player's actions. Like they pounce on you if you make noise. There can be a million improvements to Warhead. Can't say any more. But frankly I do agree that hardware is developing faster than software. Hardware is actually made to run software.
a b U Graphics card
April 14, 2009 2:11:03 AM

Usually, HW leads the way, almost always. Theres always a small number , or just 1 or 2 games that push the current HW to max, and still asks for more, as we saw in Crysis, Oblivion etc. Those games are rare, simply because its high risk. So, defining current games/SW as the level weve reached, or to conclude its gone as far as anything can, and no other groundbreaking perf can be had, is presumptious.
All the things talked about can eventually be had, and even more. Our life experience we havnt reached in games, let alone, nothing near our imaginations, once weve truly conquered "reality" in gaming
April 14, 2009 2:12:05 AM

Well... when every single footstep is imprinted in to the ground and every single bullet creates an actual hole in the surface and when every single thing that happens is PHYSICS not precalculated.... then we are there. As rags_20 said when a tree breaks in crysis it's a joke. Sure it's impressive as hell but if you want photorealism it isn't even close. For one bullets can't break down that kind of tree and on top of that it doesn't look that impressive, it's just a good concept. I know it sounds crazy but I feel that it will be completely possible to have an event completely occur based on what should happen in real life.

I believe it will be possible to go in to some sort of thing like sandbox and set up a scenario such as shooting an apple with an arrow and then do it in real life... and see VERY similar results. This as well as any other situation being simulated will be amazing. When any reasonable event can be replicated inside a game WITHOUT specifically coding it for that event, we are there. Sure a group of coders could work on something like shooting an apple with an arrow and make it an amazing real life replica in every way shape and form, but then it's just that scenario. I feel that when the graphical cap is reached in video games.... physics is going to have a whole new level with endless development.

That is my 2 cents. In my opinion it's like.... your character reflecting in the water because a piece of code said it's supposed to happen... versus your character reflecting in water because the physics of the engine (despite the fact that it is code) has every reflective surface reflecting everything as it should. When physics is at it's highest level in a game the reflection of something will be happening from every angle.... right now where ever you are in relation to the surface is the only thing being reflected, but with the proper physics engine every possible reflection will be already "calculated".

It's a hard thing to explain I guess but games have a looooooot further to go than most people seem to think. Crysis is a loooong shot from photorealism.
a b U Graphics card
April 14, 2009 2:14:19 AM

Think of a possible scenario where we use our own picture as our hero, where a picture of ourself is transposed onto and into the game, with enhancements of course heheh, just a thought
April 14, 2009 5:10:36 AM

Yeah, I always wanted that.
April 14, 2009 8:04:58 AM

I hope that Crysis 2 will be released in PC with a modified CryEngine 2 while using CE3 in X360 and PS3 only. I only game PC and I am not impressed with CE3. Did you look at the fire and the bridge collapsing? That was so unrealistic. I'm not impressed with frame rates either. It seems rather un-smooth.
a b U Graphics card
April 14, 2009 12:27:00 PM

My point with Physics has always been that to get the effects you guys want is not possible with current tech. Non-linear physics equations would be required, and CPU's are simply not designed to handle those forms of math equations efficently. I'd actually argue that to get the physics you want, you almost require a seperate PPU (A ton more powerful than the Agiea one though).

The only game in development thats really trying is Backbreaker (PS3/360, probably to get around that whole "lack of PhysX support" thing...), and quite frankly, the lack of news the past month leads me to think its close to dead...
April 20, 2009 2:40:46 AM

Hey. I've been reading this thread and I think you guys are right. Games can be more realistic then Crysis. A lot more. Eventually games will be put on Blu-ray, SSDs, and ultra-fast downloads from the internet. Physics seems to be the hot new thing now, and it has almost infinite room for improvement. Computer hardware has a long, long way to go before these things can be realized, but hey, look back ten years and laugh. If computers keep advancing at this pace then, ten (maybe 15 :D  ) years from now we will even laugh at Crysis! A laptop would play it a high res with very high settings and tons of AA/AF by then!

Just wanted to summarize the thread so far.

Yay for my first post on tom's!
April 20, 2009 2:48:31 AM

I wonder if, at some point, hardware will be so advanced that software makers will stop focusing on improving graphics and technologies and concentrate more on improving gameplay :p 
April 20, 2009 3:01:48 AM

RomDA_73 said:
I wonder if, at some point, hardware will be so advanced that software makers will stop focusing on improving graphics and technologies and concentrate more on improving gameplay :p 


Lol. They are doing both right now. It just seems that they are only working on graphics. Gameplay just follows second on the priority list. And come to think of it, with improved graphics it adds to the gameplay somewhat.

Gameplay is something that needs creativity to improve. Not better technology. Thats why Graphics are improving so fast and gameplay isn't.
April 20, 2009 5:33:49 AM

Watch the trailer of Harry Potter Half-Blood Prince. They should be able to create such effects.
April 20, 2009 7:34:19 AM

chengbin said:
Read my post. I said in 3-4 years, when GPUs can easily run Warhead at max detail and resolution.



Sorry, what is GI?


GI stands for Global Illumination ... even though some ppl underrated it, it's one of those things we can't generate in real time at the cost of performance. Just as some of you posted, ray tracing & GI make a good couple but the problem is that the hardware needed to make 30+ fps in a highly detailed environment isn't there yet. In regards to Crysis, all that crysis 2 needs would be GI and the end result would be photo realism. The fact that trees don't break as they should or that the physics engine needs even more work .. that doesn't matter to the way the game would look but it would matter for us tech ppl :)  Anyways to keep my post short ... if u want to see a good example of GI in motion check out the first trailer for Killzone 2 .. that pre-rendered trailer back in 2005. Even though it has "old graphics" compared to Crysis, it looks amazing even now just because .. it has global illumination, such a "smal detaile"

PS the killzone 2 game doesn't have GI implemented in real time cause of hardware limitations.
a b U Graphics card
April 20, 2009 9:55:20 AM

IMO crysis Warhead is far from photorealistic. The textures are just nothing compared to a photo. But graphics aside (because graphics are all that games focus on now)...

AI sucks in virtually every game you play. It's just plain bad, and is probably the most underdeveloped part of a game right now. I wish devlopers would make a game act realistic before making it look "realistic."

Physics has made improvements but there are NVIDIA tech demos from years ago that would make even the newest games cry in comparison. Crysis does not have good physics, they are buggy and crude. When you fire a tank shell at a tin shack, the walls won't fall over and the roof collapse, it will be blasted to tiny pieces strewn all over the place. Moreover, have you ever made a tree fall over and find it always seems to get stuck on something as it falls? It has a slight pause on the way down when at a 70 degree angle or so.
April 20, 2009 10:15:22 AM

Trees falling has already been discussed as has damage. Coming to trees - why exactly can only some trees be shot while others which are the same thickness or even thinner cannot? Answer - Because Crytek programmed that tree so that it could not be shot! Great! Talk about realistic. Damage- When you shoot a tree with a pistol a few times, it falls. When you punch it in strength mode, it doesn't. When you punch the walls in strength mode (walls of the buildings as seen in the CPU benchmark) , they fall dowm. But when you do the same with even a rifle, they don't. And sadly, yes. AI. Its just not given enough importance now. As randomizer says, most games these days have poor AI. The Modern Warfare engine is the one engine in which I find good AI (in Veteran)
a b U Graphics card
April 20, 2009 10:21:51 AM

My bad, I didn't read every post, I just like to mention those two points every time the "realism" of Crysis comes up :D 

Has anyone walked slowly into a "destructible" building holding a barrel and checked what happens? Nothing, correct. Now switch to strength mode and try again. Oops, the wall caved in. Why? No idea, but that's supposedly how things happen in real life.
April 20, 2009 10:55:52 AM

randomizer said:
My bad, I didn't read every post, I just like to mention those two points every time the "realism" of Crysis comes up :D 

Has anyone walked slowly into a "destructible" building holding a barrel and checked what happens? Nothing, correct. Now switch to strength mode and try again. Oops, the wall caved in. Why? No idea, but that's supposedly how things happen in real life.



of course it is, have you never tried doing that in real life when you're in strength mode

You are right though, I'd rather see more developments in AI than graphics at the moment, as far as I am concerned I can play with the graphics we've got at the moment, they're good and entertaining, it's just a shame everything else lags behind, AI/gameplay etc
a b U Graphics card
April 20, 2009 11:05:11 AM

Improving the AI means I don't need to upgrade my hardware for significant improvements. Improving the graphics usually requires a moderate upgrade for a minor improvement or a mortgage for a noticeable improvement.
      • 1 / 2
      • 2
      • Newest