Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

New crytek Engine game that will make our cards suffer, Sigh

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
April 16, 2009 10:57:54 PM

http://n4g.com/pc/News-312747.aspx

Another game that will make us feel bad about our purchases, lets hope it brings to the table more than Crysis...Gameplay cough cough*...optimization cough cough...excuse me.

K enjoy!
April 17, 2009 12:06:05 AM

Crysis was fun. I enjoyed it a lot.
Also, where's the competition in having a GPU unless you can say "My card can run Crysis 3 on All High :p ".
April 17, 2009 12:12:15 AM

lol
Well I don't buy video cards to show my epenis, I buy cards to satisfy my frames, where does competition come into play when we're talking about a game?:p 

Related resources
April 17, 2009 12:14:44 AM

Lucky for me that Crytek games arent worth buying.
April 17, 2009 12:15:01 AM

Aw DAMNIT....my X2 just pissed all over my gtx 260 :( 
April 17, 2009 12:20:44 AM

Well looks better than world of warcraft. Not my kind of game.
April 17, 2009 12:45:39 PM

Link doesn't work.
a b U Graphics card
April 17, 2009 1:03:44 PM

well what most people fail to realize is that crysis is only demanding "outdoors". play it inside the cave levels and you'll get performance near that of farcry2/WaW. and considering this rpg may not include such dense flaura per scene, and a scale much smaller than that of the crysis island (smaller view distance), our current rigs might actually hold up against this one.

the video sort of remind me of the old 3dmark03 ogres demo. ahh the good ol' geforce fx days.
April 17, 2009 4:26:07 PM

Thats the Crysis engine? Looks like sh*tty claymation to me...
April 17, 2009 4:45:47 PM

The link doesn't work for me, but if you mean CryEngine 3, I totally disagree. It looks like total crap to me. Of course, people already have high end cards which have come up over the years. The consoles still use the old hardware. If they use the same engine for both PC and consoles, it shouldn't be a problem at all. I'm just hoping that they use CE3 for consoles and an updated CE2 for PC.
April 17, 2009 5:35:53 PM

wh3resmycar said:
well what most people fail to realize is that crysis is only demanding "outdoors". play it inside the cave levels and you'll get performance near that of farcry2/WaW. and considering this rpg may not include such dense flaura per scene, and a scale much smaller than that of the crysis island (smaller view distance), our current rigs might actually hold up against this one.

the video sort of remind me of the old 3dmark03 ogres demo. ahh the good ol' geforce fx days.


+1

Crysis was demanding because of all the vegetation. You take that away and suddenly CE isn't very demanding. In the cave sections of Crysis [warhead] - where there's little/no vegetation - my framerate was anywhere from 80 to 150. I use an average of "high" settings @ 1600x1200 on 8800 gt SLI.


That said, I didn't find that demo particularly impressive. I am not a big fan of the "Let's make everything dark and brown to make it look gritty!" color scheme, and orcs are not exactly the most innovative thing.
a c 130 U Graphics card
April 17, 2009 8:08:32 PM

Im guessing it looks a lot better at native res guys ;) 

That said i agree it dosent look to demanding but i guess a lot of that will depend on the loading and size of the texures etc. looks a bit like a cross between Oblivion for the masonry work amd WoW for the ogres.

Mactronix
a b U Graphics card
April 17, 2009 8:19:25 PM

simply would not play that game. it doesnt look as demanding as Crysis, like some one said, not a big draw distance.
April 18, 2009 12:05:34 AM

...it looks like yesterday
April 18, 2009 2:43:53 AM

I enjoyed Crysis for the graphics more than the gameplay. I was able to run it at 1680 x 1050 at 50fps average, (3870 x2 and a 3870 card in tri-crossfire.)
!