bit-tech.net

Crysis - Did you upgrade?

Posted on 15th Dec 2009 at 11:05 by Antony Leather with 55 comments

Antony Leather
It came, it saw, it conquered - our PCs that is. It's rare that we've seen a game that was so demanding on its release. The question 'Yeah, but can it play Crysis?' is now a comical catchphrase addition to most graphics card reviews. It was responsible for tens of thousands of bank managers groaning under the huge wake of costly upgrades. Now the dust has all but settled, did Crytek's awesome DX10 FPS help or hinder the PC gaming industry?

Most of us had the same traumatic experience. We installed Crysis adjusted the graphics settings to something that resembled reasonable expectations, and saw our PCs grind to a halt. It was pretty depressing to see the GeForce 8800GT fall flat on its face when it played all other games so easily. Even the mighty 8800GTX couldn't handle the game at max settings and even struggled at 1,280 x 1,024.

I was prepared to throw some serious cash at my PC to enable it to play Crysis at max settings on my 20in monitor. Who wasn't? Like FarCry, Battlefield 2, and several games before it, I had a burning desire to upgrade to get some decent frame rates and luscious visuals.

But, no matter where I looked, graphics card reviews and forum threads all showed the same story. Crysis was an untameable beast with current hardware and even several 8800GTXs in SLI struggled in the early days of the technology with minimum frame rates regularly dipping to unsavoury figures.

Crysis - Did you upgrade?

Which leads me to my question. Did Crysis give a much-needed lift to the upgrade scene which had stagnated due to lack of new games and the complete flop that was ATI’s 2900 series? Or did the game hinder upgrading, as its ludicrous demands forced people to bat for the other team, and spend their cash on consoles instead?

Doubtless, many would have seen it as an insurmountable obstacle. Indeed many an excuse I've heard from PC gamers who have defected to consoles was that they refused to spend hundreds of pounds upgrading their PCs to play one game. This is understandable; the lifespan of new hardware is never more than a couple of years at best and Crysis would have made upgrading seem even worse value.

Was Crysis a step to far? Do you expect to be able to play all new games at max settings on the latest hardware? If it could, would you spend any more on upgrading? Let us know in the comments.

55 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
Xir 15th December 2009, 11:38 Quote
It was (and is) as stepping stone.

It's not just graphic demand that went up, also standart resolution went up tremendously from 1280x720 to 1680x1050 and now 1920x1200 (1080). So there's 2,5 times more pixels to be filled.
Still Crysis wont run well on older hardware even with the old 1280x720 standard ;-)

For me...still waiting to get new hardware and haven't touched crysis yet ;-)

I mean, the ATI5870 is the fastest single core card yet, right? Will it doe Crysis with everything on full at 1920x1200?
GFC 15th December 2009, 11:42 Quote
I think a game like Crysis is good once in a while. It makes GPU makers happy, it makes other game companies try harder on their games.
Spiny 15th December 2009, 11:44 Quote
Nope, the hype about the system requirements put me off & I didn't buy it. No point in upgrading for a single game, especially when everything else is limited due to needing to run on consoles.
wuyanxu 15th December 2009, 11:52 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by GFC
I think a game like Crysis is good once in a while. It makes GPU makers happy, it makes other game companies try harder on their games.
indeed. IMHO graphics card development have almost stopped before Crysis came out.

and now, most people owning 8800GT or above would look at the games say they've got a good enough card, thus limiting the graphical advances in games.

we need more games like Crysis, pushing the envelope and making progress.
Paradigm Shifter 15th December 2009, 12:00 Quote
No, I didn't upgrade for Crysis. When I bought Crysis I had an X1950XTX, and that served perfectly on medium settings at 1920x1200. Didn't find any spots where the framerate nosedived. OK, so it was medium settings but it still looked incredible!

I picked up an 8800GT some considerable time after I bought Crysis (after getting three that were DOA) and thought I could try high settings... which were fine until I hit ice. As soon as that happened, it, too, needed medium (or a custom selection of medium/high) to get it playable.

First time I played Crysis all on High was with a 4850. It did very well. But even a 4870X2 didn't give what I consider playable framerates on very high at 1920x1200.
oMonarca 15th December 2009, 12:02 Quote
Well, Crysis should have the gameplay that matched the graphics. It started in an awesome way, but then it funnelled and placed aside it's strengths in favour of a linear approach and boring enemies.

We don't need more games like Crysis. We need games that not only raise the bar in graphics, but in gameplay too.
faugusztin 15th December 2009, 12:06 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xir
I mean, the ATI5870 is the fastest single core card yet, right? Will it doe Crysis with everything on full at 1920x1200?

With 2xAA yes. With higher AA, no.
Skiddywinks 15th December 2009, 12:06 Quote
I didn't upgrade, mainly because I had no rig at the time. I don't ever upgrade PC's (would rather run it out of its useful life and then build a new one), but I may have for Crysis.

People see it as upgrading for just one game. But the fact is, the intention may only be for one game, but it's not like the upgrade would only apply to Crysis; surely your other games would benefit? If you can already play everything else at max, upgrading would be a waste in my eyes, but under any other circumstance it wouldn't be a bad idea.

I don't know if Crysis helped or hindered the market, but I sure as hell want another one. Maybe not as stupidly unplayable, but definitely omething that stresses my card more than any of the other console ports would be nice.
kenco_uk 15th December 2009, 12:16 Quote
Not only did I upgrade to a DX10 card, I upgraded to Vista from XP.
alecamused 15th December 2009, 12:24 Quote
I guess i spent half an hour just watching the sunrise ... The engine is awesome, even the ingame menus (suit controls, gun mods) are really great and inventive but the gameplay wasn't up to the graphics.

I vote for more games like crysis (btw, crytek is hiring so there might be something new coming) but they really should care a bit more about the story and character development.
Elton 15th December 2009, 12:27 Quote
I didn't upgrade for Crysis. That was a byproduct.

In truth it was Oblivion that compelled me to upgrade. Well from an X1600XT at least.
MaverickWill 15th December 2009, 12:54 Quote
I bought the super-computer, THEN bought Crysis.

Aside from beating the snot out of that first turtle, I've not really played it much!
tron 15th December 2009, 13:03 Quote
I upgraded after the release of Crysis, but mostly for other games. If Crysis was my favorite game, then yes I would have upgraded for it as I am a hardcore gamer who values cutting edge graphics.

A lot of other PC gamers upgraded around that time, mostly for the ability to run Crysis at a decent framerate on very high detail settings.

I don't think Crysis was a step too far at all. It was highly scalable for people to play on reduced quality on older hardware, and nobody is forced to put up their settings to very high.

So it's a win-win situation: those who don't want to upgrade can play it on lower (console-level) details, and those who care enough to want to experience the (then) revolution in graphics, can upgrade.

For the quote: "PC gamers who have defected to consoles was that they refused to spend hundreds of pounds upgrading their PCs to play one game"; my response is that either PC gaming was not supposed to be for those persons in the first place, or the excuse they use is flawed: If they 'defect' to console gaming because they didn't want to upgrade for Crisis, then they lose the ability to play Crysis at all. Or they may prefer to wait for Crysis 2 on a console and play it with new optimized lower graphics textures.
Blarte 15th December 2009, 13:06 Quote
what was Crysis developed on?
MaverickWill 15th December 2009, 13:07 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blarte
what was Crysis developed on?

Judging from its power, I'd say Mars. ;)
smc8788 15th December 2009, 13:14 Quote
IIRC Crytek admitted from the start it wasn't playable at max settings on any hardware that was available at that time it was developed - they instead wanted to 'future-proof' it by making higher settings available for when more powerful GPUs were available so those settings would become playable.
sear 15th December 2009, 13:47 Quote
I think it was a good kick in the pants. It still does tons of things that most games implement in extremely limited forms (or not at all), and while some might claim it's unoptimised, it's more that it attempts more than any other game in one of the most difficult environments possible (large open environments, which are hard to optimise for every situation). Some games may get by on art design, but I think Crysis is raw technical mastery (with good but somewhat bland art direction). It really just does not compromise very often.
uz1_l0v3r 15th December 2009, 14:10 Quote
I did plan on upgrading solely for playing Crysis, but it soon became apparent that even the best GPUs at the time (8800 GTX) were not up to the job. I waited a full three years before finally upgrading. I still wanted Crysis and Warhead, but really I just wanted a good gaming PC. I paired a GTX 275 with a core i7 920 and ran Crysis/Crysis Warhead on enthusiast settings at 1280 * 1024. I for one was very impressed with both the graphics and gameplay.
PegasusM 15th December 2009, 14:57 Quote
yes, and we need another Crysis like game in this sea of console ports with comparably poor graphics. Maybe more console gamers would turn to PC gaming if they saw what the PC is capable of in more games.

Also I really enjoyed Crysis, even before I upgraded and saw the graphics on high I thought the gameplay was fun, the story wasn't fantastic but I don't think it needed to be.
DAVEtheRAVE 15th December 2009, 15:57 Quote
I got crysis after I built my first PC (see sig), and I can play it well on high. Seeing gunsmith's ironman walkthorugh, has got me playing it again; I have forgotten how stunning it is!!

I think that games like this can only help push the boundaries for hardware and games. Currently, it seems that console ports rule the roost, with little or no graphical settings. And as consoles are the lucrative market, games will be developed with their aging (and limiting) hardware.
Hugo 15th December 2009, 15:57 Quote
I didn't upgrade to play Crysis but not because of the prohibitive cost of doing so - although that was a factor. Rather, I didn't upgrade because having played the game at i34 (I think, Tim and Rich will know :)) I found it to be fun for about 5 minutes of running around shooting stuff and enjoying the pretty graphics, but otherwise not a bit engaging.

When Supreme Commander proved too much for my PC to handle, I upgraded because the game was crazy fun to play; Crysis was mediocre at best.
SazBard 15th December 2009, 15:59 Quote
I still haven't played Crysis...
Whats the big deal? A FPS with good graphics is still a FPS, meh...

I want to know when gameplay will be making a comeback?
isaac12345 15th December 2009, 16:13 Quote
Crysis is a game that beautifully expresses what sheer, raw power is and indicates where the games industry could be heading in terms of graphics processing requirements. Crytek have always been responsible for raising the bar to the next level and I believe it rightly did so with Crysis. Not only was the game lovely to look at (and play) but it also served as a benchmark for the PC industry. So many reviewers still include Crysis in their benchmarks, and that is proof of how futuristic (and beastly) the technology behind this game is.Like many people have said, it is the poster boy for PC gaming. It drove people to upgrade and I believe it helped people to understand and appreciate not only their hardware but also the software and the work that is put in by all game developers ( not just Crytek). Hats off to Crytek!!
l3v1ck 15th December 2009, 16:46 Quote
Did I upgrade?
No. I gave up after one level of stuttery frame rates. It's still in the box waiting for me to build a new PC. It could be there for a year or two yet.
Blarte 15th December 2009, 17:09 Quote
I upgraded from my 8800GTX's ... (3 in a 790 ultra board paired with a Q6850 oc'd to 3.8) as they stuttered in sections at 1600 x 1200.. it looks so predddy though.. couldnt bring myself to change the resolution down,
now ..2x 295s and a 920 being built modding the case to suit so I havent actually had any results yet. Hoping it will be a nice smooth game I can actually enjoy without the room turning into a makeshift sauna.

MaverickWill 4 hours ago Quote:
Originally Posted by Blarte
what was Crysis developed on?

Judging from its power, I'd say Mars. ;)... << lol
thehippoz 15th December 2009, 17:17 Quote
I bought it on release.. I actually played it on my overclocked 8800gtx with everything jacked up to very high.. at 1280x720 XD was getting 12fps in some parts but for the most part it stayed around 20, 21 fps on a crt.. game was just sick looking even at that res- on a crt you could look at the ground and the leaves looked like freaking leaves =]

strange is.. maybe it has to do with the blur but the game was very playable at that res and frame rate- it would play full speed, wasn't a cpu thing it was a gpu thing even at that res.. and sli wasn't supported on release- you needed one big gpu

the thing with crysis is it was a double edged sword.. most people, especially guys with the 8800gts couldn't play it because the memory limits on their card would bog the game (and they weren't idiots used to talk with them alot).. I had a great experience, but then again most on lcd at the time couldn't see what I saw.. I had a friend say wtf when he saw it first time on my old crt

it was almost like it wasn't losing frames in the original version.. the patches afterwards improved the fps and eventually they got sli working.. but it lost some of it's original charm imo- like current patches the sky isn't as dark on the opening beach.. you don't go third person in the water.. like they dumbed it down some cause of all the whiners

that's to be expected though.. I can understand though- the majority of peeps who just had alot of money to spend.. tried to play it at higher res on lcd, it just wasn't possible at that time.. even the devs said 1280x was the highest it would play maxed out that christmas (2007)

the pc market did suffer imo after crysis, because let's face it.. not everybody who owns a gaming rig is a pc guru.. the consoles don't require you to know anything beyond hooking up a vcr.. so consoles win with that crowd- I was pretty amazed at what crytek had done myself.. the game is sick even by todays standards.. guys who bag on it have just never seen it on a proper rig.. otherwise they would bust a nut- no way you can't :D warhead was good too
b5k 15th December 2009, 17:35 Quote
I personally think people view this Crysis thing from the wrong perspective.

"Oh wow...This game doesn't run on any hardware smoothly! Must be a REALLY complex and demanding game!"

A lot of people consider this to be the truth. Crysis is a bitch to run because it looks so god damn good. Could that really be the case? Did they actually make a game that was so staggeringly pretty and advanced that it wouldn't run properly on any currently released machine? If so, you have to consider the stupidity of that as a concept for a business, they're lucky it worked. GTA4, although a port, wasn't so lucky. That ran like **** on all PC's and it got slammed for it. Sure it wasn't pretty or next gen, but a failure in the Q.A. department and people generally not caring about the port lead it to its death.

What I'm suggesting is this: Crysis doesn't run very well not because it's an advanced piece of technology, has staggering graphics and oodles of physics thrown in for fun. Crysis doesn't run well because it hasn't been MADE to.

I'm not saying they did it intentionally to sell more graphics card units, what I'm suggesting is that it got slammed out the door before it got a make over by the efficiency fairy.

Imo it's not exactly pretty enough to warrant such a demand on hardware. So I didn't upgrade for it, I upgraded for Rage. That looks prettier and because it's made by id we can be pretty much sure it'll run on kit 1, 2 or maybe even 4 years old.

Edit: I'll also expand on this by saying that newer games are lacking the options that "lower class" (the poor) gamers need to make these games run on their system. Does Ubisoft really care if they sell some kid crysis and he wants to make it flat shade so he can play the SP on his P4? Stuff should be available for editing.
bob 15th December 2009, 19:51 Quote
Yes. Went from a 7600GT to a 8800gt. It was worth it though as I still have it and don't need an upgrade yet
wuyanxu 15th December 2009, 20:09 Quote
Crysis is different from all other games in such a way that instead of using existing technology to make stuff look pretty, it uses other, more advanced rendering technologies to advance in the right direction.

i think b5k's comment there is completely wrong (at least before the edit). Crysis is exceptionally well optimised. only problem with it is that it uses different techniques rather than re-using the same rendering tricks.

look at the other game that was released at a similar time: CoD4 MW. it looked very good as well, but if you look closely, you'd notice the flat textures, the unrealistic shimmering on objects. CoD didn't have ambient lighting and that's why it ran so good, i am willing to bet if you implement the same level of detail for CoD, it would run much worse than Crysis
PureSilver 15th December 2009, 22:12 Quote
I sorta did - I set Crysis' demands as the kinda benchmark for the next five years and built to that specification, which has worked OK.
Gunsmith 15th December 2009, 23:15 Quote
i added a 3rd 8800 GTX to the rig just for Crysis. unlike many i didnt pay any attention to its development and thus had no idea what to expect when getting the game. proved to be best thing i ever did as i utterly adore it. :)
Mentai 16th December 2009, 07:56 Quote
I've got two 4870 1gb in crossfire and I'm still not happy with how Crysis runs. I'll give it another go next time I upgrade , but being that no other games even stutter on my rig, I won't need to do that until next console gen which is a few years off at least.

The last game I upgraded for was Mass Effect (my old old rig couldn't handle UT3 engine). Going from my 9600GT to the 4870's was just for fun.
b5k 16th December 2009, 12:16 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by wuyanxu
Crysis is different from all other games in such a way that instead of using existing technology to make stuff look pretty, it uses other, more advanced rendering technologies to advance in the right direction.
Quake 3 stopped using "existing technology" but it'd still run on all the hardware released at the time. Rage will move to a completely new form of technology (virtualized textures) and we're being told it'll run faster for more detail.

All they did with Crysis, imo, is take an old engine and then just throw a load of sparkley stuff at it. This does not mean it's a ground breaking game. Most of the things that exist with in Crysis have already been done in games before and none of them needed DX10 to do. The only thing Crysis did was gather all these sparkles and shove them into a giant box.
Quote:
i think b5k's comment there is completely wrong (at least before the edit). Crysis is exceptionally well optimised. only problem with it is that it uses different techniques rather than re-using the same rendering tricks.
I'd probably disagree with that as well. Cryengine2 has done nothing substatial for developers or users. We can't say "Oh man, that game engine was so amazing and so many developers are going to use these awesome features that come with it!"...because they wont. Cryengine has loads of "features", sure. Problem is they're all eye candy. It's like taking the Quake 3 engine and loading it up on graphics (been done iirc?)

I think we're better off looking at id Tech 5 and Rage for the future of our technology than looking at the overly shiney attraction of Crytek. Megatexture can make our games infinately and uniquely detailed whilst still maintaining playable frame rates. This has a massive application to loads of developers and the consumers are the ones who will see the benefits. Games will get prettier and more detailed...Not just shinier.
Quote:
look at the other game that was released at a similar time: CoD4 MW. it looked very good as well, but if you look closely, you'd notice the flat textures, the unrealistic shimmering on objects.
Do you realise that CoD4MW is running on technology that started development in say...1997-8ish? To me, the fact that the technology has been streched out so long and looks so good for its age is a testiment to how good the Quake 3 engine actually was. Sure MW1 doesn't look as good as Crysis, but then again the engine is 6+ years older, cost less to produce and scales better.

and tbh, MW1 still looks damn sexy when you're playing the game, not staring at the pixels on the leaves.
Quote:
CoD didn't have ambient lighting and that's why it ran so good, i am willing to bet if you implement the same level of detail for CoD, it would run much worse than Crysis
CoD did have ambient lightning. You just don't understand so much what you're talking about. I'd also argue that the Quake 3 engine has been at the centre of bigger developments than what the cryengine can ever achieve.

Cryengine has offered us as consumers nothing but the prospect of upgrading before we should have to because some over ambitious company crams too much shiney crap into their subpar game.
earlydoors 16th December 2009, 12:54 Quote
Did anyone license Cryengine to produce a game? Similar to how Source was licensed?
Xir 16th December 2009, 12:56 Quote
Have to admit that I really like the idea of o game that allows you to push the quality beyond anything at it's time.

Remember "Ground Control"?
If you pushed up the "Details" slider you could bring any system to a staggering halt. Took four years for the game to be playable in full details (with a decent amount of troops that was)
isaac12345 16th December 2009, 13:32 Quote
ahh! ground control!! that was a good game as well.
tron 16th December 2009, 14:15 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by b5k
Quake 3 stopped using "existing technology" but it'd still run on all the hardware released at the time. Rage will move to a completely new form of technology (virtualized textures) and we're being told it'll run faster for more detail.

All they did with Crysis, imo, is take an old engine and then just throw a load of sparkley stuff at it. This does not mean it's a ground breaking game. Most of the things that exist with in Crysis have already been done in games before and none of them needed DX10 to do. The only thing Crysis did was gather all these sparkles and shove them into a giant box.


I'd probably disagree with that as well. Cryengine2 has done nothing substatial for developers or users. We can't say "Oh man, that game engine was so amazing and so many developers are going to use these awesome features that come with it!"...because they wont. Cryengine has loads of "features", sure. Problem is they're all eye candy. It's like taking the Quake 3 engine and loading it up on graphics (been done iirc?)

I think we're better off looking at id Tech 5 and Rage for the future of our technology than looking at the overly shiney attraction of Crytek. Megatexture can make our games infinately and uniquely detailed whilst still maintaining playable frame rates. This has a massive application to loads of developers and the consumers are the ones who will see the benefits. Games will get prettier and more detailed...Not just shinier.


Do you realise that CoD4MW is running on technology that started development in say...1997-8ish? To me, the fact that the technology has been streched out so long and looks so good for its age is a testiment to how good the Quake 3 engine actually was. Sure MW1 doesn't look as good as Crysis, but then again the engine is 6+ years older, cost less to produce and scales better.

and tbh, MW1 still looks damn sexy when you're playing the game, not staring at the pixels on the leaves.


CoD did have ambient lightning. You just don't understand so much what you're talking about. I'd also argue that the Quake 3 engine has been at the centre of bigger developments than what the cryengine can ever achieve.

Cryengine has offered us as consumers nothing but the prospect of upgrading before we should have to because some over ambitious company crams too much shiney crap into their subpar game.

Crysis has indeed pushed the graphical boundaries significantly more than any recent game. In my opinion, Call Of Duty doesn't come anywhere near the quality of Crysis on Very High texture and lighting settings. You may not be impressed. Some scenes from Call Of Duty may look better to some people only in terms of art direction and 'what' objects and colors they are seeing on the screen, but not in terms of raw texture quality and closeup photo realism.

Yes, you can say that "CoD4MW is running on technology that started development in say...1997-8ish". You may also say that the CryEngine is not the most optimized engine. However, it's still highly optimized to work well on a wide range of hardware. Which is good considering its high graphical levels and 'sparkley stuff'.

It's not just about the 'type' of graphical or lighting technique that a game engine uses, such as ambient lighting, but also how much total texture, lighting, polygon and detail calculations your graphics card is doing on the screen per frame.

Similar to what Wuyanxu said before, if CoD4MW had the same maximum level of graphical richness per frame as Crysis, I would also bet that, in terms of PC hardware performance, it would not be as optimized as CryEngine.

Also, it's up to third party developers to make their own use of CryEngine. It's not the engine at fault. Those developers that have acquired CryEngine could have chosen any other engine and still not released any product to market. Regardless, Crysis was a graphical leap forward and has rightly pushed the boundaries and given many PC gamers a good benchmarking target to aim their upgrades to.
b5k 16th December 2009, 18:02 Quote
You're missing my point. You could build and design a game that would be so mind numbingly pretty that it'd floor any hardware that ever went near it. You could do that on the Quake 3 engine, just make ever scene have 100,000,000,000 polys. Ta-da, you've killed it. What it *DOESN'T* mean is that the game has pushed any boundries with its technology.
Gunsmith 16th December 2009, 18:28 Quote
the crysis engine is a sophisticated beast, 85,000 shaders and over a million lines of code is nothing short of insane considering "its just a game"
tron 16th December 2009, 20:16 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by b5k
You're missing my point. You could build and design a game that would be so mind numbingly pretty that it'd floor any hardware that ever went near it. You could do that on the Quake 3 engine, just make ever scene have 100,000,000,000 polys. Ta-da, you've killed it. What it *DOESN'T* mean is that the game has pushed any boundries with its technology.

I hear what you mean.

You believe that CryEngine is not very efficient, and that its lack of new special optimized technology is the reason a lot of machines were brought to their knees.

It may not be the most efficient engine. However, I would say that it's no coincidence that the game that pushes the photo realism boundaries the furthest is also the game that requires the highest hardware spec to max out its full graphical glory.

Other games such as Call Of Duty simply cannot come close when you compare closeup shots of objects such as a wall or the sand on the beach, or the leaves on a tree in Crysis. You may be able to look at the interior of a vehicle in Crysis and see that a certain driving game has better looking vehicle interiors. But look at the overall graphics details in the frame and see that no other game compares to the amount of overall graphical photo realism. In this respect, Crysis is 'the game' that has taken graphics to the next level. What really counts is the end result that people witness on the screen rather than whether it's the most optimized engine.

So even if someone considers the engine to be poorly optimized, most people would still agree that it's the most photo realistic game, therefore requiring the most power to run it.
cybergenics 16th December 2009, 22:35 Quote
I have to say the bit where you are sniper in Chernobyl on COD4 looks more 'photo realistic to me, and I have ran Crysis maxed, but only recently, when I had the hardware to do it. I just 'looked' at the game, didn't really play it, as frankly its a crap game ! (IMHO). The worst part (although BF2 suffers the same, but is so good its forgiveable) is the fact you have to shoot people so many times to kill them and the guns sound and 'feel' crap.

I think BF2, which I've spend over 1000 hours playing was worth upgrading, when I first got it in 2006, even after it had been out a while I had to upgrade my 6600GT to a 7900GT to max it out at 12x10 and I thoroughly enjoyed it.

Last upgrade I did was for Arma2, now like Crysis that game is as well optimised as a Labour party Electoral campaign. The more cynical amongst us could just see Crysis as a con to get one to upgrade.

Other games I upgraded for were COD2 and before that as far as I can remember I needed to install a sound card to play some incarnation of Leisure Suit Larry.
SeewRipsmem 16th December 2009, 22:54 Quote
Like the topic saise, What do you think about the game?

Me, well, i like it allot

Didnt think the MP would as fun as it is. Lots of action and nice guns I actually thought that it would be kinda boring, that they hade focused theire work on the SP and grapichs, but it seems as i had verry wrong there
Abdul Hadi 17th December 2009, 05:49 Quote
Imagine the platform they have developed it on!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I mean JUST or MUST have it to play it. No????????????????
stoff3r 18th December 2009, 01:40 Quote
Its great to have atleast one PC-game that looks good, It will help justify my £1000 computer to people. People come visit and ask if I have a good pc, so I have to turn up some eyecandy to not look like a noob :P I also hate when my parents see me game on my cheapo-laptop, and say "gee the games now a days looks completely real", and I play Red Orchestra or some other old game :P

Unfortunately Crysis is still the game to show, despite being from 2007. I also show Race Driver: Grid, and now Shattered Horizon, but still I don't think any of them looks and feels as alive as the forests in Crysis :/

I bought my computer in august of 2007, and it didn't really handle crysis well, despite q6600 and 8800gts. Later bought 4870 and doubled the ram, but It didn't handle Crysis either.
Gonzalo-Gonads 18th December 2009, 20:13 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by b5k
You're missing my point. You could build and design a game that would be so mind numbingly pretty that it'd floor any hardware that ever went near it. You could do that on the Quake 3 engine, just make ever scene have 100,000,000,000 polys. Ta-da, you've killed it. What it *DOESN'T* mean is that the game has pushed any boundries with its technology.

Unfortunately game engine's don't work that way. You can't make every scene have over the top polys and expect it to look good. For starters games need more than polygons to look good, add in bump mapping photorealistic textures, shaders, lighting physics, etc. and you get closer to a modern game. Do you honestly believe that graphics have not developed since quake 3 (which is openGL)? There is a reason microsoft releases new versions of DirectX, and that developers throw millions into developement of new features, and new technologies to make their new game the latest and greatest!

Sure cryengine wasn't the most efficient engine but it was ground breaking example of how far modern graphics has come. why not try making the quake 3 engine blow-up houses in a realistic fashion , or add parallax occlusion, ambient occlusion, sun shafts, realistic water and all the other features cryengine 2 brought to the table.
Krayzie_B.o.n.e. 20th December 2009, 11:29 Quote
Crysis is an unoptimized piece of crap game that really in the long run wasn't that fun to play and for me had ZERO replay value but had some very pretty visuals. Crysis was more hype than innovation and bleeding edge programming techniques.

It did however spurr a relentless assault of Gamers (including myself) trying to tweak, overclock, and overhaul their systems so we could proudly say "Yes I can run Crysis on high settings above the 1280 x 1024 resolution at 30 fps" even though the gameplay doesn't change "linear" and Crysis actually runs good at 24 FPS.

But in the end it made alot off people smarter about PC hardware and alot of PC harware companies rich. So in the end Crysis and Crysis Warhead were good for the industry and gamers all around. I'm not buying the new one cause i hate Ea and if their track record is the same I predict the new Crysis is gonna suck especially since they are console gung ho with this version.

So I will sign of by letting my Phenom II 550 x2 3.91 ghz 4gb OCZ ddr2 1066 ram and my twin XFX HD 4890's (running at 1ghz each) say Fudge Crysis I can run that game maxed the hell out at 1920 x 1080 getting well over 40 fps with AA turn up and yes I am missing a kidney.
Krayzie_B.o.n.e. 20th December 2009, 11:32 Quote
P.S. if I see one more game using the Unreal Engine I'm gonna puke.
Thank you Cry Tek and GSC (Xray engine) for being innovative with your graphics engines.
Gunsmith 20th December 2009, 11:33 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krayzie_B.o.n.e.
yes I am missing a kidney.

thats not the only thing your missing.
NethLyn 20th December 2009, 15:33 Quote
I didn't have to upgrade for Crysis, my PC very obligingly died 18 months ago, so built a new one which could handle the game after I upgraded the GPU cooling for optimal performance at 12 x 10. Thankfully Warhead didn't have any of the same issues and as far as I'm concerned, had a much better structure with no zero-G nonsense to break up the action. Now I'm getting my software moved over to Vista, will have to give the first game another go in DX10 and with a bunch of mods.
SoulRider 21st December 2009, 05:34 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krayzie_B.o.n.e.
Crysis is an unoptimized piece of crap game that really in the long run wasn't that fun to play and for me had ZERO replay value but had some very pretty visuals. Crysis was more hype than innovation and bleeding edge programming techniques.

I take it you are calling it an unoptimized piece of crap, as you have checked the code, and examined all the different techniques, such as environment, lighting, shading etc that were used in the engine, and now offer us your experienced programmers knowledge.

I am sure you are not just jumping on a bandwagon, I'm sure you do know the difference between playing a game that has been designed beyond current capabilities (at the Very High level, it is very scalable at lower res and quality, as games should be) to give a graphical awe which gets better over time, giving it a better look when people pick it up in 3 years time.

Many different games have used this technique in the past, and I plan to do this myself in some of my own games, but the mode will only be unlocked when there is the hardware to run it, so people won't even know it exists :)
b5k 21st December 2009, 19:41 Quote
To the remark about Quake 3 being written in OpenGL, it doesn't matter. Everything they did in DX10 you can do in OpenGL 2.0.
gavomatic57 22nd December 2009, 09:17 Quote
I actually completed Crysis with my Q6600 and 8800GTS (640), but I've been replaying it with each new graphics card and have been getting enjoying the boost in framerate each time!
McVittees 30th December 2009, 10:15 Quote
I had a gtx8800 when Crysis and Warhead were released and had to scale down the resolution and my settings to play through them. When, two and a half years later, I was forced to upgrade my gfx to a 5850 I relished the prospect of playing through both games at full resolution and high detail - which I did. Funny thing was though, the higher resolution and prettier graphics made no difference to how much fun they were to play. Kinda summed up for me how it easy it is to get caught up in the graphics advancement game - IMO it's all just a corportate/game developer d*** size contest!
frontline 3rd January 2010, 15:31 Quote
I upgraded around about the same time as Crysis appeared, but it was more of a case of my hardware was several years old and it coincided with a large redundancy pay-off from my last job.

However, it was a bit depressing that a £600 QX6800 quad core couldn't get above medium settings at the time though!

As a primarily multiplayer gamer though, i do think that the best games offer a good balance between eye candy and playability (e.g. Valve's source engine and the COD engine games).

Crysis was a good game, but not a great game, if the overall story had been consistently good all the way through the game, then it would have been more of a selling point for PC games as well as hardware sales.

I think we'll see very few titles like this now though, although it would be good to see several DX11 games built from the ground up with the PC in mind.
stoff3r 4th January 2010, 02:07 Quote
Yeah there probably won't be many more of this kind, but atleast the consoles are getting older, so sometime there has to come some good pc-only titles to challenge new hardware.

The Stalker games are currently one of the most demanding games I have tried, and I can't wait for the new one, but once again, I will have to cope with consistent load-time giving me stutters and reduced immersion. Unless someone can find excactly what I need to upgrade. Unfortunately, i think it's not only the gpu I need to buy :(

Maybee Futuremark can give us some sweet pc-titles, I recon they sold pretty descent with SH. I wish we can go back to the golden age of pc gaming when consoles didn't matter and pc gaming was the big thing.
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums