New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Crysis on your Dell - Page 12

Poll Results: Your impressions of the game

Poll expired: Jul 20, 2010 This is a multiple choice poll
  • 36% (21)
    Truly Groundbreaking
  • 22% (13)
    Nice, but its just another FPS
  • 22% (13)
    Im on the fence about this one
  • 15% (9)
    Doesnt live up to hype
  • 1% (1)
    Im going back to Bioshock
57 Total Votes  
post #221 of 262
11/2/07 at 7:58am
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeForceTony View Post
To all of you whining that you can't play this game at ultra high quality settings on your laptops... Uhh... WAKE UP!. You guys are only fooling yourselves into thinking you can play this game at those settings.

For some reason, this seems to be a revelation to you guys that you can't run a brand new, envelope-pushing game at such high settings. Look at EVERY major first-person-shooter in the last 5 years, and you'll see that NO ONE was able to play those games at their max settings when they were released. Far Cry, Half-Life 2, Doom 3, etc and so forth. These are all envelope pushing games. Revolutionary new graphics technology. Meant to push hardware to the next level. Crysis (and the CryENGINE2 engine that powers it) is no different. Hardware doesn't drive the software to the next level, the software drives the hardware to the next level. Sure, it'd be nice to be able to play this game at 80FPS at 1920x1200 at max settings, but it won't happen on a hardware-pushing game such as this. If it were the case, we'd all still be seeing DirectX 6 games, using sub-1.0GHz processors, etc. We have yet to see the full potential this game and the graphics engine that powers it has to show...

If you're expecting to play every new game released at the best quality possible and at smooth framerates for the next 5 years, get a console, and you'll be stuck with the same basic graphical quality for the next 5 years.

Just gonna excuse my whining, but the reason for at least my whining here is that they have medium settings *imo* looking like crap and that is primarily what everybody will have to be playing on. For example, call of duty 4 has it's code so tight you could squeeze it up a zebra's ass first off, second off even on lower settings the game still looks and plays great!

Neither of these appears to be the case for Crysis
Reply
Reply
post #222 of 262
11/2/07 at 10:11am
That's because COD4 is using the tried and true level in a box design which has been continually improved upon since the first 3d games (incl. Wolf3d, but more closely the Quake series), unlike Crysis's open world. You can make 16x16km maps in Crysis, populate it with millions of objects, and enable physics for nearly every single one of them. COD4 doesn't even look that good considering how cramped its maps are, they could have really done more there. Also COD has zero physics. Anything that breaks or explodes in that game is pre-scripted. And, IMHO the weapons physics/mechanics are much more realistic in Crysis. COD's guns are so arcadey.
Reply
Reply
post #223 of 262
11/2/07 at 10:14am
CoD4 also doesn't have a brand new graphics engine either... CoD4 has the same basic engine that CoD2 has (granted, its been improved, but the basic underpinnings are the same) so its bound to have more optimizations and more tweaks, and less unoptimized code. Crysis, on the other hand, has a brand new engine. One that doesn't yet have all of its optimizations in place, and one that has yet to have its full potential exposed.
Reply
Reply
post #224 of 262
11/2/07 at 11:05am
Tony, it's not the fact that Crysis can't be played at max settings within a high resolution. Though, I disagree that every pioneering fps is deficient in giving you this ability. (Biochock, Prey, Hellgate: London, Stalker, Unreal Tournament 3 even plays better at high res than this,) However, the whine factor stems from Crysis requiring such a major sacrifice in terms of settings and resolutions. There has been no game in the past 5 years that I can think of that required a 1024x768 or 1280x800 resolution in order to have the game remotely playable. The sad part is that Crysis is still only "decent" at those resolutions in terms of frames per second while the sacrificed low and medium settings coupled with the extremely low resolution make it look horrible. There have been no other games recently that have required such immense sacrifices in settings in order to be playable on current and modern systems. Given that only 5-7% of gamers own an 8800 card or better, this would seem to be a horrible business and development decision. Expecting 95% of the gaming community to run out and buy a 4-$500 card is ludicrous.

That being said, I do agree that pc games in particular are useful in ushering in new era's of hardware requirements and facilitating market saturation with particular technology but I simply think Crysis has gone too far in those regards.
Reply
Reply
post #225 of 262
11/2/07 at 11:12am
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeForceTony View Post
CoD4 also doesn't have a brand new graphics engine either... CoD4 has the same basic engine that CoD2 has (granted, its been improved, but the basic underpinnings are the same) so its bound to have more optimizations and more tweaks, and less unoptimized code. Crysis, on the other hand, has a brand new engine. One that doesn't yet have all of its optimizations in place, and one that has yet to have its full potential exposed.

Does that change the graphical state of either game? The Crysis engine right now is simply unoptimized and I understand that, however it's a ruining point of Crysis because the GPU's on market today are not up to par for the game.

CoD4 in my opinion still looks absolutely great, regardless of the engine it's running on. It's streamlined and worked out to my liking.

Of course I'd like better physics, however if it means a 30-50 fps drop, screw that. End of story.
Reply
Reply
post #226 of 262
11/2/07 at 11:16am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groove75 View Post
Tony, it's not the fact that Crysis can't be played at max settings within a high resolution. Though, I disagree that every pioneering fps is deficient in giving you this ability. (Biochock, Prey, Hellgate: London, Stalker, Unreal Tournament 3 even plays better at high res than this,) However, the whine factor stems from Crysis requiring such a major sacrifice in terms of settings and resolutions. There has been no game in the past 5 years that I can think of that required a 1024x768 or 1280x800 resolution in order to have the game remotely playable. The sad part is that Crysis is still only "decent" at those resolutions in terms of frames per second while the sacrificed low and medium settings coupled with the extremely low resolution make it look horrible. There have been no other games recently that have required such immense sacrifices in settings in order to be playable on current and modern systems. Given that only 5-7% of gamers own an 8800 card or better, this would seem to be a horrible business and development decision. Expecting 95% of the gaming community to run out and buy a 4-$500 card is ludicrous.

That being said, I do agree that pc games in particular are useful in ushering in new era's of hardware requirements and facilitating market saturation with particular technology but I simply think Crysis has gone too far in those regards.

Gotta love the --->
Reply
Reply
post #227 of 262
11/2/07 at 11:16am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolApathy View Post
lol... for like the 10th time- the 169.01 drivers are optimized for the demo. They literally double the frame rates of the game. 169.04, bumps us up even further. In addition this is a ...d e m o... Stalker is nice, but there are a lot of differences, especially when it comes to demanding graphics items such as shadows & shaders. In addition the game is made for newer hardware. With the 9xxxx on the horizon, you can't expect a 7 series card is going to play it well.

My laptop played it alright, but is currently awaiting an evaluation after my son graciously took it down the stairs for me. I was under no illusion that this game would play well on my 7800GTX desktop equivalent laptop. It's not meant to. It's meant to look beautiful on 8 series cards. Unfortunately your 1.86GHz proc does not help the situation & is probably more of a limitation than the 7950GTX.

I am running the 169.01 drivers.
Reply
Reply
post #228 of 262
11/2/07 at 11:22am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groove75 View Post
Tony, it's not the fact that Crysis can't be played at max settings within a high resolution. Though, I disagree that every pioneering fps is deficient in giving you this ability. (Biochock, Prey, Hellgate: London, Stalker, Unreal Tournament 3 even plays better at high res than this,) However, the whine factor stems from Crysis requiring such a major sacrifice in terms of settings and resolutions. There has been no game in the past 5 years that I can think of that required a 1024x768 or 1280x800 resolution in order to have the game remotely playable. The sad part is that Crysis is still only "decent" at those resolutions in terms of frames per second while the sacrificed low and medium settings coupled with the extremely low resolution make it look horrible. There have been no other games recently that have required such immense sacrifices in settings in order to be playable on current and modern systems. Given that only 5-7% of gamers own an 8800 card or better, this would seem to be a horrible business and development decision. Expecting 95% of the gaming community to run out and buy a 4-$500 card is ludicrous.

That being said, I do agree that pc games in particular are useful in ushering in new era's of hardware requirements and facilitating market saturation with particular technology but I simply think Crysis has gone too far in those regards.

Despite everything you just said, Crysis is going to be a huge hit and sell very well based on reviews alone. It's already gotten a 98% from PC Gamer. It's also already pushing the new 8800 GT 512MB off the shelves by the truckload. Get on the boat or get left behind
Reply
Reply
post #229 of 262
11/2/07 at 11:31am
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdonket View Post
Just gonna excuse my whining, but the reason for at least my whining here is that they have medium settings *imo* looking like crap and that is primarily what everybody will have to be playing on. For example, call of duty 4 has it's code so tight you could squeeze it up a zebra's ass first off, second off even on lower settings the game still looks and plays great!

Neither of these appears to be the case for Crysis

yeah so basically... we can see Crysis as a tech demo for high end machines only. Anyone owning anything else may as well not even look at the game.
Reply
Reply
post #230 of 262
11/2/07 at 11:35am
What is ultimately boils down to is Crysis is an excellent game if you own a high end rig and not worth looking at if you don't own a high end rig. To me this is a deficiency in the engine itself. It simply does a terrible job at scaling down to lower hardware specs. I mean, Gears of War looks so much better on my 360 at 1080i than does crysis on medium/low settings at 1024x600 which is the highest resolution I can go to make the game playable on a 512MB 7950GTX card, 2 gigs of ram, and a duo core cpu. Thats pretty sad.
Reply
Reply
post #231 of 262
11/2/07 at 4:48pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeForceTony View Post
To all of you whining that you can't play this game at ultra high quality settings on your laptops... Uhh... WAKE UP!. You guys are only fooling yourselves into thinking you can play this game at those settings. For some reason, this seems to be a revelation to you guys that you can't run a brand new, envelope-pushing game at such high settings. Look at EVERY major first-person-shooter in the last 5 years, and you'll see that NO ONE was able to play those games at their max settings when they were released. Far Cry, Half-Life 2, Doom 3, etc and so forth. These are all envelope pushing games. Revolutionary new graphics technology. Meant to push hardware to the next level. Crysis (and the CryENGINE2 engine that powers it) is no different. Hardware doesn't drive the software to the next level, the software drives the hardware to the next level. Sure, it'd be nice to be able to play this game at 80FPS at 1920x1200 at max settings, but it won't happen on a hardware-pushing game such as this. If it were the case, we'd all still be seeing DirectX 6 games, using sub-1.0GHz processors, etc. We have yet to see the full potential this game and the graphics engine that powers it has to show... If you're expecting to play every new game released at the best quality possible and at smooth framerates for the next 5 years, get a console, and you'll be stuck with the same basic graphical quality for the next 5 years.
Thank you. The reason we can play HL2 and Doom 3 is becuase we have the next gen cards. Hl2 I believe was intended for the 6000 series. Most of us here have 79** series and thats why we can play them, its a step up in the hardware. If we wanted to apply this to Crysis, we would need 98** series cards in our laptops THEN we might have a fighting chance with graphical power when it comes to Crysis. However, Nvidia hasnt released a mobile 8 series. The best I can say is, try some tweaked drivers, adjust settings and go and save the world from ET
Reply
Reply
post #232 of 262
11/2/07 at 4:56pm
screw crysis. If I did have the hardware I would probably only play it for 1 hour anyways.

now Clive Barkers Jericho.... theres a game worth playing.
Reply
Reply
post #233 of 262
11/2/07 at 5:48pm
Sorta agree with you diefool.

Granted I have an 8 series PC and will be playing Crysis as well, but I still dislike how demanding it is
Reply
Reply
post #234 of 262
11/3/07 at 4:45am
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdonket View Post
Sorta agree with you diefool.

Granted I have an 8 series PC and will be playing Crysis as well, but I still dislike how demanding it is

I agree too, i always start playing the games when they first come out and then i just get bored. Im not going to try and get crysis to run any better, im getting fed up with it.
Reply
Reply
post #235 of 262
11/7/07 at 11:51am
Hi guys,
I currently have a 7900GS clocked at 625/740. I run Crysis at 1280x800.
Do you think I'll get a significant performance hit if I upgrade to a 7950GTX ?
Does having twice as much GPU RAM matter in such a low resolution ?
Reply
Reply
post #236 of 262
11/7/07 at 12:11pm
Not worth the money upgrade IMO
Reply
Reply
post #237 of 262
11/7/07 at 2:25pm
Thread Starter 
the 7950 will still struggle with crysis. Any 7 series card will
Reply
Reply
post #238 of 262
11/7/07 at 9:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghazgull013 View Post
the 7950 will still struggle with crysis. Any 7 series card will
Runs fine on my 7900 GTX.
Reply
Reply
post #239 of 262
11/7/07 at 9:23pm
7800 GTX can handle all medium, or with some tweaking medium-high at around 20-25 fps which is playable if not great. The graphics are fantastic though.
Reply
Reply
post #240 of 262
11/8/07 at 11:14am
Just to confirm my understanding from what I've read in these forums...
Since it has more VRAM, should I expect a 7950GTX to run Crysis as good in 1440x900 or even 1680x1050 resolutions as my 7900GS in 1280x800 with the same settings ?
If so, it's worth the upgrade IMO 'cause higher resolutions have a direct impact to my eyes.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home