mothra on 6/6/2008 at 09:59
fixed
catbarf on 6/6/2008 at 10:27
Perhaps they should wait until there's at least one computer in the whole world capable of running their game on high-ish settings and get above 30 FPS.
ZylonBane on 6/6/2008 at 14:32
It's funny how people get angry when developers try to somewhat future-proof their games.
"I want to max all the sliders NOW!! cry scream whine rant..."
van HellSing on 6/6/2008 at 14:36
Quote Posted by ZylonBane
It's funny how people get angry when developers try to somewhat future-proof their games.
"I want to max all the sliders NOW!!
cry scream whine rant..."
Thing is, on remotely playable settings the game looks much worse than Far Cry on maximum for me, and Far Cry on maximum runs fine.
june gloom on 6/6/2008 at 16:06
Quote Posted by mothra
FarCry2 will hopefully be what Crysis should have been.
Yeah, hopefully. Seems promising.
catbarf on 6/6/2008 at 21:24
Quote Posted by ZylonBane
It's funny how people get angry when developers try to somewhat future-proof their games.
"I want to max all the sliders NOW!!
cry scream whine rant..."
The only way to get the game running reasonably on my system (not a poor one by any means, Crysis is the first game I haven't been able to max out) is by turning most settings to High, a few to Medium, and run at 1024x768 (And of course not a hint of AA), and yet it still gets 30-40 FPS. Call of Duty 4 looks much better and I can max out all settings at 1280x1024 and still stay above 50 FPS.
I don't want to be able to max everything out, future-proofing is fine. But when the game runs like shit while it looks like shit, you have a problem.
Malleus on 7/6/2008 at 00:04
Quote Posted by catbarf
Call of Duty 4 looks much better and I can max out all settings at 1280x1024 and still stay above 50 FPS.
CoD4 doesn't really have an AI to speak of, the level size is significantly smaller than is Crysis, and it's detailed only where it's absolutely necessary (player's path), and it has only minimal physics. No wonder it runs better.
Quote:
But when the game runs like shit while it looks like shit, you have a problem.
Thanks, I didn't know Crysis looked like shit on Med/High settings.
catbarf on 7/6/2008 at 01:46
Quote Posted by Malleus
CoD4 doesn't really have an AI to speak of, the level size is significantly smaller than is Crysis, and it's detailed only where it's absolutely necessary (player's path), and it has only minimal physics. No wonder it runs better.
With modern FPS games, the CPU is not the bottleneck, and it certainly isn't on my system. None of those are going to be affecting the framerate by more than a few points, and it certainly isn't the difference between 10 FPS and 80 FPS.
Quote Posted by Malleus
Thanks, I didn't know Crysis looked like shit on Med/High settings.
On 1024x768, with no AA, which is what it takes to run with a semi-reasonable framerate?
And even with some monolothic computer, it still looks like shit, because the game doesn't use AA on the vegetation, which makes up at least 50% of the screen at any given time. The only way is to force it to use edge AA, and surprise surprise! It doesn't work very well.
It gets wonderful reviews for graphics, but it's unplayable at anything but the bare minimum, and even on those high settings it still has issues.
Malleus on 7/6/2008 at 02:10
You may be right about the CPU thing - I have a weak one, and I tend to assume it's the source of all performance problems. In my case, most of time it is.
As for the 'look shit' part, maybe it's just me then. I never use AA and always play at 1024x768, and I think Crysis looked great on Med/High.
EvaUnit02 on 7/6/2008 at 02:12
Quote Posted by 242
Error. :p
Ontopic: If Crytek is going to make Crysis multiplatfrm it will lose its MAIN attractions ... and huge open spaces.
When was the last time that you played a modern console game? Things have a LONG way since Invisible War, where you'd hit a loading screen every other room. Hell there were games with levels that were much much larger than IW on the original Xbox.
