Crysis

[Wreckage]

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/act...convert&om_clk=topslot

At E3, we were running on a [GeForce] 8800 video card and a dual-core Intel [CPU]with 4 gigabytes of RAM at very high settings. Not the highest, though! Most of the time, it was running smoothly.

Yes, we [are] progressing very well on optimization, and we will achieve our goal. Two-to-three-year-old rigs will run Crysis well, with lower visual settings still competing with the best games of two-to-three years ago.

 

[tuteja1986]

Old new , I have mentioned it many times on Crysis thread. Most users don't understand that if a developer like Valve , ID , Epic , Billizard is making a game for the pc ... it will run on old system. Even Half life 2 episode 2 according Valve will run smooth on 9600pro/5600U on medium setting @ 40FPS. Mark Reign did say UT2007 ran perfectly fine on a 7900gt on mid res with alot of options on mid and some on high. Epic also said that UT2007 will run smooth on low on a X1300/7300. So you really don't need the best to play the latest game. But most developer want user to have a Dual core CPU which are damn cheap and they go form $75+.

 

[Acanthus]

I am shocked we wont need SLI just to play!



People seem to think the developers are ok with selling to the top 0.5% of PC users only.

 

[tuteja1986]

Originally posted by: Acanthus
I am shocked we wont need SLI just to play!



People seem to think the developers are ok with selling to the top 0.5% of PC users only.

Also according to ID and epic that 70% of the high end GPU owner don't buy games but download them through BT. Sad bit is that game cost 20m to 30m to make and to break even on some major title they need to sell 1million copies.

 

[lopri]

As much as I hope that's the case.. I saw the visuals of Crysis (actual gameplay movie) and thought it's in a different league compared to current best looking PC games on the market. A good news nonetheless. I don't think we can compare Crytek with Valve, Blizzard or the like. (especially Blizzard) Don't get me wrong - I am not a fan of shooting games but I love most of Blizzard's games. I wish all PC games were like Blizzard's games when it comes to the products' polishes and user support. Crytek's strength/focus, however, is very different from that of Blizzard's, IMO.

 

[MarcVenice]

That's irrelevant though, lopri, any developer/publisher can kiss their company goodbye if they make a kickass game that only runs on the topend rigs, which only 0.5% of the gamers own. It's not about strength/focus, it's about making money, marketing and what not.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: MarcVenice
That's irrelevant though, lopri, any developer/publisher can kiss their company goodbye if they make a kickass game that only runs on the topend rigs, which only 0.5% of the gamers own. It's not about strength/focus, it's about making money, marketing and what not.

Well said, I couldn't agree more.

This is good news.. So maybe Crysis was running ok on that 8700M lappy like DigTimes stated. Great news for would be 8600/2600 owners/buyers.

 

[Ackmed]

Doubtful, but Id like to be wrong. Smooth for someone, is not the same for everyone else. What settings did they not use? Shadows and light can add real depth to a game, and much better graphics, but can also kill frames. What if they had them off, or on low? AA/AF? Too vague for me.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Ackmed
Doubtful, but Id like to be wrong. Smooth for someone, is not the same for everyone else. What settings did they not use? Shadows and light can add real depth to a game, and much better graphics, but can also kill frames. What if they had them off, or on low? AA/AF? Too vague for me.

Well, if Crytek does anything like the devs of DoomIII (discounting actual gameplay because I know you disliked that game) Crysis will be playable on even low end hardware without much degradation in image candy. Hopefully Crytek can code this game most efficiently to let it run on almost anything (within reason of course).

I have a 6600 vanilla, a 7600GT, and an 8800GTS. That crosses a wide spectrum class of cards. Should give me a good idea after trying Crysis on each system. What setting would have to be sacrificed, or not on each.

Hopefully Crysis can release a good quality demo to try out.

 

[Cheex]

I think they might just release that press demo (the first level), the same one we saw at E3 but the only question is WHEN?!

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: MarcVenice
That's irrelevant though, lopri, any developer/publisher can kiss their company goodbye if they make a kickass game that only runs on the topend rigs, which only 0.5% of the gamers own. It's not about strength/focus, it's about making money, marketing and what not.

I agree in theory, but here are examples where this was not the case... FEAR and Oblivion immediately come to mind. When FEAR came out I had a 7800GTX SLI rig, and the game was not very fluid at 1680x1050 with no soft shadows and a bit of AA/AF. It was playable, but 7800GTX SLI was also the absolute top of the line, best graphics card setup you could get at the time. When Oblivion came out I was running a single X1900XTX and the game was just barely playable at 1680x1050 with HDR+4xAA. These were very expensive setups at the time: 7800GTX SLI was $1100+ and X1900XTX was $600ish.

edit: All that being said, World of Warcraft has definitely been my favorite game to play the past two years now, and it's run great on everything. I agree with lopri on the polish of Blizzard's games, plus I think they are more concerned with game mechanics (fun) then they are with making their game engines look stellar. Farcry was definitely both (pretty and fun), but it was also buggy... Didn't they have to completely recall a patch once, and didn't their patches usually wipe out all of your saved games (it's been a while since I played Farcry)?

 

[lupi]

No worries about performance

Until it's released.

And what monitor size where they using. A 1024 or 1280 base is slowly becoming undersized compared to what many are buying now a days.

 

[Noema]

Originally posted by: lupi

No worries about performance

Until it's released.

And what monitor size where they using. A 1024 or 1280 base is slowly becoming undersized compared to what many are buying now a days.

Agreed. However the E3 video was running at a 16:10 AR, indicating that it was running at at least 1440x900 (roughly the same pixels than 1280x1024)...hopefully 1680x1050 will be doable on a 8800GTS with mid-high settings.

 

[VERTIGGO]

16:10 could indicate 1280x800 which is very common as well (for laptops mostly) and the screenshots are all 1280 wide (is that a gamespot thing?).

While Crytek is one the "greats" whose products run well on mid-low hardware, doing so will still greatly affect the visual quality. I played Far Cry on almost the lowest settings (Radeon 9200 128MB at the time) and when I got an X850XT, it was unrecognizable. It was a completely new game. Remember that Half Life looks all right because they have beautiful textures and the lighting looks natural, but as far as visuals, the game is extremely plain. The geometry and vegetation levels are extremely low, and the lighting is 90% pre-processed.

What I'm really interested is how it scales up to 2560x1600 and the performance difference from a single core to C2 and to C2Q.

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: tuteja1986

Originally posted by: Acanthus
I am shocked we wont need SLI just to play!



People seem to think the developers are ok with selling to the top 0.5% of PC users only.

Also according to ID and epic that 70% of the high end GPU owner don't buy games but download them through BT. Sad bit is that game cost 20m to 30m to make and to break even on some major title they need to sell 1million copies.

That's shameful, I'm disappointed in fellow enthusiasts for doing that. They know what effect piracy has on gaming, and if they're buying 650 dollar cards they have the capital to buy a 49 dollar game

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: Frackal

Originally posted by: tuteja1986

Originally posted by: Acanthus
I am shocked we wont need SLI just to play!



People seem to think the developers are ok with selling to the top 0.5% of PC users only.

Also according to ID and epic that 70% of the high end GPU owner don't buy games but download them through BT. Sad bit is that game cost 20m to 30m to make and to break even on some major title they need to sell 1million copies.

That's shameful, I'm disappointed in fellow enthusiasts for doing that. They know what effet piracy has on gaming

if you can afford an uber high end rig, then you should buy your damn games

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon

Originally posted by: Frackal

Originally posted by: tuteja1986

Originally posted by: Acanthus
I am shocked we wont need SLI just to play!



People seem to think the developers are ok with selling to the top 0.5% of PC users only.

Also according to ID and epic that 70% of the high end GPU owner don't buy games but download them through BT. Sad bit is that game cost 20m to 30m to make and to break even on some major title they need to sell 1million copies.

That's shameful, I'm disappointed in fellow enthusiasts for doing that. They know what effet piracy has on gaming

if you can afford an uber high end rig, then you should buy your damn games

LOL exactly, I was editing my post to say just that when you responded

 

[pcslookout]

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon

Originally posted by: Frackal

Originally posted by: tuteja1986

Originally posted by: Acanthus
I am shocked we wont need SLI just to play!



People seem to think the developers are ok with selling to the top 0.5% of PC users only.

Also according to ID and epic that 70% of the high end GPU owner don't buy games but download them through BT. Sad bit is that game cost 20m to 30m to make and to break even on some major title they need to sell 1million copies.

That's shameful, I'm disappointed in fellow enthusiasts for doing that. They know what effet piracy has on gaming

if you can afford an uber high end rig, then you should buy your damn games

They won't be able to play multi player though. Only single player. So they have to buy the game if they want the most fun.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: pcslookout

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon

Originally posted by: Frackal

Originally posted by: tuteja1986

Originally posted by: Acanthus
I am shocked we wont need SLI just to play!



People seem to think the developers are ok with selling to the top 0.5% of PC users only.

Also according to ID and epic that 70% of the high end GPU owner don't buy games but download them through BT. Sad bit is that game cost 20m to 30m to make and to break even on some major title they need to sell 1million copies.

That's shameful, I'm disappointed in fellow enthusiasts for doing that. They know what effet piracy has on gaming

if you can afford an uber high end rig, then you should buy your damn games

They won't be able to play multi player though. Only single player. So they have to buy the game if they want the most fun.

i've actually been looking for a solid SP game to play recently, as opposed to MP, heh.

 

[Matt2]

I'm not too excited. I'll wait for G92 till I play Crysis. No matter what the devs say, my 2900XT will not run this game at 1920x1200 with any kind of high visuals.

I only get 60-80 fps in Far Cry with the visuals cranked and HDR+4xAA.

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: Matt2
I'm not too excited. I'll wait for G92 till I play Crysis. No matter what the devs say, my 2900XT will not run this game at 1920x1200 with any kind of high visuals.

I only get 60-80 fps in Far Cry with the visuals cranked and HDR+4xAA.

I think that 1920x1200 is going to pushing it with an HD 2900XT, or really any current-gen card. For that kind of resolution, with the current gen of cards, I think you are going to need Crossfire or SLI. The next gen of cards, G90 and R700, should definately be capable of 1920x1200 play maxed out, I think.

I do believe that the HD 2900XT will perform very well in Crysis. I think this is the title where you will truly see shading power, which the HD 2900XT has plenty of, be the dominant force, and texture power, which the HD 2900XT lacks in, become much less important. Of course, we said this back when Oblivion was going to come out, but now I think it is truly happening.

I'm as excited to see how these cards perform in Crysis, under DX10, as I am to actually play the game.

 

[btdvox]

Sweeet!!! Im happy to see they used a Dual core and got great results, i didnt think Crysis would be "optimzed" for quads as everyone else was saying, E6850 and 8800 Ultra should pull high on everything @1920X1200

 

[Cheex]

I just hope I can max it with my rig @ 1280x960....

Also, play at med-high @ 1680x1050 when I upgrade my monitor.

...Rig in Sig...

 

[bigsnyder]

Only get 60-80fps? Whats wrong with that?

 

[RussianSensation]

Originally posted by: bigsnyder
Only get 60-80fps? Whats wrong with that?

Nothing wrong with that. But let's for a moment assume Crysis is 2x as graphically intensive, at same settings you'd be looking at 30-40fps