• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Gears of War PC Performance and IQ Tested

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Damn the dimwits whining about Crysis turning their state of the art rigs into a joke right now. What you gonna complain about in, lets say, 6-12 months, when there might be a GPU available that makes this baby (and all other CE2 games) fly? Should that happen, can we (again) compare UE3 on high vs. Crysis on very high?

As been said, I salute CryTek for pushing the envelope this much - this hasnt happen for far too long.
 
I played Gears Of War on an Xbox 360 and (after seeing that report) I am certain the Windows version looks MUCH better. Reading all the reviews really makes me want to get it but I only have a 7900GTX. I'm scared it wont run well but I dont feel quite ready to upgrade yet.
I think I'd rather start over with a new system and new OS before I try the next gen games.
 
Fact is Gears of looks great and looks just as good as Crysis at medium and plays much better. Just because Gears looks different doesn't mean Gears is any lacking compared to Crysis.
 
In my opinion, Unreal Engine 3 games at maximum look better than Crysis at medium and they give me much better performance, too. On the other hand, Crysis at high looks incredible. I have an X1900 XT 512MB and I'd rather play Crysis at 1024x768, high settings than at 1280x960, medium settings. There is no comparison with UE3 once you are at high settings, not to mention very-high settings.

Call of Duty 4, UE3-based games, and TimeShift all look great but they still look more like id Tech 4 and Jupiter 2 than CryENGINE2 - small scale, exaggerated lighting, lack of face detail, lifeless environments (the ground and buildings) etc. Crysis is an achievement to which we should be thankful. Except for the fake DX10 crap.
 
I'm really glad Crysis did it this way as well. At least we can turn down what we want and get playable frames. And finally, we got a dedicated PC game instead of a port. Once I get my new card, Crysis comes out, and get some free time I'll definitely play Crysis at whatever settings work...and not complain about it.
 
Originally posted by: Brunnis
Originally posted by: taltamir
scale shmale, its the bottom line that counts... how good it looks at a playable fps. Which is only on low. They simply made their engine too ambitious, they should have had something between the current engine and the UT3 engine, and what they came up with now should have been their crytek2 engine to come one year later...

They didn't and people complain because they can only play it on low, and it doesn't look that hot on low...

Sure, I will play it for the plot, and enjoy the voice acting, but the game isn't what it is tauted as.
So... What you're saying is that the engine can't scale down the details correctly? Meaning that the game could have been made to look much better on weaker hardware, if they just made a less capable engine? I'm not buying that. Let's look at two scenarios:

snip

No that is NOT what I am saying. I am saying that the engine doesn't scale down for weaker hardware JUST BECAUSE. Not because they made it look awesome on future hardware (well, or on current hardware in slide show mode). It simply needs more optimizations and polishing.

I can only speculate as to WHY it is that way, and my speculation is that they simply didn't bother much with it because they wanted to have "the best graphics" more then "the best graphics on mediocre hardware". But considering only 5% of people even have a DX10 capable card... Well, I think it was a mistake on their part and it will hurt them in the long run... I think they were simply being too ambitious... Am I right? who knows... Time will tell.
 
We are supposed to maybe replay crysis once we have better graphics cards? Doesn't make sense to me. Once I played a game I wouldn't want to go back unless it was absolutely awesome game.

Soon enough we'll forget about Crysis and the fond memories of playing 20fps at medium settings for other games with better graphics.
 
I ran them all with a 1900XTX, In Crysis I can not run everything on High, but I turn 3 settings down to medium and I get good performance and looks better than any other games that is out.

Yes, but there's something to be said for "artistic direction."

Crysis, from a technical standpoint, looks better than Bioshock or CoD4. But, sorry, Bioshock wins in atmosphere and artistic flair. Of course, I'm basing my opinion from the Crysis demo - final verdict out when the full game ships.
 
Crysis looks amazing at a high res/high settings, but it runs like crap. UT3 looks amazing at maximum details and runs at very reasonable performance levels. On my system, it looks like total garbage compared to what UT3 looks like on my system. Crysis may look good at highest settings, but in terms of scalability, it is absolutely horrible. Running at medium, it doesn't look very amazing at all, and it runs way worse than it should for looking so average. There is no excuse for this. They have had all the time in the world to make this seemingly amazing engine and yet it can't even run on a mainstream system with visuals that compete with UT3.
 
Originally posted by: Azn
We are supposed to maybe replay crysis once we have better graphics cards? Doesn't make sense to me. Once I played a game I wouldn't want to go back unless it was absolutely awesome game.

Soon enough we'll forget about Crysis and the fond memories of playing 20fps at medium settings for other games with better graphics.

I agree there... They made a big deal of bioshock's graphics but I played it on a 7900GS at DX9 medium-low settings at medium-low FPS... And while the game WAS awesome it wasn't the graphics I was enjoying... and there is no way I am going to replay it in a a few monthes when I get a video card... much less in a year.

Howeven with crysis you might be playing a game made with the crysis engine a year from now... crysis is pretty much designed to sell the engine they made for the game to be used in other games...
 
Back
Top