video cards should always be ahead of games?

[her34]

with crysis, there seems to be some anger that high-end hardware can't run the game with high settings at a high resolution at a playable framerate (at least 30fps)

it's understandable that anyone would feel some anger if they spent $300 or more on a videocard and the game turns into a slide show at max settings.

but the flipside is that there are useful performance gains to be had the day next gen hardware launches.

traditionally video cards have been ahead of games so buying the current high-end hardware meant maxing out a game. the problem is that when next gen hardware launches there are no useful performance gains: instead of getting 50fps you can get 80 fps, instead of running 4xAA you can get 8xAA, etc. current high end videocards can already run Unreal Tournament 3 demo at 1920x1200 at 60fps or more

if software is ahead of hardware it stings that you can't max out the game but when you upgrade you can get immediate performance gains that matter instead of waiting around for new games to take advantage of your videocard. in fact crysis developers have talked about options that aren't enabled in the full game yet because hardware isn't there and future patches will enable even better graphical options.

do you think that's a better paradigm?

 

[Fenixgoon]

someone paid $600 for my X850XT 3 years ago... new games will always end up eclipsing expensive hardware

that said, scalability is still important. crysis is scalable, but not nearly as much as UT3

 

[taltamir]

I wouldn't say instant gratification... you see, the day new hardware comes out, (and potentially gotten by me) I don't get better performance in an older game since I already FINISHED that game and will never play it again.

that being said. I think you are missing another option... the "games should MATCH video cards so that you get ALMOST max seetings on medium high hardware"...
rather then the two BAD options:
1. targeting the 1% with super high end hardware (or worse, targetting high end hardware that doesn't even exist like crysis and getting low settings on high end hardware)
2. Targeting way under max hardware so that even medium end can max everything and not feel it. making it underperform.

Max setting on medium hardware (your first option) = not good enough
Low settings on max hardware (crysis) = unplayable and unfun
Medium-High settings on Medium-High hardware = winner!

 

[alcoholbob]

Big difference between target the top end (like Doom 3) and target a system that doesn't even exist (Far Cry, Crysis, Oblivion, Morrowwind). The latter is rather retarded. While it may make sense releasing a game just as new hardware is launching in order to collude with hardware makers to generate more profits, there is no reason to release a game that nobody is expected to be able to play for at least another half year.

All that makes is the majority of your buyers (which are near launch) a miserable experience, which doesn't exactly add to your reputation for the next generation of titles.

 

[taltamir]

or you know... if you ever plan on selling an expansion, or say, licensing your engine (don't tell anyone but crysis is a marketing tool for its engine... shhh)

 

[james1701]

If softeware that does not out pace current systems never comes out, then hardware manufatures will stagnate, and the PC industry was a whole would slow down. Look at Vista. How much hardware did people buy to be able to run the newest operating system, or at least think in advance before the made a purchase. Look how many people ran out and bought an 8800GT, myself included. How about Fear, how many could run everything maxed out, including all shadows, when it was released? Every so often there has to be a game that comes along that will be a bench mark standard for a few years to come. If software companies worried about too much inovation, or hurting gamers feelings because they cant see all the eye candy, or at 100fps, you could kiss the enthusiast segment good by all together. Look at 3dmark06, how many people bought new hardward just to get a higher score, uh me too again. I could play Crysis just fine with my 7900GS, although at medium settings, and it is still one of the best looking games I have ever seen. I am already looking 3 or 4 years down the road when I can play it maxxed out on a huge monitor and still get 200fps. This is what drives inovation. It creates a bigger demand for high end cards. I still say that if Doom 3 would have shipped on its orginal release date, it would have been in the same boat Crysis is. Also look at Bioshock, people that do not have SM 3.0 cards either had use a work around, that did not look so good from what I hear, or go out and buy a new card. I like it when a company can challenge the market.

 

[onlyCOpunk]

I think it's a good idea that developers make games that certainly challenge todays hardware. It ensures that the game has staying power instead of having a blowout then ending up in the bargain bin a month or two later like most PC games.

Quite frankly I like it that every so often there comes a game by which people base their systems on. The last major one I remember was Doom3. I know certainly waited around to see what hardware was needed to play the game even though I've never even played it.

 

[Munky]

Crysis is what this industry needs to demonstrate the fact that we should have new high end cards by now.