Warning: Crysis 3 Will Melt Your PC, Says Crytek

[Lonbjerg]

Can modern system even play Crysis 1.2 at full time minimum 60fps with all eye candy on at the 25xx resolutions?

Good thing crysis isn't a game that requires 60 FPS to feel fluid, but thank your for this post...it makes it easy to ignore people follwoing you down the wrong rabbit whole...

 

[Lonbjerg]

You need to play more games.
Artistic quality > programming.

Do you have ANY evidence of bad code in Crysis.
Because I hear people state it all the time...but they NEVER deliver any evidence.


Sure they point to "performance"...that that just shows they got nothing...and dosn't understand the engine.

 

[cmdrdredd]

You are talking about a game that was released in 2011. Crysis had no rival in 2007, were you a PC gamer back then as well? If you're complaining about high system requirements I bet you didn't play ID software games back in the day. Doom 1, doom 2, and quake made people go out and upgrade their computers. Crysis didn't even push the envelope as much as ID software did.

I still stand by the statement, no game in 2007 came close to crysis, it was a gamechanger. And a fantastic game as well. I personally don't care for bf3, i'm sick of military shooters because they are overdone. Thats beside the point though, bf3 is a 2011 game and crysis 1 had no rival in 2007 - it was a game changer, period. Crysis also still looks good to this day, something I can definitely NOT say for any other PC game released in 2007.

I said I thought there are better looking games. I named them. I didn't limit it to games that are 5 years old. I have played all of those abd yeah at the time they pushed things but as I sais about crysis. I feel it has been surpassed. Just because a game comes out and runs at 20fps doesn't immediately make me think its the best ever.

The thing that bugs me about crysis is the characters look unnatural, almost doll like.

 

[Lonbjerg]

It's still pretty damn impressive what the consoles can do.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2F3_JMYNB6A

Its funny how people are so easily duped:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WJG14uLA3k

 

[Lonbjerg]

I said I thought there are better looking games. I named them. I didn't limit it to games that are 5 years old. I have played all of those abd yeah at the time they pushed things but as I sais about crysis. I feel it has been surpassed. Just because a game comes out and runs at 20fps doesn't immediately make me think its the best ever.

BF3 looks worse than Crysis...but you seem to be confusing "visual prefrences" with engine capabilites/renderengine.

 

[cmdrdredd]

BF3 looks worse than Crysis...but you seem to be confusing "visual prefrences" with engine capabilites/renderengine.

Worse how? The lighting is better, models are better, better textures, better character models, more realistic explosions. Just about everything is higher resolution except trees. I am not playing a jungle simulator. I am playing a shooter.

It ia fine to disagree. I just fail to see how it's so great.

 

[Spjut]

Its funny how people are so easily duped:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WJG14uLA3k

I'm all for showing how far the PC have progressed over the consoles, but you should show the actual Crysis 1 PC vs Crysis 1 console.
This footage is from 2009 and the first publically shown version of CE3, Crytek released Crysis 2 and Crysis 1 console first in 2011.

 

[aaksheytalwar]

IMO some people prefer Crysis visuals and some bf3. Debatable.

 

[Blitzvogel]

IMO some people prefer Crysis visuals and some bf3. Debatable.

I like Both, though I would say Crytek does natural vegetation and landscaping better, and DICE is better with buildings and other unnatural things. BF3 also came out 4 years after Crysis, so it's not surprising to see better lighting, physics, etc in BF3. It could be worse. There is no "positive" gap between Far Cry (early 2004) and BF2 (summer 2005), if anything BF2 in many respects looks worse. Regardless of the advent of a new console generation in late 2005, the two and a half year gap between BF2 and Crysis is astounding. I remember seeing the first CryEngine 2 demo in early 2006 and was completely blown away with how natural and warm the visuals were. It was amazing. Of course, I think CoD2 and FEAR are better examples of then-state of the art visuals on PC in 2005, but the gap is even more impressive when you consider that there is more programming technology in a single tree in Crysis (in terms of rendering, physicality, etc) than in any PC game in 2005.

 

[Lonbjerg]

Worse how? The lighting is better, models are better, better textures, better character models, more realistic explosions. Just about everything is higher resolution except trees. I am not playing a jungle simulator. I am playing a shooter.

It ia fine to disagree. I just fail to see how it's so great.

Look for your self, besides better charather models in BF3...it has nothing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-mAVkSvgGE

 

[HeXen]

Cryengine has a lot more time spent in regards to water. but comparing jungle vs desert areas isn't a very good comparison

 

[Hauk]

Seeing this thread inspired me to reinstall Crysis. I wanted to see how my latest config handled it. Always fun to do this with major upgrades. I love nearly burning my fingers touching the GPU heatsinks. The crudest measurement possible.

More efficient and powerful manufacturing processes allow ever higher detail settings, which yields this wicked irony.. Crysis remains the most effective game at turning my rig into a space heater.

 

[Phynaz]

Do you have ANY evidence of bad code in Crysis.
Because I hear people state it all the time...but they NEVER deliver any evidence.


Sure they point to "performance"...that that just shows they got nothing...and dosn't understand the engine.

So then, tell us what you understand about the engine that makes its performance suck.

 

[lopri]

Its funny how people are so easily duped:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WJG14uLA3k

Isn't that the purpose of fancy graphics? Not saying which looks better, but talking in general terms. Graphics in general attempt to dupe our eyes.

 

[Lonbjerg]

So then, tell us what you understand about the engine that makes its performance suck.

ah....the fallacy of "reversing the burden of proof"....thought so :thumbsdown:
Tanks for cenforming my point.

 

[Lonbjerg]

So then, tell us what you understand about the engine that makes its performance suck.

ah....the fallacy of "reversing the burden of proof"....thought so :thumbsdown:
Tanks for conferming my point.

 

[Smoblikat]

After Crysis 2, I will reserve judgment for the released product. C2 was a joke compared to C1. Hopefully they pull off something amazing this time, not just even more invisible tessellation.

I agree 100%. After I saw C2 I thought that crytek was another company that bit the dust and started sucking the consoles dick. If the new crysis is half as good as the first one ill buy 12 copies in advance.

 

[Lonbjerg]

Isn't that the purpose of fancy graphics? Not saying which looks better, but talking in general terms. Graphics in general attempt to dupe our eyes.

But that is just the point...nothing "fancy" about the graphics on console...

 

[WMD]

Do you have ANY evidence of bad code in Crysis.
Because I hear people state it all the time...but they NEVER deliver any evidence.


Sure they point to "performance"...that that just shows they got nothing...and dosn't understand the engine.

Crysis uses forward rendering while bf3 uses deferred rendering. When there's a large number of light sources involved the forward renderer is a slower but the advantage is very little performance hit compared to deferred rendering when AA is used. If you enable 4xAA in BF3 it's just as slow as crysis in very high + 4xAA.

 

[VulgarDisplay]

Crysis uses forward rendering while bf3 uses deferred rendering. When there's a large number of light sources involved the forward renderer is a slower but the advantage is very little performance hit compared to deferred rendering when AA is used. If you enable 4xAA in BF3 it's just as slow as crysis in very high + 4xAA.

Most people are well aware of this, and the fact that MSAA in a deferred render game doesn't not anti-alias the entire scene. Which really makes the performance impact a waste when it's only improving some of the visuals while other still look horrible.

 

[HeXen]

I'm gonna toss the Red Engine on the table....let the real battle begin.
I'd also like to say it seems to me, based on the games, that the Dunia engine (FC2) looks just as good as Crysis, seems to have similar physics and other effects in the outdoor enviro's like vegetation movement when crossing through it...etc.

 

[Phynaz]

ah....the fallacy of "reversing the burden of proof"....thought so :thumbsdown:
Tanks for conferming my point.

No, not at all. You implied that you know something about the engine, and it shouldn't be measured on performance.

So, do you know anything we don't or not?

 

[lakedude]

While viewing the C3 trailer I got chill bumps looking at the ripples in the water. For the first time the water moves more or less the way it should when agitated. Amazing!

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Anyone planning on upgrading their GPU in anticipation?

I never upgrade my GPU in anticipation of something, I upgrade after I can look at some results and then make an informed decision.

And considering I've had less and less fun with each successive Crytek game, I'm really not that excited about Crysis 3 and am not going to let the hype string me in until they actually prove something.

 

[RussianSensation]

No point in upgrading for Crysis 3 now. By the time the game launches, we will have even faster GPUs and cheaper current generation GPUs. Also, it's impossible to say what level of GPU will be necessary to max that game out. It may be like Crysis 1 and then you end up wasting $1000 on GTX680 SLI (8800GTX SLI back then) and still may not be able to max it out