• 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.

Why i think Crysis sucks

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
crysis does suck as far as fun-factor is concerned when you compare it to cod4 and bioshock and others.

the "top of the line" graphics are what the novelty was all about in the first place.
 
All of your complaints are graphics-related. Crysis does have some disappointing textures, but the lighting system, water, foliage, etc. are all incredible. It also has fun gameplay, as far as I'm concerned.
 
Crysis was a great game. Stop the hate already.

Gameplay might not be all that but the story and graphics were epic.
 
I wasn't impressed by the gameplay in the slightest, but it sure looked nice and I wouldn't say it sucked. I found it very similar to Far Cry, which I liked as much as the next guy.
 
I think most people would have enjoyed the gameplay a bit more if it was at a decent framerate, average of 60fps on their preferred resolution.

It's hard to enjoy anything at 15-25fps. And 5-10fps when the proverbial poo hits the fan.
 
Originally posted by: coldmeat
Originally posted by: flexy
i did all tests now with stock speeds. So its NOT an overclock issue.

The one issue i am talking about:

Small video where i get shot at

Here two screenshots

moment before he shoots:


i am hit

Notice how picture becomes gray-ish...and there are color-fringes and everything just starts looking "weird".

I dont know if this is supposed to be like it....or some buggy DX10 effect who just turned out wrong.
The pics itself dont look like much - but in game i think its "disturbing" game play since i dont understand what the effect is supposed to be and it somehow interrupts a fluent game-experience. Every time you get shot this weird behavior for a fraction of a second.

G.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure it's supposed to do that, because I remember it doing it to me, i think.
Click to expand...

It is. It's a graphical indication of your suit taking damage.
 
Originally posted by: Kromis
Originally posted by: skace
Originally posted by: flexy
Of course i run everything on high!
Click to expand...
Bullshit.
Click to expand...

Win.
Click to expand...

It almost sounds that someone doesnt believe i run at high?
BS. I run at high, 1440x900/4xAA on.

I did some more crysis benching yesterday....it is very interesting that at those settings crysis scales VERY LITTE. I run at stock speed and a tthose settings with 4xAA i get 26.9 FPS CPU bench...and 28.3 FPS GPU bench.
If i use my overclock settings , that is CPU 48% (!) overclocked and FSB 67% (!) overclocked as well as memory from 400 to 530 AND my GPU overclocked i only get 3FPS more on each of those benchies - compared to STOCK zero overclock settings (PC/GPU)

This shows that the bottleneck must be the graphicscard...at least with the Antialiasing on and at those settings. This should also prove that Crysis is NOT that CPU dependant as many think. (Different story i bet if i would turn off AA)
 
While I am not a fan of the game I dont think its as bad as you say, but thats you opinion. I run it on my system in my sig at 1680x1050 and it plays fine with high but no AA. Looks pretty good too but IMO, its just a souped up Farcry. The suit thing is cool but nothing phenominal like Bioshock was/is.
 
Originally posted by: flexy
Originally posted by: Kromis
Originally posted by: skace
Originally posted by: flexy
Of course i run everything on high!
Click to expand...
Bullshit.
Click to expand...

Win.
Click to expand...

It almost sounds that someone doesnt believe i run at high?
BS. I run at high, 1440x900/4xAA on.

I did some more crysis benching yesterday....it is very interesting that at those settings crysis scales VERY LITTE. I run at stock speed and a tthose settings with 4xAA i get 26.9 FPS CPU bench...and 28.3 FPS GPU bench.
If i use my overclock settings , that is CPU 48% (!) overclocked and FSB 67% (!) overclocked as well as memory from 400 to 530 AND my GPU overclocked i only get 3FPS more on each of those benchies - compared to STOCK zero overclock settings (PC/GPU)

This shows that the bottleneck must be the graphicscard...at least with the Antialiasing on and at those settings. This should also prove that Crysis is NOT that CPU dependant as many think. (Different story i bet if i would turn off AA)
Click to expand...

TURN THE FUCKIN AA OFF!!!!!

 
Originally posted by: flexy

TURN THE FUCKIN AA OFF!!!!!
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if forced AA through the control panel is even working in the 174.14's.

I ditched those along time ago for the 174.70's. Which are damn nice.

But I also call bullshit on this guy running all high, and the game even being close to playable @ 1440x900.

 
the internet...well..dunno if +/-28 (gpu bench, cpu bench) is playable. Its "ok".
Yes i tried AA off,i tried this but then the palmtrees look extremely ugly 🙂 I rather turn down to 1280 and still run 4xAA.

the internet: you have almsot the same board as i do (X38 LP), i have 6600G0 at 3537 (see my other post, crysis scales extremely BAD...the whole overclock is only good for 3 FPS more at those settings)..and you have a GTX! I have GTS but overclocked. So you should get about the same FPS as i do. I am on 174.14 right now, but i dont force AA through control panel. You have pretty much the same hardware, even your memspeed is about what i have.

I know AA is stupid with a game like Crysis...but then especially crysis would need it 🙂

edit: why are the 174.70 nice? Everytime i go on guru3d some people say this and that drivers are nice, while for others they introduce more problems. I havent tested them yet tho.
 
My video card overheated. Even when I clocked it down. So therefore I did not enjoy the game. And I'm not spending 200-400 dollars on cooling when my PC works fantastic for evrey other game but crysis, SO STFU lol .
 
I started playing Crysis last week. I can't complain about the performance even on an AMD X2 3800+ / 8800GTS640 / 4GB ram. Of course I'm running at 1366x768. I am a bit disappointed though, the graphics are "alright", but nothing special in my opinion. About the only thing I enjoyed in the game was ramming an enemy hum-v with my own and watching it blow up with the people inside it. Other than that, meh.
 
I liked Crysis, much the same way I liked the new Rambo movie.
Some mindless and action packed fun.

Oh and I tried to play Doom the other day, there's some weird bug in it, whenever I get shot, the graphics become all red and crap 🙁
 
Originally posted by: Regs
My video card overheated. Even when I clocked it down. So therefore I did not enjoy the game. And I'm not spending 200-400 dollars on cooling when my PC works fantastic for evrey other game but crysis, SO STFU lol .
Click to expand...

crysis doesnt even heat your card up *that* much. Check out "furmark"...this gives you 4 deg more than crysis 🙂 Thats what i test my temps with usually.
 
Originally posted by: marmasatt

I found Crysis fun, but not a mind blowing experience.
Click to expand...

Ditto. It generally lived up to the hype but was not epic IMO.
Click to expand...

Agree. For all it being essentially an uber-linear outdoor corridor shooter, HL2 affected me much more deeply in terms of involvement with the story (such as it was...), characters, etc. However I will say that the first few hours of Crysis did in fact blow my mind. Running around in the jungle after the beach landing was surreal graphically. But that wore off a bit as the game progressed. I didn't find the alien interaction interesting at all. And the weapons, though fun to customize, weren't especially great. I couldn't really care which assult rifle I had, and there was no awesome weapon, even the alien gun was a major disappointment. The suit was the highlight of the game for me, and really well implemented.

Still, the developers aimed really high, and who can fault them for that, even if they ultimately fell short.

Originally posted by: SunnyD
I am a bit disappointed though, the graphics are "alright", but nothing special in my opinion.
Click to expand...

We must've been playing different games.

 
Originally posted by: flexy
the internet...well..dunno if +/-28 (gpu bench, cpu bench) is playable. Its "ok".
Yes i tried AA off,i tried this but then the palmtrees look extremely ugly 🙂 I rather turn down to 1280 and still run 4xAA.

the internet: you have almsot the same board as i do (X38 LP), i have 6600G0 at 3537 (see my other post, crysis scales extremely BAD...the whole overclock is only good for 3 FPS more at those settings)..and you have a GTX! I have GTS but overclocked. So you should get about the same FPS as i do. I am on 174.14 right now, but i dont force AA through control panel. You have pretty much the same hardware, even your memspeed is about what i have.

I know AA is stupid with a game like Crysis...but then especially crysis would need it 🙂

edit: why are the 174.70 nice? Everytime i go on guru3d some people say this and that drivers are nice, while for others they introduce more problems. I havent tested them yet tho.
Click to expand...

Our rigs are pretty much identical.

I can't run all high, without dips into the teens @ 12x10, vsync on.

I put the majority of settings on medium, save for shaders high, objects high, water high, and physics high. No AA. AA even @ 2x, (forced via CP or in the game), yields dips into the teens. 8x AF. 16x AF also yields dips into the teens. Unacceptable. For me anyway.

You might want to check into 174.14's and AA. It might be broken on that driver. It was busted on a few of the 174's even when trying to run it via game options, but can't recall which. I've tried so goddamn many of nvidia's drivers lately, chasing better Crysis performance.

I've given up on the game, after a couple run throughs of the Korean portions. Definitely wasn't into the alien mothership thing. A bit too cliche. Not that killing asians/germans in war games isn't...but at least that's still fun. Crysis = benchmark for me now I guess...lol. That's about the only purpose for which the game is still installed.

I just play a lot of TF2. 😉

The 174.70's are nice for performance wise. My avg framerate in Crysis at the above settings, sits around 32-34 with these. Much better than the 25-28 it was sitting at on release.

Also, forced AA through CP/Game profiles works....which I happen to use a lot.
 
I am just about done with Crysis now that I have a rig capable of running it on mostly high settings, and I must say, while the game doesn't live up to the hype, I can appreciate what the developers attempted to accomplish.

Sure the game is not linear in the Doom sense, but it isn't exactly Oblivion total sandbox...the game rather cleverly still guides you along a set path, but that this path is so transparent to most players is a testament to the level design.

The enemy AI is no different or better than any other enemy game's AI...challenging at times, and mind numbingly stupid at others...I think the AI is HL2 is better, but that is because Valve managed to master the art of scripted AI sequences...Crysis doesnt lend itself to scripted moments given the vastness of the levels, but the AI, even on Delta, wasn't all that difficult to overcome.

The Crysis suit grew on me...at first, I thought it was just a gimmick, like the gravity gun in HL2...I found myself using it more and more as the game progressed.

The zero gravity alien ship level...a total tech demo gimmick...only part of the game that I found a bit silly...kind of like the organic Shodan endgame with System Shock 2.

As they came out at roughly the same time, comparisons between BioShock and Crysis are inevitable...I thought the story and setting of BioShock was better...but I am very excited to see what other developers, or Crytech themselves, will do with the Crysis engine.
 
On a sidenote...I found Bioshock boring. The gore looked terribly fake, physics were exagerrated and distracting.

I never finished the game.

At least I could bear the octopie fights to the end of Crysis. I never really WANTED to play Bioshock after I bought it.

Again...I just play a lot of TF2 to console myself about the $100 wasted on those 2 games...lol
 
Originally posted by: SunnyD
I am a bit disappointed though, the graphics are "alright", but nothing special in my opinion.
Click to expand...

We must've been playing different games.[/quote]
No, it's just that I know the difference between next-gen graphics and liberal use of post-processing effects.
 
Originally posted by: SunnyD
Originally posted by: SunnyD
I am a bit disappointed though, the graphics are "alright", but nothing special in my opinion.
Click to expand...

We must've been playing different games.
Click to expand...
No, it's just that I know the difference between next-gen graphics and liberal use of post-processing effects.
[/quote]

What would you consider next gen? Everyone I've showed crysis to has been wowed completely, and all of them have "next-gen" consoles (as do I).
 
Had no issues playing it. Didn't find it to be anything special and pretty boring in a lot of sections. After playing thru it once, I uninstalled it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top