Why is Crysis so hard to run?

[Amit3945]

So the graphics are GREAT. BUT sli & triple sli to break 30fps? That's just ... absurd?
There is a dramtic difference when heavy shaders are applied vs none.As well as shadows.
You have to actually study the screens to see what pics are better from medium to high and then high to very high.
Besides the extra rocks/trees here and there there is no clear cut winner.
If its that close why is it that the game easily runs on a mid range comp on medium and near impossible to run max on any computer.?
Of course resolutions do come into picture BUT still.....

 

[Oyeve]

Lousy programming IMO. I dont think the graphics in this game are that great to get a huge perfomance hit the way it does. I am really not impressed with the look of the game to warrant getting the latest and greatest HW to get it to run semi-decently. Probably a ploy with the developers and HW companies to make you spend even more $$$$ just to get it to run ok. Like why does halo 3 NEED dx10 to run when it looks like shit.

 

[Pacemaker]

I agree with Oyeve. When Halflife 2 came out it looked amazing, but it would still run on older machines. I know that crysis is on a different level, but seeing as how just now hardware is hitting a level where you can get really good fps you have to blame the programmers.

 

[Nebor]

I just played it for the first time today. Not impressed. The bad guys don't die when you shoot them. And there's not enough ammunition to support the number of hits you need on a bad guy to kill them. Played for maybe an hour. I'm done.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: Nebor
I just played it for the first time today. Not impressed. The bad guys don't die when you shoot them. And there's not enough ammunition to support the number of hits you need on a bad guy to kill them. Played for maybe an hour. I'm done.

"LOL, u suck @ Crysis n00b"
I was told this is a game you have to work at to enjoy. Exactly what I'm looking for in a game! I enjoyed it by turning on some cheats.

 

[Calculator83]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: Nebor
I just played it for the first time today. Not impressed. The bad guys don't die when you shoot them. And there's not enough ammunition to support the number of hits you need on a bad guy to kill them. Played for maybe an hour. I'm done.

"LOL, u suck @ Crysis n00b"
I was told this is a game you have to work at to enjoy. Exactly what I'm looking for in a game! I enjoyed it by turning on some cheats.

Ur calling him a n00b when you need cheats? LOLz. And i wouldn't call it Lousy programing, because the stuff they're trying to achieve is Advance. But they're definitely NOT efficient.

My opinions on FPSes however is seen it done it, for the past 9 years.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Calculator83

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: Nebor
I just played it for the first time today. Not impressed. The bad guys don't die when you shoot them. And there's not enough ammunition to support the number of hits you need on a bad guy to kill them. Played for maybe an hour. I'm done.

"LOL, u suck @ Crysis n00b"
I was told this is a game you have to work at to enjoy. Exactly what I'm looking for in a game! I enjoyed it by turning on some cheats.

Ur calling him a n00b when you need cheats? LOLz. And i wouldn't call it Lousy programing, because the stuff they're trying to achieve is Advance. But they're definitely NOT efficient.

My opinions on FPSes however is seen it done it, for the past 9 years.

Sarcasm meter broken eh? How many people do you know get excited at the prospect of "working" in order to enjoy a game?

 

[VashHT]

Originally posted by: Nebor
I just played it for the first time today. Not impressed. The bad guys don't die when you shoot them. And there's not enough ammunition to support the number of hits you need on a bad guy to kill them. Played for maybe an hour. I'm done.

I don't understand why people have such a hard time killing guys in this game. I went back and started playing on delta when i got my 4870 X2 and I can take guys down with a short burst from the starting gun, none of this whole clip garbage people complain about. That being said I do think the game is overrated, I'd personally give it an 8 or so, wasn't amazing but I had fun with it jsut because you can do some cool stuff with the suit.

 

[Beev]

I would say the biggest performance killer is most likely the draw distance. Crysis loves to let you see 4 miles away, even if you don't need to. I noticed I had a much better framerate underground (unless they threw an asston of particle effects at me) than I did above ground.

 

[MikeyLSU]

headshots are 1 shot kills. If you hit them in the leg they don't die.

 

[EarthwormJim]

It's a demanding graphics engine, plane and simple (not poorly coded as some like to claim).

Huge draw distances, lots of environmental physics going on, and honestly some of the best graphics ever in a game.

 

[Bateluer]

I'm all for pushing the envelope with visuals, but developers/publishers need to understand something. When you develop a game to target the top 1% of PC hardware, that's a small market. Don't expect mega sales when you aim for that small of a target. Crytek's public statements after Crysis's release about moving to console development because of piracy was absurd, given the market they aimed for.

 

[angry hampster]

Originally posted by: Nebor
I just played it for the first time today. Not impressed. The bad guys don't die when you shoot them. And there's not enough ammunition to support the number of hits you need on a bad guy to kill them. Played for maybe an hour. I'm done.

Use different suit modes, dink.

 

[the unknown]

I started replaying this again recently since I got a new processor (e7200@3.8ghz) and the game runs smoothly at 30fps on a 8800gt with everything very high except shaders. Turning that down a notch gives a big boost to fps without loss of IQ. Firefights make it drop but not too much... very playable.

As for the comments of it being too hard, I thought it was too easy. Maybe its just my CSS training but I dont ever get a kill without a hs. If I shoot him in the chest, it's just to stun him for a hs Really makes the game easy. Also, put your gun on single shot only-- that's really key to saving ammo. Pistol and laser sights also makes it easymode.

 

[Slick5150]

I think it was a marketing ploy on their end. You obviously could have the game scale down better, but instead it gives it an aura of being some kind of next-generation uber game because you need such a beast of a system to run it, so clearly it must be awesome.

Then you spend $1200 upgrading your system, fire it up, and realize its just ok.

 

[Amit3945]

I would rate the graphics preety high simply because I felt like actually being on a island....the breaking/bending vegetation,physics,sumptuous water effects....really are way
ahead of other titles imo.
It's an advanced engine no doubt.

@Beev ,I dont recollect 4 miles draw distances anywhere on the island...
I dont think I have missed out any "out of the way area" of the game...
In fact the draw distances are less than FarCry..if I remerber correctly.

What intrigues me is that during the initial 2/3rd parts of the game when the jungle is still "Non-frozen"...when there are a ton of moving trees/leaves/water on screen...the game
works fine.
It's during the frozen section's ....when actually there is very little environmental movement,reduction in the draw distance (because of fog)...that the engine almost grinds to a
halt....clearly crappy optimization here....same goes for the last carrier level.

 

[sourthings]

Originally posted by: Amit3945
So the graphics are GREAT. BUT sli & triple sli to break 30fps? That's just ... absurd?
There is a dramtic difference when heavy shaders are applied vs none.As well as shadows.
You have to actually study the screens to see what pics are better from medium to high and then high to very high.
Besides the extra rocks/trees here and there there is no clear cut winner.
If its that close why is it that the game easily runs on a mid range comp on medium and near impossible to run max on any computer.?
Of course resolutions do come into picture BUT still.....

The biggest visual difference in Crysis can be had from your shader setting. I finally after getting an X2 was able to play this game at 1920x1200 with shaders, water, post processing, on very high, everything else high with motion blur off in dx10. I get about 30-35fps avg, game looks absolutely stunning, particularly the jungle settings and the snow level. There is no game on any platform that delivers a similar visual experience.

The game is nothing special though, it's not a bad game, it's pretty fun with the suit and all, the alien crap ruined it in my opinion. After the initial wow this game looks awesome, it wears thin fast.

 

[CottonRabbit]

The "impossibility" of running Crysis smoothly is over exaggerated by people who have never played the game. The in game presets for high and very high are also not very well thought out.

 

[postmortemIA]

many have upgraded their rigs to be able to play this game, seems pretty pointless to me.

it is almost like ati and nvidia said we'll pay you some cash if you make 1. game that looks great and 2. it runs slow even on best hardware

 

[Zenoth]

Yeah, as if Crysis could only be played at Very High DX9/DX10 and 1600x1200+... there's no such thing as targeting 1% of the PC market, it's the consumer's responsibility to reduce the in-game settings, to adjust according to the system's performance capabilities and to adapt to the resulting visuals. No one forces anyone to play at absolute top settings at crazy high resolutions. I don't get it when people say that Crysis is tough to run, are those people running Radeon 9600's or something?

And don't include Half-Life 2 guys, even FarCry had better graphics and they were both released the same year, Half-Life 2 had superb animation and facial expression and well done scripted events, but as far as textures and draw distance is concerned it fails flat. And please remember that Half-Life 2's levels are small, it doesn't load up kilometers of data, you literally load a new part of a level each five minutes of game-play, some people praise the Source engine well yeah, ask the Source engine to render a 4-miles area as a single level, good luck.

 

[Qbah]

Crytek actually lowered the IQ a bit compared to what was being shown before release. But you can get that kind of visuals if you tweak the .ini properly (there are a few custom tweaks). DX10 + Custom Tweak = epic visuals. Seriously, the game looked like a bloody movie in alot of parts I visited. Problem is at 1920x1200 I am getting 10-15 FPS DX9 High + tweak runs very very good at 1920x1200 though With an occasional hiccup here and there, nothing major. That's on my rig (see below).

 

[Pacemaker]

Originally posted by: Zenoth
Yeah, as if Crysis could only be played at Very High DX9/DX10 and 1600x1200+... there's no such thing as targeting 1% of the PC market, it's the consumer's responsibility to reduce the in-game settings, to adjust according to the system's performance capabilities and to adapt to the resulting visuals. No one forces anyone to play at absolute top settings at crazy high resolutions. I don't get it when people say that Crysis is tough to run, are those people running Radeon 9600's or something?

And don't include Half-Life 2 guys, even FarCry had better graphics and they were both released the same year, Half-Life 2 had superb animation and facial expression and well done scripted events, but as far as textures and draw distance is concerned it fails flat. And please remember that Half-Life 2's levels are small, it doesn't load up kilometers of data, you literally load a new part of a level each five minutes of game-play, some people praise the Source engine well yeah, ask the Source engine to render a 4-miles area as a single level, good luck.

Ok, then I'll use farcry as an example. At the time it came out, it could be played on a $1500 system easy. Could the same be said for Crysis when it came out?

 

[Amit3945]

Even on my 7900 GS on ALL medium except water and texture which are on high this game looks more stunning than almost ALL others games on Ultra...that's some graphical acheivement no
doubt.

It appears that not only ATi/NV but also MS have paid Crytech to make a game which
1) Will look stunning
2) Will make people upgrade to a new GFX card AND OS.

Is the DX 10 version THAT radically more stunning than DX 9 to actually make the switch to a new OS and DX powered card?
From the looks of the screens in UH DX10 and H DX9 there appears to be only slight difference's.....Maybe it looks more stunning in DX 10 when in motion...is that correct?

@Zenoth ...good point's there.
Even FarCry's release caused a similar debate regarding the then high system req of FC...but my Ti 4200 was doing just good on medium then.....so the bad scaling engine
statements dont seem to be all that true.

 

[Wheezer]

there are so many tweaks available that unless you have a lower end system is should run above 25FPS and still look sweet.

 

[ForumMaster]

i ran the game on my rig (asus a7n8x-x, amd athlon xp-m 2400+ @ 2.2ghz, 1gb ddr400 and nvidia 6600 256MB) and although everything was on low, it ran fine and adequate enough for me.

the game was easy imo. getting headshots isn't hard, and as long as you use lasersights and single shot, you never run out of ammo. in fact, most of the game, i was tripping over ammo. even at delta, the game wasn't terribly difficult.