Why is Crysis so hard to run?

[TridenT]

Originally posted by: 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.

Starting gun is the best in the game IMHO. (Of the non-one shoters)

The game looks great and in order to look great you have to have a lot of insane hardware. Sure it is probably bad coding too but when you crank it up, it looks better than any other game I've played.

 

[Zenoth]

Originally posted by: 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?

No, the point is people can play Crysis on a $700 system or less if they take the time to adjust the in-game settings. The developers created low and medium settings for a reason, exactly because not everyone have super high-end systems because they just force themselves to play at the absolute highest settings the engine can do on a sytem that can't do it and then they complain about the game being in advance of its time and too tough to run.

Why is no one with not-so-good systems trying to play at 1024x768 with medium settings instead? Well then that's their problem. If they want to bring their systems to its knees because they want nothing else than what was shown to them in promotional videos in terms of visual quality then they need a newer system, saying that the game was poorly coded for example when compared to Half-Life 2 and so on just doesn't hold any ground. If they just took the time to accept that their system CAN play Crysis smoothly BUT at lowered settings then we wouldn't be here discussing this.

 

[Joemonkey]

I had no issues finishing the game on my laptop, 1440x900 w/ lots of the eye candy turned on

 

[Pacemaker]

Originally posted by: Zenoth

Originally posted by: 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?

No, the point is people can play Crysis on a $700 system or less if they take the time to adjust the in-game settings. The developers created low and medium settings for a reason, exactly because not everyone have super high-end systems because they just force themselves to play at the absolute highest settings the engine can do on a sytem that can't do it and then they complain about the game being in advance of its time and too tough to run.

Why is no one with not-so-good systems trying to play at 1024x768 with medium settings instead? Well then that's their problem. If they want to bring their systems to its knees because they want nothing else than what was shown to them in promotional videos in terms of visual quality then they need a newer system, saying that the game was poorly coded for example when compared to Half-Life 2 and so on just doesn't hold any ground. If they just took the time to accept that their system CAN play Crysis smoothly BUT at lowered settings then we wouldn't be here discussing this.

After thinking about this a little more I think the problem really comes down to LCD monitors. Back when the CRT was king lowering your resolution wouldn't cause the game to become fuzzy and horrible looking, now with LCDs you pretty much have to choose the native resolution if you want it to not look like crap. I think that probably has more to do with it than anything.

 

[LS8]

I think all a person has to do is look at CoD4 on high settings running @ 80+ fps on "old" hardware to deduce Crysis is a poorly coded pig of a game.

 

[Aberforth]

Crysis is well optimized,it's just that there aren't any games as good looking as Crysis. It uses very high quality & near photorealistic textures that no games use and not only that but the game is very dynamic- every second there is something dynamic going on in the background (like shaders) so the GPU will be working 100% all the time, it will also use multi-core during intesive physics simulations, explosions, water etc.

http://img84.imageshack.us/img.../screenshot0277ls8.jpg

 

[Smilin]

Crysis is actually very well written. It leverages hardware to it's limits. If you think it runs like a pig then you may not have an appreciation for what it is accomplishing.

 

[CKent]

Originally posted by: LS8
I think all a person has to do is look at CoD4 on high settings running @ 80+ fps on "old" hardware to deduce Crysis is a poorly coded pig of a game.

Seen an opthamologist lately?

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: LS8
I think all a person has to do is look at CoD4 on high settings running @ 80+ fps on "old" hardware to deduce Crysis is a poorly coded pig of a game.

I think any person who compares COD4 to Crysis is pretty horrific at logic.

Crysis performance issues can be hammered down to a few issues. One of the original performance problems that I saw was Nvidia trying to run AA in Crysis. With all the vegetation and, I believe Crysis' own in-game AA, this causes some significant overhead. Another problem I believe was the volumetric fog, at least I think that's what it's called. It's actually in the sky, it creates atmosphere up there but also causes some serious FPS issues probably because there is so much of it.

And don't expect SLI and triple SLI to be the savior in Crysis because SLI configurations have to duplicate/triplicate memory consumption. In other words, if you have 2 512mb cards, you don't get 1gb of memory, you get 512mb of memory.

One of the most difficult things Crysis does is renders an entire island, any game that tries to do this is always going to run into issues. In gaming, hell in anything, you look for shortcuts to boost performance, create the illusion of an island with tons of invisible walls. But Crysis takes these shortcuts and throws them out the window at the players benefit but at the hardwares fault. When next gen hardware is out and Crysis gets revisited, people's opinions will change.

 

[TechBoyJK]

Originally posted by: skace

Originally posted by: LS8
I think all a person has to do is look at CoD4 on high settings running @ 80+ fps on "old" hardware to deduce Crysis is a poorly coded pig of a game.

I think any person who compares COD4 to Crysis is pretty horrific at logic.

Crysis performance issues can be hammered down to a few issues. One of the original performance problems that I saw was Nvidia trying to run AA in Crysis. With all the vegetation and, I believe Crysis' own in-game AA, this causes some significant overhead. Another problem I believe was the volumetric fog, at least I think that's what it's called. It's actually in the sky, it creates atmosphere up there but also causes some serious FPS issues probably because there is so much of it.

And don't expect SLI and triple SLI to be the savior in Crysis because SLI configurations have to duplicate/triplicate memory consumption. In other words, if you have 2 512mb cards, you don't get 1gb of memory, you get 512mb of memory.

One of the most difficult things Crysis does is renders an entire island, any game that tries to do this is always going to run into issues. In gaming, hell in anything, you look for shortcuts to boost performance, create the illusion of an island with tons of invisible walls. But Crysis takes these shortcuts and throws them out the window at the players benefit but at the hardwares fault. When next gen hardware is out and Crysis gets revisited, people's opinions will change.

One year later, with 8800GT's on the cheap, and more and more people with Decent dual-core cpu's and 2GB of ram or more, COUPLED with Crysis: Warhead, I think everyone will get a wake up call on the Engine.

Why? Warhead is like the original on steroids. 10x's as much action, giving it similar intensity as that of COD, highly optimized engine (taking into account all of the issues and tweaks discovered from the original Crysis), and a more mature mod community.

Crysis: Warhead will run better, be more fun, and now more accessible due to the fall in prices for needed hardware as compared to a year ago..

 

[slag]

45-50 fps on a single 8800gt with a core 2 duo E4300 chip @ 3.3 ghz on Vista 64.

Game runs smoothly with most everything turned on @ 1024x768 which is beautiful on a 22 inch lcd.

I dont see any problems with the game, considering its running fine on my 2 yr old hardware.

 

[Eric62]

Originally posted by: MikeyLSU
headshots are 1 shot kills. If you hit them in the leg they don't die.

TITCR: This Is The Correct Response.

Crysis is my 1st first person shooter. I love the first 6 levels. Now playing Delta for the 2nd time. Can't relate to killing aliens (to hokey), so I've never gotten past level 10 - yet.

 

[Aberforth]

They've renamed very high settings as "Enthusiast" in Warhead.