CryEngine 3

marco_polo

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

I have a q6600, 4GBs ram and a 4870 1GB and I could play crysis warhead at 1920x1200 maxed out with no slowdown. Can't remember what I could play crysis at.

Have a HD4870 myself (@1080p) and the original crysis is the only game that I have had ever had to lower settings for. Warhead ran like a dream with everything maxed out.

AlmightyCushion

marco_polo wrote: »

Have a HD4870 myself (@1080p) and the original crysis is the only game that I have had ever had to lower settings for. Warhead ran like a dream with everything maxed out.

Yeah I think I left mine at the recommended settings for crysis which was pretty high as it was and didn't bother upping them at all. Must play it again actually. I loved running about in the jungle and stumbling on to a new settlement of people.

wayne040576

I'm hoping the gtx295 goes down in price a bit when the new nvidia cards come out. Only thing is the size of the bloody things. Like trying to fit a brick into my case.
I think my phenom cpu is not the best either. Mad that a 2 year old game is still a huge benchmark test for machines.

L31mr0d

wayne040576 wrote: »

What areyour system specs? I have an AMD phenom and an 8800gt (about 2 yrs old) and it has always struggled to play it even on medium settings. I was planning to upgrade to a gtx295 but haven't got around to it.

The 8800GT was mid tier 2 years ago so it's well into the low tiers now. It's ok for running games at around 1280x1024 but anything more than that and it will really struggle.

I have a 4870x2, which has been a great investment. I haven't encountered a game yet that I couldn't just notch everything up to max. It was bittersweet though as it has pretty much killed my hobby of building PC's as I have no need to upgrade anymore.

Next build will probably be a DX11 rig that supports Stereoscopic 3D.

wayne040576

L31mr0d wrote: »

The 8800GT was mid tier 2 years ago so it's well into the low tiers now. It's ok for running games at around 1280x1024 but anything more than that and it will really struggle.

I have a 4870x2, which has been a great investment. I haven't encountered a game yet that I couldn't just notch everything up to max. It was bittersweet though as it has pretty much killed my hobby of building PC's as I have no need to upgrade anymore.

Next build will probably be a DX11 rig that supports Stereoscopic 3D.

I haven't bought an ATI card in years. I don't have anything against them, just back then their Linux drivers were very bad so I shifted to Nvidia.

L31mr0d

wayne040576 wrote: »

I haven't bought an ATI card in years. I don't have anything against them, just back then their Linux drivers were very bad so I shifted to Nvidia.

I'll be switching back also. The physx and CUDA support are big enough carrots to make me switch sides again. Plus, I think a lot of games use nVidia for their test bed, I'll sometimes have to wait for ATI to release a hotfix after a game is released to make their cards compatible and optimized to run a game.

marco_polo

cherryghost wrote: »

to be perfectly honest, its clear now that Crysis is built on a poorly optimized engine. to say it'll look better on lower spec requirements is perfectly plausible as long as they optimized the engine a bit better

The offical recomended requirements for Crysis 2 are out, three years down the line and still it is a 8800GTS. Seems promising that they have a much more refined engine on their hands.

Looks like we can look forward to more better with nVidia splash screens at the start though :rolleyes:

EDIT: See 2 post down.

L31mr0d

marco_polo wrote: »

The offical recomended requirements for Crysis 2 are out

You sure? I'm pretty sure those are the requirements for the original Crysis, and there's no mention that it's referring to Crysis 2 from that link you provided.

marco_polo

L31mr0d wrote: »

You sure? I'm pretty sure those are the requirements for the original Crysis, and there's no mention that it's referring to Crysis 2 from that link you provided.

Oops confused myself, wrong link

http://www.product-reviews.net/2010/03/11/crysis-2-pc-impressive-details-regarding-system-requirements/

Appears to be a few screenshots I haven't seen before at the bottom here, as well as some posted earlier in the thread.

http://www.softsailor.com/news/20060-crysis-2-system-requirements-new-crysis-2-screenshots-released.html

Plus an off screen video from the same GDC 2010.

http://gamevideos.1up.com/video/id/28333

PogMoThoin

L31mr0d wrote: »

I'll be switching back also. The physx and CUDA support are big enough carrots to make me switch sides again. Plus, I think a lot of games use nVidia for their test bed, I'll sometimes have to wait for ATI to release a hotfix after a game is released to make their cards compatible and optimized to run a game.

Nothing You can't do through software. I've a few cores here lying idle, leave my gpu concentrate on what its already at

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a06hAe747Do

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cy1ty4nvmc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XFvW-B5K8w

L31mr0d

PogMoThoin wrote: »

Nothing You can't do through software. I've a few cores here lying idle, leave my gpu concentrate on what its already at

The problem is the game has to support it. Take Arkham Asylum, the physx effects really added to it imo, the smoke, cobwebs, debris and paper... etc, and I'm sure there where a load of other visual effects that utilized physx.

If I had the option to use a software alternative I would, but the options aren't there. The way it is at the moment, if the game uses Physx there is no alternative for ATI users. Havok isn't hardware dependent either so if it works with ATI it will work with nVidia.

L31mr0d

btw... new Crysis 3 HD demo

http://www.gametrailers.com/video/gdc-10-crysis-2/63009

dreamers75

At the 4th time of asking can they actually make a good game rather than a cracking tech demo that noone actually buys.


Pogs pc in 2016 will be showing off the highlights of this game for years after

Overheal

The thing is - they license this Engine out, correct?

For all the thousands of man-hours that went into CryEngine 1+2, these are the titles that made it to market:



How long can they sustain that? Are they really making a significant profit on all of this development or what?

PogMoThoin

dreamers75 wrote: »

At the 4th time of asking can they actually make a good game rather than a cracking tech demo that noone actually buys.


Pogs pc in 2016 will be showing off the highlights of this game for years after

Crysis Wars was good, could run on any average gaming pc when it was released, its just Crysis had this stigma attached to it that You needed a mammoth pc to run it. The ability to cloak added some great fun to the game, a campers wet dream, me & L31mr0d had a few nights at it over hamachi

In 2016 a netbook will run it, but 2 years after release I don't see any other developers pushing boundaries on pc, we should be miles ahead.

L31mr0d

dreamers75 wrote: »

At the 4th time of asking can they actually make a good game rather than a cracking tech demo that noone actually buys.

What are you talking about. Crysis went platinum less than 3 months after it's release. I believe close of year 2008 it was at around 3 million. Every time it goes up for sale on Steam it hits No.1 on their top sellers list.

People are still buying it in their droves. When anyone with a new PC asks "what game should I play first to see what this thing can do" the answer is almost always "Crysis". It may be the "Avatar" of the gaming world, but people are still flocking to see that film, and people are still buying Crysis.

AntiVirus

L31mr0d wrote: »

What are you talking about. Crysis went platinum less than 3 months after it's release. I believe close of year 2008 it was at around 3 million. Every time it goes up for sale on Steam it hits No.1 on their top sellers list.

People are still buying it in their droves. When anyone with a new PC asks "what game should I play first to see what this thing can do" the answer is almost always "Crysis". It may be the "Avatar" of the gaming world, but people are still flocking to see that film, and people are still buying Crysis.

Thats what happened with a friend I work with last month, he splashed out and built a PC with top of the range hardware . The first games he bought where Crysis and Cysis Warhead, he did buy them to show off his PC but he loves both games. So yes, people are still buying the games.

I just checked on metacritic and Crysis averages 91% :pac:

PS: I thought the game was great :pac:

Elessar

L31mr0d wrote: »

btw... new Crysis 3 HD demo

http://www.gametrailers.com/video/gdc-10-crysis-2/63009

This. THIS is the reason I built a large, noisy, hot gaming PC. To be able to see and play the cutting edge in computer graphics. To feast my eyes on the WOW factor. Very few games have ever had me just stop playing in the middle of a game and just stare at the screen. Crysis was one, Battlefield Bad Company 2 was another last night. Looks like crysis 2 will be the next one.

And here I was thinking maybe I should have just bought a PS3 and saved the hassle.

L31mr0d

Elessar wrote: »

And here I was thinking maybe I should have just bought a PS3 and saved the hassle.

Consoles have their uses though in regards to pushing the boundaries of visuals. Consoles may be limited in regards to their ability to produce effects that globally affect the in game environment, but they make up for this in other areas.

Take Uncharted 2, the level of detailing throughout that game is staggering. Now other developers could easily accomplish this on the PC, but it requires a lot of development time, it is simpler to just create a world and enable support for features that impact on the players experience globally (like lighting, reflections, bump mapping... etc) The world in Crysis looks amazing, but the detailing is lacking. Any given hut you walk into has the usual empty banana boxes, watermelons and plates... they are all the same.

Uncharted 2, having its hands tied by the hardware limitations of the console, decided to improve in whatever areas it could, areas that the PC is usually lacking in.

Also, take Demon's Souls as another example, they went the other route and knowing the hardware limitations of the PS3 concentrated on the general atmosphere of the world to great effect.

So there are pros and cons to both. A true gaming fan will spread his tastes across PC and consoles to experience the peak in this current generation of games across all formats.

Elessar

L31mr0d wrote: »

Consoles have their uses though in regards to pushing the boundaries of visuals. Consoles may be limited in regards to their ability to produce effects that globally affect the in game environment, but they make up for this in other areas.

Take Uncharted 2, the level of detailing throughout that game is staggering. Now other developers could easily accomplish this on the PC, but it requires a lot of development time, it is simpler to just create a world and enable support for features that impact on the players experience globally (like lighting, reflections, bump mapping... etc) The world in Crysis looks amazing, but the detailing is lacking. Any given hut you walk into has the usual empty banana boxes, watermelons and plates... they are all the same.

Uncharted 2, having its hands tied by the hardware limitations of the console, decided to improve in whatever areas it could, areas that the PC is usually lacking in.

Also, take Demon's Souls as another example, they went the other route and knowing the hardware limitations of the PS3 concentrated on the general atmosphere of the world to great effect.

So there are pros and cons to both. A true gaming fan will spread his tastes across PC and consoles to experience the peak in this current generation of games across all formats.

Having never heard of Uncharted 2, I just watched the video review on Gametrailers. And yes, I agree it looks very impressive. I tend to trust gametrailers with their reviews so I imagine this game is very good indeed. Almost makes me want to buy a PS3.

But where consoles are let down is mainly in texture resolution. With the limited video RAM most textures are very low resolution, and I suppose coming from a PC gaming background I am spoiled by decent textures and the ability to have lots of them on screen at one time. There are exceptions of course, especially when the lighting is so good against the textures that it really doesn't matter - Gears of War for example.

dreamers75

L31mr0d wrote: »

What are you talking about. Crysis went platinum less than 3 months after it's release. I believe close of year 2008 it was at around 3 million. Every time it goes up for sale on Steam it hits No.1 on their top sellers list.

People are still buying it in their droves. When anyone with a new PC asks "what game should I play first to see what this thing can do" the answer is almost always "Crysis". It may be the "Avatar" of the gaming world, but people are still flocking to see that film, and people are still buying Crysis.

It a tech demo, none of the Crysis games imo are actually any good.

Far cry was good right up until the god damn monkeys came into it, crysis had promise right up until the god damn aliens came into it, same for Crysis wars. They are poor FPS games in a stunning a looking game. Crysis 2 so far has nether but im sure Elvis is in there somewhere.

Actually shocked any of them got near 90% reviews. Fairly sure the reviewers were reviewing the engine and almost every review has more to say about how brilliant looking it is than how it plays(i havejnt checked but reckon they do )

cherryghost

I Crysis and I especially love the modding community that works on it

Sasquatch76

I want a Jurassic Park mod. STAT!!!

Making It Bad

Doesn't seem this has been posted already?

http://www.gametrailers.com/video/gdc-10-crysis-2/63009

Looking good, although the focus seems to be on consoles rather than PC.