Crysis -- I get it now

[2is]

sorry there is NO way you run Crysis 1 maxed smoothly at 1080 on a 5770. NO chance

EDIT: decided to check it out on those settings(DX10 very high with 2x AA) with my gtx560 se and averaged 24 fps with mostly just walking around. my card would be about 25% faster than a 5770.

Agreed

 

[Red Hawk]

Yes, and I already confirmed that I get only 20 fps just leisurely walking around. It just inexplicably feels very smooth for 20 fps.

 

[BFG10K]

Crysis feels smooth at a low framerate because it has very low input lag. This is common in games specifically designed for the PC.

In contrast, console ports tend to have a lot of input lag on the PC, and it shows in games like Crysis 2. Crysis 2 often doesn’t feel completely smooth even at 60FPS.

 

[RussianSensation]

Crysis feels smooth at a low framerate because it has very low input lag. This is common in games specifically designed for the PC.

In contrast, console ports tend to have a lot of input lag on the PC, and it shows in games like Crysis 2. Crysis 2 often doesn’t feel completely smooth even at 60FPS.

What about Unreal Tournament, Return to Castle Wolfenstein and older OpenGL games such as Quake 3? I think they also need > 60 fps to feel smooth despite being made for the PC. I think it has more to do with the game engine/required pace for a certain style. Crysis isn't a fast-paced FPS game which is probably why it's so forgiving. I bet if they made Quake Arena on CryEngine 3, you'd want it to be 60+ fps.

 

[Grooveriding]

What really irks me is that Crysis/Warhead did play really nicely on the PC, even with what I normally would consider an unacceptable frame rate. Crysis 2 plays like a dog, not just FPS wise, but gameplay in general. It feels like a console port and pretty much is a console port with some PC features tacked on.

Battlefield 3 plays and feels like a solid PC game, yet they released it multi-platform. Now BFBC2 felt like a horrible console port, but they got it right with BF3.

Crytek had a pretty solid foundation in PC gaming, so what the heck is wrong with them these days looking at Crysis 2 ?

I have good hopes for Crysis 3 to hopefully give us some cool visuals, but I'm pretty certain it will feel a lot like a console port otherwise and have linear game play like the second one. It's kind of disappointing coming from Crytek with such a beastly PC legacy with Far Cry, Crysis and Warhead. Even their stab at multiplayer with Crysis Wars was impressive for the scope of trying to do such a huge sandbox multiplayer, although the implementation failed to gain any traction with gamers.

 

[2is]

What went wrong with Crysis 2 is that Crytek wanted to increase profits. You do that by catering to consoles unfortunatly.

 

[DrBoss]

What really irks me is that Crysis/Warhead did play really nicely on the PC, even with what I normally would consider an unacceptable frame rate. Crysis 2 plays like a dog, not just FPS wise, but gameplay in general. It feels like a console port and pretty much is a console port with some PC features tacked on.

Battlefield 3 plays and feels like a solid PC game, yet they released it multi-platform. Now BFBC2 felt like a horrible console port, but they got it right with BF3.

Crytek had a pretty solid foundation in PC gaming, so what the heck is wrong with them these days looking at Crysis 2 ?

I have good hopes for Crysis 3 to hopefully give us some cool visuals, but I'm pretty certain it will feel a lot like a console port otherwise and have linear game play like the second one. It's kind of disappointing coming from Crytek with such a beastly PC legacy with Far Cry, Crysis and Warhead. Even their stab at multiplayer with Crysis Wars was impressive for the scope of trying to do such a huge sandbox multiplayer, although the implementation failed to gain any traction with gamers.

My thoughts exactly
Crysis 2 was a disappointment. They totally dumped any attempt at sandbox gameplay.

 

[RussianSensation]

Crysis 2 plays like a dog, not just FPS wise, but gameplay in general. It feels like a console port and pretty much is a console port with some PC features tacked on.

It is! RockPaperShotgun did a technical analysis to see how Crysis 2 was dumbed down to work on Xbox360/PS3.

"As you can see there’s absolutely no comparison, the Crysis 2 “cardboard box” barely featuring a fifth of the parametric mesh generation of its predecessor, unquestionably as a result of the PS3′s weaker OpenMP..... lowered ambient conditions for both AI and NPCs (inevitably as a result of the 360′s eDRAM chip), and a raise in carbon production by over 300%."

"Crysis 1's intention was, if I were to play it three years later, it looks great,'" said Yerli. "And it does, actually, it fulfilled that. But it made it difficult for entry-level players. So with Crysis 2, we took a different direction, and it backfired a little bit." ~ Crytek CEO

I am assuming to try to get Crysis 2 to be more mainstream both in terms of gameplay and graphics, they had to dumb it down for consoles. We got a DX11 patch as a pat on the back.....

 

[cmdrdredd]

Crysis 2 looks great and the combat is solid. The problem is the limits you have in the environment. The city is too closed and you don't have the openness of the jungles. The game feels linear as a result. The original Crysis was somewhat linear as well but you had options as to how you approach things which gives the impression of not being linear.

 

[DrBoss]

So with Crysis 2, we took a different direction, and it backfired a little bit." ~ Crytek CEO

Hopefully Yerli's learned from the mistakes of Crysis 2

 

[soccerballtux]

What really irks me is that Crysis/Warhead did play really nicely on the PC, even with what I normally would consider an unacceptable frame rate. Crysis 2 plays like a dog, not just FPS wise, but gameplay in general. It feels like a console port and pretty much is a console port with some PC features tacked on.

Battlefield 3 plays and feels like a solid PC game, yet they released it multi-platform. Now BFBC2 felt like a horrible console port, but they got it right with BF3.

Crytek had a pretty solid foundation in PC gaming, so what the heck is wrong with them these days looking at Crysis 2 ?

I have good hopes for Crysis 3 to hopefully give us some cool visuals, but I'm pretty certain it will feel a lot like a console port otherwise and have linear game play like the second one. It's kind of disappointing coming from Crytek with such a beastly PC legacy with Far Cry, Crysis and Warhead. Even their stab at multiplayer with Crysis Wars was impressive for the scope of trying to do such a huge sandbox multiplayer, although the implementation failed to gain any traction with gamers.

everyone pirated Crysis 1 so they said suck it PC gamers!!! and gave us Crysis 2

 

[RussianSensation]

Hopefully Yerli's learned from the mistakes of Crysis 2

I watched NV's livestream presentation of GTX690 where Yerli was showing off some footage of CryEngine 3/Crysis 3 trailer. Before he left the stage, he was shaking JHH's hand and said something along the lines of "I look forward to working with you on selling more powerful graphics cards." Or maybe I heard that. I think Crysis 3 will have a ton of DX11 "My $500 GPU took an arrow-to-the-knee" features because JHH will want to upgrade his Ferrari F458 eventually; and he's got to figure out a way to convince us to keep buying those $500 GPUs. Also, Yerli sounds pissed that Unreal Engine 4.0's "revolutionary game engine features" are getting all the attention these days.

From that interview:

C. Yerli: "The only thing I can say is that CryEngine 3 already exists at the quality of Unreal Engine 4. It already exists for three years now. You can go back three years ago to the GDC videos. What we put out there is pretty much what Unreal Engine 4 put out now. And what many others are doing now too. We haven’t really put out our latest stuff yet."

 

[2is]

It is! RockPaperShotgun did a technical analysis to see how Crysis 2 was dumbed down to work on Xbox360/PS3.

"As you can see there’s absolutely no comparison, the Crysis 2 “cardboard box” barely featuring a fifth of the parametric mesh generation of its predecessor, unquestionably as a result of the PS3′s weaker OpenMP..... lowered ambient conditions for both AI and NPCs (inevitably as a result of the 360′s eDRAM chip), and a raise in carbon production by over 300%."

"Crysis 1's intention was, if I were to play it three years later, it looks great,'" said Yerli. "And it does, actually, it fulfilled that. But it made it difficult for entry-level players. So with Crysis 2, we took a different direction, and it backfired a little bit." ~ Crytek CEO

I am assuming to try to get Crysis 2 to be more mainstream both in terms of gameplay and graphics, they had to dumb it down for consoles. We got a DX11 patch as a pat on the back.....

They certainly did achieve that. Even today, when I buy a new GPU, the first game I fire up is Crysis. Every time I would be like "now can I do enthusiest!? no... Ok, how about now!? still no" finally with my 680, i'm able to do it with an average FPS in the 50's. So the next GPU upgrade will be doing enthsiest with a higher level of AA while maintaining 60+fps (I think I was at 2xAA on my 680)

 

[DrBoss]

I watched NV's livestream presentation of GTX690 where Yerli was showing off some footage of CryEngine 3/Crysis 3 trailer. Before he left the stage, he was shaking JHH's hand and said something along the lines of "I look forward to working with you on selling more powerful graphics cards." Or maybe I heard that. I think Crysis 3 will have a ton of DX11 "My $500 GPU took an arrow-to-the-knee" features because JHH will want to upgrade his Ferrari F458 eventually; and he's got to figure out a way to convince us to keep buying those $500 GPUs. Also, Yerli sounds pissed that Unreal Engine 4.0's "revolutionary game engine features" are getting all the attention these days.

From that interview:

C. Yerli: "The only thing I can say is that CryEngine 3 already exists at the quality of Unreal Engine 4. It already exists for three years now. You can go back three years ago to the GDC videos. What we put out there is pretty much what Unreal Engine 4 put out now. And what many others are doing now too. We haven’t really put out our latest stuff yet."

great info. thanks for posting it.

*fingers crossed. I want the next "you can't really run this game until 3 years from now" game. Crytex should show us their hand... even if we can only run it's maxed settings as a slideshow.

 

[BFG10K]

I was never impressed by the visuals in Crysis 1. They were brilliant on a technical level but their subjective aesthetic didn’t appeal to me. This is one area where Source does well - it’s an aged engine but the visuals are still nice to look at.

But I do like the visuals Crysis 2 puts out. Those skyscrapers drenched in sunlit haze look real, as do the sun rays streaming through tree leaves. Plus there isn’t much texture aliasing.

Also Crysis 1 looks like ass on the lowest detail settings, but Crysis 2 still looks good. From that standpoint I think Crytek did a good job and made the right decision.

But the original definitely has better gameplay, and the input is a lot tighter.

 

[toyota]

I don't think Crysis 2 is all that impressive looking even with hi res textures and DX11. but yeah it does not look much worse on lower settings and pretty much any modern card other can run it. I even run it more than fine on DX11 high settings with high res texture at 1920x1080 with my dinky gtx560 se.

 

[Red Hawk]

Crysis feels smooth at a low framerate because it has very low input lag. This is common in games specifically designed for the PC.

In contrast, console ports tend to have a lot of input lag on the PC, and it shows in games like Crysis 2. Crysis 2 often doesn’t feel completely smooth even at 60FPS.

That makes sense, considering Deus Ex: Human Revolution. Deus Ex HR was given a decent PC port -- a UI custom made for PC, adjustable field of view, a bunch of DirectX 11 goodies on release, etc. But in the end it was still a port of a console game to PC. Even though I get higher frame rates with in DX: HR than Crysis, it feels more jittery moving around, and that could be because of input lag as you say.

 

[Bobisuruncle54]

I disagree. Stalker had open-ended gameplay that you could progress in several different branches, and at your own timing. It also set a mood and an environment that could pull me into the game. Crysis, on the other hand, was as much a rail shooter as COD, and at no time did it manage to make me forget I'm playing a videogame.

Ridiculous. Arguing that Crysis is "as much a rail shooter as COD" is probably one of the most patently false remarks regarding a game I've heard in some time. COD is a scripted mess, Crysis is not, the difference is night and day. I was also referring to Stalker's clumsiness in terms of the movement system and how you can interact with the environment; it's slow, basic and cumbersome compared to Crysis.

 

[PowerK]

Hopefully Yerli's learned from the mistakes of Crysis 2

Don't get your hopes up.
I love visual of Crysis 2007. And I still think it is one of the best looking PC games available in the market right now. Recently, played through the Crysis again. And I appreciate the graphics of it more than ever. (Played it at 2560x1600 with everything maxed + 4xMSAA + 4xSGSSAA)

That being said, let's go over the history shall we:

Crysis - hyped as best looking game ever period. All the pre-rendered videos, touched up picks and Yerlin interviews claiming it runs very smooth and optimized for PC. What actually happened? Demo release hit, game is an unoptmized mess, requires a PC that will exist 5 years after release of the title. Support is cut in 3 months.

Crysis Warhead - Game announced, everyone thinking that it is going to be DLC or expansion get the rude awakening that it is standalone and will cost as much as the original. Graphics are slightly toned down to increase performance claiming better optimizations. Support cut 2 months after release. Hackers rule multiplayer.

Cryengine 3 - Crytek unveils Cryengine 3 but turns out its for consoles. PC community knows what's coming next.

Crysis 2 - Game announced, Crytek claims PC first console second priority. What we got? Console port, promised high res texture pack etc etc but in reality the game shipped without, even ships without dx 11 support... 4 months later high res texture patch release with dx11 support. Support is then cut for the title lol...

Crysis 3 - leaked announced, add a bow you got yourself a sequel which again should be dlc. No improvement to tech as its a console port....

History repeating itself.

 

[2is]

Overly pessimistic overview IMO. I suppose it's because I never bothered with MP and the "support" issue to me is a non issue

 

[DrBoss]

Don't get your hopes up.
I love visual of Crysis 2007. And I still think it is one of the best looking PC games available in the market right now. Recently, played through the Crysis again. And I appreciate the graphics of it more than ever. (Played it at 2560x1600 with everything maxed + 4xMSAA + 4xSGSSAA)

That being said, let's go over the history shall we:

Crysis - hyped as best looking game ever period. All the pre-rendered videos, touched up picks and Yerlin interviews claiming it runs very smooth and optimized for PC. What actually happened? Demo release hit, game is an unoptmized mess, requires a PC that will exist 5 years after release of the title. Support is cut in 3 months.

Crysis Warhead - Game announced, everyone thinking that it is going to be DLC or expansion get the rude awakening that it is standalone and will cost as much as the original. Graphics are slightly toned down to increase performance claiming better optimizations. Support cut 2 months after release. Hackers rule multiplayer.

Cryengine 3 - Crytek unveils Cryengine 3 but turns out its for consoles. PC community knows what's coming next.

Crysis 2 - Game announced, Crytek claims PC first console second priority. What we got? Console port, promised high res texture pack etc etc but in reality the game shipped without, even ships without dx 11 support... 4 months later high res texture patch release with dx11 support. Support is then cut for the title lol...

Crysis 3 - leaked announced, add a bow you got yourself a sequel which again should be dlc. No improvement to tech as its a console port....

History repeating itself.

With next gen consoles on the horizon i think we are due for another large step forward. I totally agree that Crysis 2 was built first and foremost around consoles. Once console performance doubles or triples (2 years from now), the lowest common denominator will no longer be xbox/ps3. It's a shame games are no longer built towards the highest common denominator (high end pc/gpu), but its obvious a step forward in console tech will make better use of all our high end pc rigs.

Crysis 1 was not poorly coded. It certainly could have been better optimized for mid/low end systems, but the game simply asked more of the hardware than was available at the time. Only now are single gpu solutions able to play the game with maxed settings.

Crysis 2 could be said to be well optimized... the only reason for that is the fact that it was built around dated console tech... of coarse any mid to high end PC is going to run it easily (unless your using AMD gpu, *cough* tesselation trickery)

Russian's previous quotes of Yerli seem to indicate he would like to do more with the tech. And perhaps he has done more with the tech, there just hasn't been a cost effective way to apply it (games must sell on consoles to make money in this day and age - unfortunately).

 

[Spjut]

Crysis 2 could be said to be well optimized... the only reason for that is the fact that it was built around dated console tech... of coarse any mid to high end PC is going to run it easily (unless your using AMD gpu, *cough* tesselation trickery)

One can clearly see that in some areas Crysis 2 is alot more optimised than Crysis 1 and Warhead, for example Crysis 2's utilization of multiple cores.

The console versions of Crysis 1 are apparently still pretty faithful to the original. (On a sidenote, I'd love to see that version ported to the PC and compare it with the original running on CE2)

Since Crysis 2 already required at least DX10 hardware, I wouldn't be surprised if Crysis 3 were DX11 only and uses DX11's feature levels for older cards.
I guess this isn't popular to say on a forum like this, but I hope that Crysis 3 uses DX11 for improved performance(as in, better performance than DX9 at equivalent settings), rather than just throwing on performance-sagging effects by enabling DX11.



I agree it's a little sad that there's so little incentive to push the PC nowadays, but I'm against games that can be maxed first many years after their release.
I'm more of a gamer than an enthusiast, IMO games shall be made to run comfortably on the hardware currently released. Let future GPUs be pushed by the future games instead.

 

[2is]

Except we need games to push the limits. That's why we have graphics settings. If you're more of a gamer than an enthusiast you turn settings down. If games dont push hardware there is less incentive for people to buy new hardware, if there is less incentive to buy there is less incentive for the R&D required to progress. A PC gamer describing themselves as a gamer first and foremost and doesn't want to see games progress past current hardware is essentially a console gamer who likes to use a keyboard and mouse.

 

[RussianSensation]

A PC gamer describing themselves as a gamer first and foremost and doesn't want to see games progress past current hardware is essentially a console gamer who likes to use a keyboard and mouse.

According to NV, their research indicates that 80% of PC gamers don't adjust any graphics settings in games. They just play the game without optimizing the settings for it (hence the GeForce experience). So you are saying someone who just plays on the PC with a keyboard and a mouse is a console gamer in disguise? :hmm: Also, games should push hardware but in a reasonable way. I think that was the point of Spjut's post. We've seen games like King Arthur II, the Secrete World or Dirt Showdown cripple hardware despite not looking like anything special, with horrendous performance hit vs. graphics fidelity ratio. Extreme tessellation on concrete barriers and invisible ocean in Crysis 2 is another example of "pushing GPU hardware" for no benefit. These type of things we don't want to see in games on the PC.

 

[2is]

Being demanding with no tangibles is one thing. Not wanting games to push hardware limits is another. I never said every PC gamer is going to tweak settings so im not entirely sure what your point is there. Especially considering many games will set themselves up based on your hardware. MY point is that in a PC game the option to change settings is there, so If a PC gamer launches a game and it runs like crap, they can and probably will adjust settings. That's the beauty of our beloved platform, games can be made to scale on a wide variety of hardware. Crysis may not have been able to get fully maxed on release but it was still very playable and still looked great at reduced settings on a decent single GPU.