Don't hate me because I'm beautiful: My thoughts on Crysis

[Lightbulb]

Yeah i know, a dual core would greatly help. Thats exactly what i am saying. Perhaps i am not being clear I will try again:

Graphics are fine. I can't run it on max but it looks pretty enough.

However turning off the physics kills some of the fun of the game. I don't think dual cores are 'standard' yet.

So the problem is not that the LOOK of the game is demanding its that the physics are demanding. For me that is. I know others ***** about not being able to run it on max but thats not interesting to me...

 

[Chis]

Lightbulb: Physics are obviously very important to Crysis, so yeah you are missing out. I wasn't going to mention it originally, because I'm NOT one of these geeks that like to rant about my own rig...

But I run Crysis with everything on High detail (only 2xAA though) with this setup:
Pentium E2160 (1.8GHz stock) OC'd to 2.7GHz
Asus P5K-VM motherboard
2GB GeiL DDR2-6400 RAM (which I'm not even running at full speed, prefer to go for lower latency)
Geforce 8800GTS

Now, it really helps if I lower the res to 1024x768, but I have pretty much the same video card as you, the same amount of RAM... just with a £50 dual core processor. I haven't spent thousands on this rig at all, although I am using a good Asus mobo (G35 chipset I believe). And yes, I AM overclocking the CPU, but even at stock speeds Crysis ran very well.

Of course, you have your own financial situation LB, so I can't comment there. But if you can upgrade to a dual core of some sort, Crysis' physics run a lot better. And yes, it DOES enhance the game a lot. (Not to mention day-to-day usage of Windows)

 

[Chis]

So that's *exactly* what a lot of those people Chis was talking about are thinking to themselves this time around: "a console would be a better choice." And that seems to be the choice they are making.

It crossed my mind, I suppose I should have mentioned it. We have certainly reached a point now where for most people PC's are fast enough to do whatever they need (big generalisation but it's the truth). Whilst I'd maintain that Crysis represents another engine-based technology leap just like the other games I mentioned; YES the difference is - this time - it'll probably only convince hardcore gamers to upgrade further. Others will wait, or not bother.

As an aside: I'd argue that even a low-end dual core processor represents a sweet-spot for a LOT of people, WRT CPU power. Operating systems that correctly use both cores immediately become a lot smoother in operation, and a common set of tasks such as ripping music whilst watching a DVD no longer suffer from priority hogging.

 

[Lightbulb]

Oh i know it would be cheap to upgrade but IMO my system is ahead of 'standard'. If *I* can't run physics on high then sure as heck most people can't.

People can't complain they can't run the GRAPHICS on max but they sure as hell can complain that they can't run the physics on full because they are such a large part of the game.


I'm not actually bothered about Crysis, the demo left me thinking meh.

 

[VladBlok28]

i think the smartest thing for me to do is to wait , and after i buy a nice smooth PC (maybe late 2008 or even 2009)then i'll buy crysis and play it on high...

 

[usernamed]

Is it not always the case that the games that cause a wow in the industry (even if not in the charts) always require the gold standard of modern hardware? Is it not also the case that in 4-5 years time your basic £300 PC bought from the supermarket will play that game comfortably? (albeit maybe not at the highest quality settings)

From all I've read on Crysis it seems that a fantastic new gaming engine has been developed, it's just that the first game based on the engine is average rather than great. How long does a good gaming engine last as a viable development platform for new titles? Two/three years? If a developer starts developing a game based on this engine now, isn't there an excellent chance that the hardware will have caught up by the time it's released?

I'd agree to an extent that Crysis is a tech demo, it's a benchmark for a lot of peoples gfx card tests and is a challenge to the hardware manufacturers to up their game.

For me, what's interesting is that if this game had been hyped as the greatest game ever created, people would have upgraded their rigs and bought the game. If Crysis fails in sales terms, there's less incentive for publishers to take the risk in putting a game with the same prohibitive system requirements out there. That could create a cycle where games publishers ensure their titles run on current 'mid-spec' hardware, and then there's less incentive for the hardware manufacturers to produce significantly faster hardware.

It risks decreasing innovation in an industry that's already being criticised for playing safe.

 

[Lightbulb]

"Is it not always the case that the games that cause a wow in the industry (even if not in the charts) always require the gold standard of modern hardware?"

Half-Life, Deus Ex, Counter Strike, WoW.

4 massively popular games, in their time perhaps THE most popular games. None of them required powerful PC's on release.

A brilliant game is brillaint because of the game not the graphics.

(Disclaimer please don't tell me how CS or WoW are crap i said popular not good )

 

[TheHound]

Can someone explain to me why Crysis is a tech demo? For me the physics drastically changed the way the game was played and made it much more fun than many other games half-hearted implementations. Now I love Half Life 2 but the physics were, at the end of the day tacked on, they brought nothing new other than a gun that essentially didnt need ammo and a new hate of see-saws. It lacked consistancy. Wooden wardrobes and chests could be smashed with a crowbar but wooden doors can takea grenade or rocket and still stand. Yes crysis has this, not every tree can be cut down but its getting there. But more importantly its not just there. I remember in farcry taking shelter from gunfire behind a tree, now the tree gets cut down you have to move. Crysis is much more dynamical in its play style because of it.
For me the graphics look great and suck me in just like they do in HL2. End of story theres nothing else to say there. I could say oh no I cant run it like some people, I dont care. I can get HL2 running like some people do, again I dont care, its enough to suck me in. Its just with crysis it could arguably do so much more, but its not right now, big deal.

 

[Axulciex]

Crysis isn't just a tech demo, its weird that people are saying this.

I know its my opinion and you cant call opinion fact, but the gameplay is groundbreaking.
I guess its just that you have to get very creative with crysis to really enjoy it, people are used to linear fps games so they just don't get into it; ending up frustrated. Then it gets labeled an un-fun tech demo and everyone goes back to playing cod4.

 

[usernamed]

"Is it not always the case that the games that cause a wow in the industry (even if not in the charts) always require the gold standard of modern hardware?"

Half-Life, Deus Ex, Counter Strike, WoW.

4 massively popular games, in their time perhaps THE most popular games. None of them required powerful PC's on release.

A brilliant game is brillaint because of the game not the graphics.

(Disclaimer please don't tell me how CS or WoW are crap i said popular not good )

OK, it's a fair cop, you're right that not all blockbuster games had heavy hardware requirements and I certainly didn't want to say that only pretty games are 'big' games. But surely you'd agree that in each generation of games there have been those titles that have been popular and desirable enough to force the keen gamer to upgrade in order to play them?

My thought was that if Crysis fails to sell well, there's an awful lot of blood sweat and tears that could go to waste unless somebody else licenses the engine (and I must admit I haven't looked to see if anyone has already done that)

People browsing games forums and seeing posts along the lines of 'I could only run it at 15fps in 640x480 with everything switched off' are entitled to leave it on the shelf if they have a modest (or once great but now elderly) setup. But if Crysis fails then you end up with the possibility of stalemate I described in my original post where the publisher won't risk a flop and there's no incentive for the hardware manufacturer to push the boat out with regard to the performance of its new products.

BTW, to the poster who asked why people were calling Crysis a tech demo, in my opinion it was because it seemed like an incredible game/physics engine that was spoiled by having average game content. Just my opinion.

 

[Lightbulb]

"...there's no incentive for the hardware manufacturer to push the boat out with regard to the performance of its new products."

That would be BRILLIANT! I want that to happen so much words cannot express it!

Game play is the ONLY important thing to me. The game can look like Doom and still be great. Hell, Doom looks like Doom and is still great!

Being able to play the newest and best games on the same hardware forever? That would be great!

Games could be focussed on being great fun. No more time wasted getting your water to look even shinier. To be honest the Unreal level of graphics was about as good as i wanted. Maybe something like HL2 at most. More than that isn't necessary.

Great games would be judged on merit not how shiny they are.

As hardware become the same across the board you could optimise engines over time and remove bugs.

I can think of no downsides.

 

[TheHound]

Spoiled by average game content? What was average, for me the nano-suit was amazing. It didnt revolutionise gaming to anything but no game in the past 6 years has anyway. People think they might but then Generic Sequel 2 comes out anyway so you can hardly say anything recently revolutionised it, and no not even the Wii has revolutionised anything. Anyway back on topic. I really enjoyed the combat sequences in Crysis and thought the cut scenes were very cinematic and engaging. Yes it was too short and yes it has its flaws, its by no means perfect but to call it average is a bit to far. What makes the combat in any of the other FPS this year, say Orange Box ,UT3 or Bioshock so great and Crysis so average personally i like them all (except UT3).

 

[Lightbulb]

Actually thats not true. I can think of downsides but physics card would solve the main one ie physics could be better...

Maybe faster processor to make AI better...

But no new GPU's would be sweet.

 

[raankh]

I would prefer an asynchronous massively parallel general purpose signal processor coupled with flow control processors and a bunch of vector processors; then you wouldn't need any specialized audio, graphics, or physics circuitry at all. "Software rendering" would essentially be synonymous with hardware rendering; it would be the abundant clean energy equivalent in the computing world.

These issues with Crysis and its marketing, requirements and preference of undergarments would just not exist.

Of course, that's sort of like asking a car manufacturer to build a car for you that is as efficient, durable and cheap as humanly possible. Ain't gonna happen. Why? 'Cause you'd buy ONE, need almost no spare parts and you'd use so much less gas that cross investment in petroleum wouldn't be as profitable. There's a big difference between what we as humans could do and whats profitable to do.

Too bad that we don't have a market that manages to produce the most advanced products possible at maximum utility to the end user with minimal side effects. I suppose it's going to remain the utopian dream of free market liberals' though ....

However, the reality is that Crysis remains, and will remain for some considerable time, undesirable to alot of gamers because they feel they're missing out and that they're playing a paired down version of the game. Which is more or less true, albeit it's eye-candy they're missing (but hey, I run a Compiz Fusion desktop with all effects on so I'm not one to talk down at eye-candy and special effects).

@Lightbulb: The problem with AI isn't foremost a problem of processing power, it's a computational problem. It's not about when it's about how

 

[Sylocat]

"...there's no incentive for the hardware manufacturer to push the boat out with regard to the performance of its new products."

That would be BRILLIANT! I want that to happen so much words cannot express it!

Game play is the ONLY important thing to me. The game can look like Doom and still be great. Hell, Doom looks like Doom and is still great!

Being able to play the newest and best games on the same hardware forever? That would be great!

Games could be focussed on being great fun. No more time wasted getting your water to look even shinier. To be honest the Unreal level of graphics was about as good as i wanted. Maybe something like HL2 at most. More than that isn't necessary.

Great games would be judged on merit not how shiny they are.

As hardware become the same across the board you could optimise engines over time and remove bugs.

I can think of no downsides.

Dang it, everyone's stealing my lines!

 

[TheHound]

To be honest I dont really see the point of saying that. Everyone wants decent gameplay. Find me one person who says "What I really want is a graphically amazing game that when I sit down to play it punishes me mentally and physically till I throw up." Everyone wants gameplay, I just dont see why gameplay cant go hand in hand with the graphics that fit. Grim Fandango and Sam & Max have their cartoon stylised art which fits. And Crysis, Quake 4, Gears of War have their gritty realistic feel. The problem is with realism its much harder to achieve and for people like me it really breaks the immersion in my games when something doesnt look right or isnt in synch with the rest. i.e. I can see the lines on their iris but not read a paper lying on the floor. Yes I dont think graphics need to get much better and that we should push for the sake of it but if a game developer can give me a more immersive interactive world, closer to their vision of the story then im all for it. With Assassins Creed it wasnt just you are in a city run around and kill people it was LOOK, your in a city and it changed the way people approached the game. Everytime fog comes in or u try to look back where u have been but cant cos its not there or is but looks crap you are reminded this is a game. When you look back and its acceptable, not perfect but in keeping with the rest then immersion is not broken.

Summing up for people who are too lazy to read. I want graphics to progress to the stage not where its beyond crysis but to where the small things, the sign on the wall the cup on the desk are paid attention to as much as the large. Yes thats development time as well as graphics power but seriously if u recycle the same mug model whose gonna care or know they all look the same, i.e. like mugs.