Was Crysis Overhype?

Crysis was way overhyped, but mainly by the fans themselves.

Gamers have been raving about how good it was going to be for the last 2 years, but I don't remember Crytek doing much hyping, other than releasing some video footage.

Peoples expectations and dreams became mixed with rumours (and a few facts) to give us unrealistic expectations.
 
Chronictank said:
What possible sense does having a strength boost have on the physics of the gun, regardless whether it worked or not it makes no sense at all that the gun is more accurate (the first shot) because you have strength mode enabled the only possible difference that should make is that you hold the gun steadier
Click to expand...

The steadier something is held the more accurate it will be. Its not really a concept thats amazingly hard to grasp is it? Get a hose pipe, switch it on full blast on a jet stream mode and hold the hose about 2 foot away from the nozzle, see how it flaps all over the place? Now hold it by the nozzle... much steadier yes?

I think a large part of the negative attention towards this game is because a lot of people spent a lot of money getting pc's that they thought would play it perfectly, now its out they realise it still doesn't play it perfectly and they should have waited to upgrade when the next lot of hardware comes out. Obviously they're annoyed and instead of admitting they were foolish to upgrade for a game before its out its easier for them to slate the game.
 
It was only hyped up because you all made it hyped. I don't think there's been a day in the last 6 months when I haven't seen a Crysis thread in this forum, usually "Will this run Crysis?". I was getting so sick of it to the extreme that I rarely came in PC Games for a while, lol.

I've got the game and am currently playing through it myself. Although I can't play the game on as high settings as I'd have liked, but I'm still tweaking and enjoying the game rather than complaining about how short it is (I really don't understand this, did most of you just run through the game or something?).

End of rant.
 
krisboats said:
The steadier something is held the more accurate it will be. Its not really a concept thats amazingly hard to grasp is it? Get a hose pipe, switch it on full blast on a jet stream mode and hold the hose about 2 foot away from the nozzle, see how it flaps all over the place? Now hold it by the nozzle... much steadier yes?

I think a large part of the negative attention towards this game is because a lot of people spent a lot of money getting pc's that they thought would play it perfectly, now its out they realise it still doesn't play it perfectly and they should have waited to upgrade when the next lot of hardware comes out.
Click to expand...

do you even read my posts before quoting them? seriously :confused:
if your iron sight and the targets head are lined up is nothing to do with his aim being steady
 
Sir Random said:
Crysis was way overhyped, but mainly by the fans themselves.

Gamers have been raving about how good it was going to be for the last 2 years, but I don't remember Crytek doing much hyping, other than releasing some video footage.

Peoples expectations and dreams became mixed with rumours (and a few facts) to give us unrealistic expectations.
Click to expand...

It's kind of amixed bag really.

I don't think there is much room to complain about the graphics. Sure, we can not really run it very high, but do people forget about the large draw distances and the sheer amount of stuff being displayed on-screen. It is way beyond anything before it.

There are some legitimate complaints though. Things such as frequently poor AI, and I think most (most, not all) people find the Alien sections rather dull.

The aliens themselves just aren't very interesting. Its float, move, float, move, shoot icy bits, move... rinse repeat. This after what was a godo opening ruined it for many I think.

Despite the AI sometimes being anything but intelligent, the first levels were great in how they allowed people to approach situations in different ways.

And then there is the ending. Funny how it comes out AFTER the game is released that it was always going to be a trilogy. Personally, I think it is EA just trying to milk it for all its worth. It just didn't feel like a whole game.
 
Chronictank said:
do you even read my posts before quoting them? seriously :confused:
if your iron sight and the targets head are lined up is nothing to do with his aim being steady
Click to expand...

Did you read mine? It is if its only lined up for a second but by the time you fire its already swayed out of line. A large amount of gun sway is due to your muscles being under strain from holding the gun up, they shake as they try to keep hold of it and your body naturally tries to correct this which results in subtle movements of the gun in order to try and keep it straight.

If your really strong there isn't so much of a task on your arms so you can hold the gun more firmly before firing, resulting in a steadier shot.
 
Last edited:
krisboats said:
Did you read mine? It is if its only lined up for a second but by the time you fire its already swayed out of line. A large amount of gun sway is due to your muscles being under strain from holding the gun up, they shake as they try to keep hold of it and your body naturally tries to correct this which results in subtle movements of the gun in order to try and keep it straight.

If your really strong there isn't so much of a task on your arms so you can hold the gun more firmly before firing, resulting in a steadier shot.
Click to expand...
Yes but this action is indicated by the swaying of your gun as in most games, this doesnt deviate from the fact if you fire at the right time the shot will be on target....
Or are you incinuating that misses are caused by invisible movements not represented on the screen, which are compensated by using another invisible force?
 
skullman said:
You realise when people are talking about muscles under strain trying to hold a gun steady, theyre just showing the basic theory of gun sway
Click to expand...

Yes i know, thanks for being observant.

Chronictank said:
Yes but this action is indicated by the swaying of your gun as in most games, this doesnt deviate from the fact if you fire at the right time the shot will be on target....
Or are you incinuating that misses are caused by invisible movements not represented on the screen, which are compensated by using another invisible force?
Click to expand...

Yeah, thats what i said. Whack the reflex scope on, put on strength mode and pop off a headshot... its dead easy.
 
Seems easyrider is posting about the forum but not here. While you guys are cooling down I think I'll just leave this link to my last post that was directed at him, here.

Can't really wait to see the response to this one. :)
 
Ulfhedjinn said:
I thought that's what multi-threading meant. :p
Click to expand...

Nope, slight differnence. Multithreaded programming has been around long before there were multicore cpus. You can have many threads on one CPU, however, it can only be working on one at a particular instance in time. It can switch between them depending on how the schedular works. Game programmers rarely needed to use these in the past, as games were programmed in a very step by step linear fashion.

The next step is sending threads to different cpus. There are a whole bunch of new issues involved, such as timing issues, resource sharing ,mutual exclusion issues etc.

Games programmers are just not up to it atm. It involves reinventing the wheel for them.
 
bfar said:
Nope, slight differnence. Multithreaded programming has been around long before there were multicore cpus. You can have many threads on one CPU, however, it can only be working on one at a particular instance in time. It can switch between them depending on how the schedular works. Game programmers rarely needed to use these in the past, as games were programmed in a very step by step linear fashion.

The next step is sending threads to different cpus. There are a whole bunch of new issues involved, such as timing issues, resource sharing ,mutual exclusion issues etc.

Games programmers are just not up to it atm. It involves reinventing the wheel for them.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, that actually explains a lot. :)

It's rare I come away from here feeling like I've learned anything these days.
 
krisboats said:
Yes i know, thanks for being observant.
Click to expand...

My comment was more directed at the other dude. It doesnt take an Einstein to work out that if your stronger you'd be able to hold a rifle steadier, therefore improving accuracy.....or you could just go prone! Either way, I dont see what the argument is.
 
It certainly was over-hyper IMO.

After I finished it I played HL2 for the first time (thanks to someone in the Orange Box thingy thread) and the difference was staggering. Crysis was brainless and quite boring in comparision.
 
helmutcheese said:
No it makes you too dumb and lazy to find them esp as they are all over this forum.
Click to expand...

I think I just realised what you're on about. If you're talking about the screenshots of the hut vs the real life hut, then the game does look like that, because those screenshots were taken in game. I know it looks like that for me.

Also...

Cevat Yerli: We learned a valuable lesson in Far Cry and that is to give people what they want but to also give them the ability to choose how to run it. For Far Cry, we gave the user a host of options that allowed them to cater to the experience they wanted. Some people like to see no popping, but they could care less for shadows, while others may not care about cool clouds but want more detailed textures. To support this we are going to offer even more ways for players to fine tune their experience. Personally, I would say to run Crysis with high settings; you need a machine that has a card that was made in the last six months. Our goal though is to make it really playable and look good on machines two-years-old from our ship date.
Click to expand...

To run Crysis on High you'll need a GTS/GTX and maybe a X1950/XT/XTX. I know it was running on medium/high @ 1680 on my XT before I sold it. And it runs above high on my GTX. So I don't see where Cervat has lied at all.

Just for the record as well, I don't think its a perfect game. But to say it's boring/dull/average is just stupid. If you didn't enjoy it that's your personal opinion, but that doesn't make it a bad game.
 
Ulfhedjinn said:
Fair enough, that actually explains a lot. :)

It's rare I come away from here feeling like I've learned anything these days.
Click to expand...

There's still big confusion over how much games can benefit from multicore. Most games are programmed fairly linearly, i,e

shoot gun
play sound
did guy get hit?
If yes, guy dies, play other sound. If no, continue
etc

So what happens if you offload the whole sound engine to another cpu? It takes a load of work off the first cpu, but it still has to wait for a timing que, and then decide if it's too busy or not, and then send a message back to the master process. That means it could end up spending vast amounts of time sitting there doing nothing waiting to handle sounds when they come up. This is not terribly efficient, but the programmer can still claim that the game is 'optimised' to use multicore cpus. Proper multicore optimisation of games is a lot more complex to program. In existing games, you might have to rewrite the entire game engine from scratch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom