Crysis Cost $22M To Make!
- Thread starter AWPC
- Start date
The engine problems are mainly down to the performance side. The game apparently supports multi core and multi gpu yet compare a quad cpu usage in crysis to what it is in an unreal engine 3 game. Could be its just not as effecient at making use of 4 cores but considering the amount of interactivity it has and physics objects the core useage should clearly be much higher.
I can run ut3 or gears and see my 4 cores almost all maxed out, i do the same with crysis and the core useage is pretty minimal after the first core.
When this game came out crytek immediately hopped onto damage control and claimed that the graphics settings were mislabeled, medium was actually high, high actrually very high and that very high was supposed to be a setting that would be unlocked via patch when hardware could make use of it. That to me stinks of bs, what dev is gonna send their game for duplication and not notice an error as blatently obvious as that?
The the next thing is we hear of warhead and its apparently runs so much better and the reasons given are "optomisations done to the engine".
http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/53217
Then further in that article:
Fairly profound fixes? Sounds to me like a hell of a lot of rewritten\fixed code. And they've stopped patch support? What about these omg super duper vid settings they stated that would be unlocked by an update?
Even with these suposed fixes in warhead we have this article
http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,...sis_of_Crysis_Warhead_-_four_GiByte_required/
And what do the last lines read?
Yeah, wonder where ive heard that tune before, sometime after the crysis demo if i remember rightly
Last edited:
So is there anything wrong with the engine or does your butt still hurt? Of course the engine is going to have fixes a year later. Look at Gears of War and Gears of War 2 a lot of fixes and changes being made.
I love how you totally ignore the post then act like an immature child. How about you READ the post CLICK the links and then come back with half a clue wtf you're babbling about. Only person around here with a sore ass appears to be you with half the story and thinking you know it all.
In case you havnt got it yet i enjoyed crysis. What i didnt enjoy was cryteks endless stream of total BS when it came to how the game would perform on certain hardware configs. And most of the world are still waiting on the game looking as good as it was shown in those dx9/10 jungle fight vids.
Last edited:
I love how you totally ignore the post then act like an immature child. How about you READ the post CLICK the links and then come back with half a clue wtf you're babbling about. Only person around here with a sore ass appears to be you with half the story and thinking you know it all.
In case you havnt got it yet i enjoyed crysis. What i didnt enjoy was cryteks endless stream of total BS when it came to how the game would perform on certain hardware configs. And most of the world are still waiting on the game looking as good as it was shown in those dx9/10 jungle fight vids.
I asked for engine problems to start a discussion and you cried about Cervat lying to you. Sounds like your butt still hurts. Then made the obvious point that a year later a game will have changes made to the engine to make it perform better. Something every engine does. Do you think the Source engine stayed the same between Half Life 2 and Episode 1?
By comparison, X3 got loads of "critical acclaim" but you could argue that its a boring and repetitive experience that is simply the first two games with a slightly different plot. IMHO critical acclaim only lasts as long as it takes for me to actually play the thing. IL2 got tons of CA but when you actually go deep, all you really have is a pretty looking maths experiment. Crysis is a benchmark. Possibly. 
Peace
Peace