Crysis warhead 1,152 x 864, 41 fps Dx9

Spektor said:
I'm now almost certain that nobody knows what "bad coding" means. Try playing a game that crashes every 2 minutes regardless of hardware config, has rampant memory leaks, gives you 10fps even on its lowest settings etc to see a real example of this.

However trying to save your e-peen machine's face by blaming the magic codez when playing Crysis at higher settings and for some reason or other expecting several hundred FPS is just foolhardy.
Click to expand...

No that would be "terrible" coding. When all is said and done, if you have the highest spec rig available today and a year old game STILL runs like arse then you know something is wrong. Sorry to break up your rant a bit there. :p
 
They even said when the game was coming out that people shouldn't expect to run it on max settings and that it will be the best looking PC game for years.

Which it is, and will be. Look at whats coming out - nothing even in development has better graphics than Crysis atm.

screenshot0034cjh.jpg


You've got this quality of graphics with unlimited draw distance all the way to the horizon and its all destructible too.
 
Last edited:
Richdog said:
No that would be "terrible" coding. When all is said and done, if you have the highest spec rig available today and a year old game STILL runs like arse then you know something is wrong. Sorry to break up your rant a bit there. :p
Click to expand...

So your running the game on Highest setting yeah? And it's not running "upto par"...?

Crytek did state, that the game is scalable, and will get better with newer hardware.

I don't run Crysis on 'Highest' settings, not the default ones anyway, and I've tweaked the game slightely...And the game works fine in most cases, other than when there is a lot going on. So I really don't know why people have such an issue running it sometimes =/

I'll see how this one pans out anyway, considering the Reviewers had a pre-release copy, and see how it runs when it's released :)
 
Far Cry 2 looks awesome, it will probably be a better game than Crysis too but the graphics are no where near as good IMO - the people are a good example
 
I'll reserve judgement until I've played it but if the gameplay's as boring, repetitive and bug ridden as the first I'll be steering clear. If they've somehow managed to improve on those aspects I'll enjoy it no matter what settings I'll be able to run it on.
 
Delvis said:
Crytek did state, that the game is scalable, and will get better with newer hardware.
Click to expand...

The initially said that but i wouldnt hold them to it. New settings were to be unlocked via an update, but they stated theyve stopped patch support for crysis. Near sure the "very high" settings were meant to be the locked ones but with the retail game and the demo they were unlocked.

Only hope we have of an update is if they issue the fix into the engine for enhanced performance which they supposodly worked on for Warhead. Going by this thread though that seems to have been bs as well.
 
Richdog said:
No that would be "terrible" coding. When all is said and done, if you have the highest spec rig available today and a year old game STILL runs like arse then you know something is wrong. Sorry to break up your rant a bit there. :p
Click to expand...

Read the interviews from 6 months before the game was released, they said it wouldn't run on the highest settings with decent framerates for years and was developed to scale for years beyond that.

They told people repeatedly before the game was ever released that it was going to make their awesome PCs look silly even for years to come, but still people go out, buy a £400 graphics card and expect it to run Crysis like it would a Q3 time demo.
 
Spektor said:
Read the interviews from 6 months before the game was released, they said it wouldn't run on the highest settings with decent framerates for years and was developed to scale for years beyond that.

They told people repeatedly before the game was ever released that it was going to make their humble PCs look silly even for years to come, but still people go out, buy a £400 graphics card and expect it to run Crysis like it would a Q3 time demo.
Click to expand...

Do you really believe that developers can make a game on current hardware intended to scale for years at the rate performance is advancing? I believe they intended to make it scaleable for the near future, but I also believe that the engine just isn't as efficient as it could be, and I believe that less time was spent on optimisation than was spent pumping out the best visuals possible on a top-end system.
 
Richdog said:
Do you really believe that developers can make a game on current hardware intended to scale for years at the rate performance is advancing? I believe they intended to make it scaleable for the near future, but I also believe that the engine just isn't as efficient as it could be, and I believe that less time was spent on optimisation than was spent pumping out the best visuals possible on a top-end system.
Click to expand...



nod2.gif
 
Richdog said:
Do you really believe that developers can make a game on current hardware intended to scale for years at the rate performance is advancing? I believe they intended to make it scaleable for the near future, but I also believe that the engine just isn't as efficient as it could be, and I believe that less time was spent on optimisation than was spent pumping out the best visuals possible on a top-end system.
Click to expand...

Yes I do, as they did... whether or not they got too ambitious with it and whether or not they should have even done it at all, they still did it. Plus developers like crytek who work closely with people such as Nvidia are kept in the loop to their roadmaps and expected performance of upcoming products for several years down the line, they don't just read a review on anandtech and go make a game based upon that.

Whether the engine is efficient as it could be? well no engine is... saying its badly coded is completely different to it lacking a bit of optimisation. They intended High to be the playable setting on release with Crysis with the top hardware around and they intend Very High to do it this time around and imo they have delivered on that, but some people still seem to think that for this to be true you have to play with some unholy resolution with full AA / AF all on very high and still be cranking out 100fps.
 
Last edited:
Just look at farcry

Barely playable on relase with a 9800pro on high at 1280res at release

it wasn't until the 6800 series we got good speeds

and it wasn't until the 7800 series could it be fully maxed out with SM3 and 64bit extensions, etc

sid
 
Actually Farcry2 that new trailor that appeared last week in HD... looks awesome, cant recall the link though think on ign webby.

I thought that looked pretty good and the way the enviroment and people react and fall over looks better then crysis in a lot of ways.

Anyhow I hope the the Retail copy of Warhammer is optimised big time for dual/quad cores and even better for the newer 4800+/260+ range cards.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom