Crysis and its graphics....

cu3ed

cu3ed

cu3ed

Soldato
Joined
26 Jan 2006
Posts
12,555
Location
Belfast
Just how is it so far ahead (as it would seem?)

Was playing on a mates mac (now I know it cant run it on full but still looked amazing)

Just how come they have pushed the envelope so far ahead of the game?

Was it just the developers getting it right? putting the time in?

Or as my friend suggested, that the engine they created to run it will be a big mpney spinner for them as they sell it to other developers?
 
Well they haven't sold it to anyone else.

the problem with it is that performance is poor even on the best of setups so its viable to make games on it atm.

Perhaps 2 more years

sid
 
I was mildly disappointed with the graphics and engine as it didn't seem to live up to all the hype.

Yes it is a large step further than what other games can produce but they could have made it so much better.

The "fully destructible terrain" only covers some of the trees featured and not all. The vegetation looks awfully 1D most the time, and other small things like the ground tyre marks not looking 3D and the bullet cartridges not staying around. And then what is up with the tyre shots making the tyre fully disappear.

From a distance its looks great, and I must say the water features and sound effects are fabulous.
 
It's quite strange really as Crytek don't really seem to have exploited their engine license much - Far Cry has a great engine but that never got used by other developers. Compared to the likes of id and epic who must have made a fortune out of their engines over the last 10 years.
 
But then again, Steam failed to sell their engine to masses for years as well. Lost Coast still looks like one of the best demos of engines ever and we can all agree it's one of the most modable engines as well, but it took ages before first games from licensees appeared.

Crytek failed to flog their original as well considering the only managed to license out original cryengine for the first time this year (Aion).
 
it is an advanced engine, and the funny thing is, they are getting us idiots to buy the game and test it for them!

They have now found out only super Systems can run it, and they will still be ussing the engine in a few years with tweaks to make it better
 
sid said:
Well they haven't sold it to anyone else.

the problem with it is that performance is poor even on the best of setups so its viable to make games on it atm.

Perhaps 2 more years

sid
Click to expand...

They have sold it to quite a few organisations, though most of them don't intend to use it for games. Think along the lines of medical modelling and research etc.
 
Am I the only one that gets good performance on Crysis? All I did was have textures at medium everything else on high and I get 40fps+ Very slick and smooth. Most enjoyable.

That's with a 2 year old PC ([email protected], 4Gb Ram, 8800 GTS 640mb SLI and Vista 64).
 
Pilky01 said:
DX9 or 10?

What res?

AA?
Click to expand...

Trying to remember here, I am not at home so cant check all the settings.

1680x1050 (22" native res?), 32bit executable (important! the 64bit version is slooowww..) I *think* it is with 4xAA.
 
HangTime said:
It's quite strange really as Crytek don't really seem to have exploited their engine license much - Far Cry has a great engine but that never got used by other developers. Compared to the likes of id and epic who must have made a fortune out of their engines over the last 10 years.
Click to expand...
There is at least 1!

Maybe no one wanted to buy it... Which I couldn't imagine, I am very surprised more games didn't use the engine as Far Cry was basically a tech demo.
 
JBod said:
Trying to remember here, I am not at home so cant check all the settings.

1680x1050 (22" native res?), 32bit executable (important! the 64bit version is slooowww..) I *think* it is with 4xAA.
Click to expand...

I found the 64-bit version to give up to a 20% performance increase depending on the situation. DX9 of course! Granted that is only like 5FPS but still haha
 
I bought it along with my GTX260, the GTX is the XXX version so comes OC'd. Ran it on very high at 1680x1050. Must say I was impressed, found the game itself a bit boring and ended upruptly but the graphics where very good and the environment was deffently the next step along.

I played CoD4 today after shelving it for a while, the environment just seems very blocky and static now.
 
All Crysis needed was a custom config and the user willing to sacarifice dropping the res below native. I played on a single 8800GT @ 1440 x 900 (Native is 1920 x 1200) with a custom config that to my eyes looked every bit as good as Very High, and it was more than playable.

8800GT SLI made the game an even more enjoyable experience, and my single gtx260 feels the same as my SLI setup.

The good thing is, Crysis on Very High isn't the limit of the actual engine, just the game. It can and will get better as time goes on. I can't wait to see what it looks like in 2 years with that gen hardware. (2 years sounds long, but remember HL2 was released almost 4 years ago now...)
 
I personally think Dead Space 2 and Far Cry 2 look better, although i do place things higher when they are running at a smooth and constant frame rate, just makes it all seem flashier and shiny somehow.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom