Do you think crysis 2 will once again have an over the top spec requirments like the first? Most of the people who i know who bought the first one used it more as a benchmark program than a game, do you think they will have lernt there lesson? Or do you think crysis 2 will still be getting 35FPS on high end pcs in 4-5 years time... (like the first)
crysis 2 - Over the top spec yet again?
- Thread starter adamknox
- Start date
Well its multiplatform release this time around, so if the game is being designed with consoles in mind I cant see the pc version being half as demanding as the first game (at least at console-equivalent config settings), obviously pc gamers will want to instantly move all the sliders to the right though to get it looking much better than the console versions, but even so I'd expect it to perform much better than the original game. Then again it could be another gta4 and we could end up with a shoddy port, but I dont expect that will be the case.
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 2,815
- Location
- Staffordshire
this
Its been dubbed as the best looking pc game of all time, lets see if it lives upto that lol.
source.
http://www.techspot.com/news/38428-crytek-crysis-2-has-the-best-graphics-youve-ever-seen.html
source.
http://www.techspot.com/news/38428-crytek-crysis-2-has-the-best-graphics-youve-ever-seen.html
I don't think there is a lesson to learn and they knew perfectly well what they were doing. The game was meant to push the boundaries of the platform and be used as a benchmark (not just in the literal but visual sense). Game is pushing 2.5 years now and still arguably the best looking of them all.
Associate
- Joined
- 9 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 531
- Location
- York
I guess Nvidia and ATI are hoping something will be released that pushes systems to the limit or it will be pointless upgrading your graphics card every 6 months, lol. Bad Company 2 seems to be quite intencive with all the distructable terrain, my i7 920 at 3.5 and 4870x2 were put at medium settings by default which still looks really good.
Hopefully it'll be very demanding and really pushing the envelope, something that will run on medium settings at best (whilst looking gorgeous of course) on modern hardware and then look even better in 2013 as we upgrade and get a chance to push the settings a little higher.
To be honest the only 'lesson to be learnt' for Crytek really is that maybe they should rebadge their settings and disable the highest ones until a future patch. So whatever they have as 'Medium' should be labelled "High". Whatever is 'Low' should be labelled "Medium", and 'Very Low' should be labelled "Low". Any 'High'/'Very High' settings switched off and then enabled in a couple of years. A bit like the enhancements we saw for the original Far Cry (adding SM3.0, HDR, 64bit etc).
The reason this would be a lesson they could learn is because it might shutup all the people whinging about how they've spent $9999999 on a new computer and can't run the game 'maxed out'. Completely oblivious to the fact that on medium settings the game looks better than most other games 'maxed out'.
It would be bad for normal people of course who want total control over their settings and are quite happy running the game at medium on their highend rig, but they are probably less damaging when it comes to publicity.
To be honest the only 'lesson to be learnt' for Crytek really is that maybe they should rebadge their settings and disable the highest ones until a future patch. So whatever they have as 'Medium' should be labelled "High". Whatever is 'Low' should be labelled "Medium", and 'Very Low' should be labelled "Low". Any 'High'/'Very High' settings switched off and then enabled in a couple of years. A bit like the enhancements we saw for the original Far Cry (adding SM3.0, HDR, 64bit etc).
The reason this would be a lesson they could learn is because it might shutup all the people whinging about how they've spent $9999999 on a new computer and can't run the game 'maxed out'. Completely oblivious to the fact that on medium settings the game looks better than most other games 'maxed out'.
It would be bad for normal people of course who want total control over their settings and are quite happy running the game at medium on their highend rig, but they are probably less damaging when it comes to publicity.
Just found this. If you skip to 21:50 a member of the audience asks the guy about the development hardware requirements for the cryengine 3 and he says that the nvidia 260/280's are "eating the engine for breakfast".
http://nvidia.fullviewmedia.com/gdc2010/14-sean-tracy.html
http://nvidia.fullviewmedia.com/gdc2010/14-sean-tracy.html
Exactly, really annoys me when people complain about this.
The main reason most of these people were complaining was because Crytek lied about the recommended requirements.
For example my computer, while relatively modest (dual core, 4 gigs of ram, 8800GT) at the time, apparently exceeded the recommended requirements for the game. When i actually ran it i couldn't get past medium settings, not even at my native res, before it became a slide show. Computers that equalled the minimum requirements apparently couldn't even run the game properly at low settings without incredibly poor framerates in certain scenes.
If crytek had actually been honest and printed on the box specs that really did reflect the requirement, perhaps people wouldn't have been so surprised.
On topic: I'd wager that Crysis 2 will be less demanding and in turn not as impressive as its predecessor, which is a bad thing.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Dec 2006
- Posts
- 9,262
- Location
- Saudi Arabia né Donegal
This seems to be the way with nearly all gaming companies. I can't remember the last time I actually looked at the recommended specs on a game and believed them. Ultimately it's going to come down to what resolution the games running at anyways and I've a funny feeling most recommended specs are based on an 800x600 resolution.
I would tend to agree, but i couldn't even run the game on high at that res without issues (the CPU was the major bottleneck, again it exceeded the recommended specs before anyone says 'i should have known better') so they really exaggerated the efficiency of their engine. It's a shame, as it was an utter marvel even on medium, the engine was tainted by the number of people complaining about how demanding it was which i reiterate was likely fuelled by the incredibly inaccurate requirements printed on the box.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 May 2006
- Posts
- 5,786
'Console port'
Soon as anyone has the smallest problem with this game, you can bet that they'll be shouting the above term from every rooftop they can find ... despite having no knowledge of computer games development or what a console port really is.
They couldn't do it with Crysis, but since Crysis 2 is going to be multiplatform, it's almost guaranteed now.
Soon as anyone has the smallest problem with this game, you can bet that they'll be shouting the above term from every rooftop they can find ... despite having no knowledge of computer games development or what a console port really is.
They couldn't do it with Crysis, but since Crysis 2 is going to be multiplatform, it's almost guaranteed now.
Indeed, and all the problems that people had with launching and stability in Crysis will be completely forgotten.
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
The problem with designing for the future is that when the future arrives, nobody cares.
I completed Crysis in 2007. I have no desire to play it again having done this. Therefore the fact it might look awesome on my next graphics card is of absolutely no interest to me.
I completed Crysis in 2007. I have no desire to play it again having done this. Therefore the fact it might look awesome on my next graphics card is of absolutely no interest to me.
[TW]Fox;16297937 said:
Crytek did say from the start that their main goal was to create an engine which other devs can use. They wanted to have the nicest looking engine out there. They arguably succeeded. It's just a pity that few games use their engine, I'm not sure why they don't, I've used the tools and they are among the best out there. Probably the main reason was that it was PC based, hence their reasoning for cryengine 3 being cross-platform and making that as easy as possible.
Crysis was a tech-demo, Crysis 2 will be no different. I'm not saying they won't be good games but they will be primarily based on showing off graphical effects among the other engine goodies.