crysis 2 - Over the top spec yet again?

Crytek are developing Crysis 2 for consoles and PC separately, so the PC version isn't a console port at all.

The performance looks to be really good as well while looking great.

Crysis 2 was shown off on a 5870 (or possibly 2?) running across 3 2560x1600 monitors with smooth FPS just before the 5800s were released.
 
I doubt it will be as demanding as the original Crysis, especially if consoles are getting it.
 
I'd love them to put something really tongue in cheek instead of a proper system spec for the top graphic settings.

Instead of something like

4ghz I7
12gb RAM
20gb Hdd space
5870 crossfire

etc

could just put

Max graphics settings:

Skynet :D
 
synixx said:
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
Click to expand...

HA well if that's true then I hope they can go back and reconfigure the original cryengine as my 280 still gets raped by the first crysis.
 
After watching a few vids it would seem the Xbox 360 and PS3 CryEngine3 is similar to CryEngine2 on a PC in medium setting!

Proper PC CryEngine3 in max settings will be awesome


In this video I personally think medium setting on PC using CryEngine 2 looks better than CryEngine 3 on console. Think its time for the release of PS4 and Xbox 1080?!
 
i cannot wait for the crysis 2 game.

the crysis 1 and warhead [although short] are one of my all time fav games, trying the system on max settings and even my i7 and 5850 just grinds to a complete halt, but you can see the detail

i find it just plain FUN to play, the suit modes open up so much scope. i play it again and again, not many games i do that with

with this comp i can play it on high with 4x aa and shaders on ultra and its fas, wixh i could justify cost of another gfx card, but i know it would be just for that game lol

i hope its as pc friendly as the first, my 7 button mouse is used to full effect on it, grenade, suit mode, reload, fire, alt-fire, binocs, interact, havent had to do that in any other game!

already have my credit card vouchers allocateed to it!
 
I booted up Crysis again after originally playing on a 8800GTS 320 at launch and now using a 275GTX.. it is amazing.. even now.. a truly remarkable engine.

I personally can't wait for Crysis 2, and will be getting it on PC if that's what will look best for me.
 
gord said:
I booted up Crysis again after originally playing on a 8800GTS 320 at launch and now using a 275GTX.. it is amazing.. even now.. a truly remarkable engine.

I personally can't wait for Crysis 2, and will be getting it on PC if that's what will look best for me.
Click to expand...

i was using a laptop 7950 gtx originally
 
gord said:
I booted up Crysis again after originally playing on a 8800GTS 320 at launch and now using a 275GTX.. it is amazing.. even now.. a truly remarkable engine.

I personally can't wait for Crysis 2, and will be getting it on PC if that's what will look best for me.
Click to expand...

Quite a similar story here as well. Played the demo on my 8800GT but it was abit too slow for me as the rest of my system wasnt that great so I put off buying the full game. Later I got warhead which worked a lot better and loved it.

When I got my i7/5870 system one of the first games I got was crysis with the sole intention of seeing it through. Loved it, really involving game, good flowing storyline and really nice controls, weapons and suit dynamics. Visuals on some of the sections of the game look utterly believable as well and the best example which comes to mind is the inside of the alien ship where your floating through the tunnels. Mindblowing effects!
 
Streeteh said:
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.
Click to expand...

The thing about Recommended specs though is that since the dawn of time they have been highly unrealistic - my rule of thumb is to add 50% power to the recommended specs, and that is the true MIN spec if you want decent performance! Crysis min spec is a 2.2ghz C2D with 8800GTS-640, so your system just barely made it to that level, and obviously I don't know what your native resolution was.

Now, I'm not saying Crysis performs great. It doesn't. What I am saying, however, is that it was no secret that the very high / max settings were never intended to be used on 2007 rigs.

Also, the proof of the pudding tends to be in the eating when it comes to performance, I take everything developers say with a pinch of salt. Supposedly Doom 3 was going to run great on a GF3-ti500, but the reality was nowhere close when it actually came out, you were talking a 9700pro at the very least. So yeah, as for a GTX260 'eating CryEngine 3 for breakfast', I wouldn't hold your breath :)
 
Last edited:
HangTime said:
The thing about Recommended specs though is that since the dawn of time they have been highly unrealistic - my rule of thumb is to add 50% power to the recommended specs, and that is the true MIN spec if you want decent performance! Crysis min spec is a 2.2ghz C2D with 8800GTS-640, so your system just barely made it to that level, and obviously I don't know what your native resolution was.

Now, I'm not saying Crysis performs great. It doesn't. What I am saying, however, is that it was no secret that the very high / max settings were never intended to be used on 2007 rigs.

Also, the proof of the pudding tends to be in the eating when it comes to performance, I take everything developers say with a pinch of salt. Supposedly Doom 3 was going to run great on a GF3-ti500, but the reality was nowhere close when it actually came out, you were talking a 9700pro at the very least. So yeah, as for a GTX260 'eating CryEngine 3 for breakfast', I wouldn't hold your breath :)
Click to expand...

Suppose it depends on what resolution you actually game at though. The recommended specs would probably be spot on at 1024x768 but who the hell plays games at that res lol. I've noticed since crysis was released, the monitor market seemed to boom with larger, better and more importantly, cheaper monitors hitting the market making peoples native resolution naturally get higher and higher.

Can use the same justification when it comes to metro 2033 as the recommended specs are mentally high for more players but as long as your not attempting over 1920x1080 you can limp along on very high if you disable tes and DOF.

If I played it at say 1280x1024 I could probably enable both and still have it playable for instance.

The point basically being, I really don't think games producers take resolution into account :P
 
HangTime said:
Crysis min spec is a 2.2ghz C2D with 8800GTS-640, so your system just barely made it to that level, and obviously I don't know what your native resolution was.
Click to expand...

Those specs aren't correct, or at least they aren't what EA claim the requirements are:

Taken directly from the EA website:

Minimum requirements:
Pentium 4 @ 2.8ghz (or 3.2 in vista)
1GB of ram
Nvidia 6800GT/ATI 9800 pro

My specs far, far exceeded a P4 and an old (considered old even when Crysis was released) DX9 card. I agree that developers often exaggerate the efficiency of their engine but Crytek took the mick, the game would barely run on low settings with those specs, let alone run with a playable framerate. I originally attempted to play the game with my dual core CPU, 2 gigs of ram and a 7800GTX, which by far outstripped the minimum requirements, but had to play the game at 1366×768 (native res of my HDTV, i didn't play it on my monitor in the end as the HDTV looked better at a lower res) on mostly low settings and the framerate was still abysmal as soon as ice appeared. I ended up having to double the ram and upgrade the GFX card to an 8800GT (which exceeded the recommended specs, so i'd assumed it would be much better) but i only got to 1366×768 with a blend of medium and high settings to get a playable framerate.
 
Last edited:
A lot of people seem to think that the actual programmers have a say as to what the minimum specs on the back of the box are.

At the end of the day, it's the publishers and marketing people who will kick out those numbers - if it runs on what they say, then that's the minimum spec. The lower those specs, the more people will think "my PC can run that", resulting in the publisher getting more sales.
 
FlukeRogi said:
A lot of people seem to think that the actual programmers have a say as to what the minimum specs on the back of the box are.

At the end of the day, it's the publishers and marketing people who will kick out those numbers - if it runs on what they say, then that's the minimum spec. The lower those specs, the more people will think "my PC can run that", resulting in the publisher getting more sales.
Click to expand...

Again this is usually true, however i recall one of the lead devs at Crytek claiming that the game would run on maximum settings with a 8800GTX 640, this was far from true. Whether he was having his arm twisted by EA into saying that, he truly believed it or he was lying through his teeth to increase sales is anyone's guess however.
 
Streeteh said:
Those specs aren't correct, or at least they aren't what EA claim the requirements are:

Taken directly from the EA website:

Minimum requirements:
Pentium 4 @ 2.8ghz (or 3.2 in vista)
1GB of ram
Nvidia 6800GT/ATI 9800 pro
Click to expand...

I believe those are outdated specs (publisher obviously hasn't updated their website in all areas, can't really blame the developer for that). If you look at the official news posting confirming the specs prior to the game being released, they are as follows (see http://games.ea.com/crysis/components/news_item.jsp?curPage=18&newsId=rigready )

Recommended System Requirements

OS - Windows XP / Vista

Processor - Intel Core 2 DUO @ 2.2GHz or AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+

Memory - 2.0 GB RAM

GPU - NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTS/640 or similar
Click to expand...

Personally as I intimated in my earlier post, I think it pretty much a waste of time looking at so-called min/rec specs released while a game is under development, it's better to wait until the last minute (and better still, wait under third party sites have released benchmarks). Personally, I didn't bother getting Crysis when I had a 8800GTS, I waited until I got my GTX280 (September 2008) before buying it.
 
They aren't outdated, they're the minimum requirements and were as such when the game was released. What you've posted are the recommended requirements, in the link you've posted it even lists the minimum requirements i posted previously. The minimum requirements are supposed to reflect the bare minimum required to play the game, whereas those listed for Crysis weren't actually playable, especially in the latter ice levels.

All i'm saying is, if Crytek/the publisher/Jesus hadn't put such hugely inaccurate minimum requirements on the box, people wouldn't have complained so much. Publishers nearly always slightly exaggerate the efficiency of their engine and this is reflected in the requirements on the box, but never have i seen specs so wildly inaccurate as were listed for Crysis.
 
Last edited:
Apologies, for some reason in my earlier post I said "min spec" when I meant to say Recommended (in line with the rest of my post!).
Your earlier post said
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.
Click to expand...

so the point I was trying to make is that your system (dual core with 8800GT) just barely made the recommended spec, it wasn't as though you had something vastly more powerful.

never have i seen specs so wildly inaccurate as were listed for Crysis.
Click to expand...

Quake 2: P90 (P133 rec) with 16MB RAM
^an absolute joke, even at 320x240 it really struggled on a system that slow. Heck, even the performance delivered by a P233MMX would likely be viewed as unacceptable by today's standards (a quick google suggests 12.6fps average at 512x384 with sound disabled).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom