Crytek claims that..

Gerard

Gerard

Gerard

Caporegime
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
40,403
Location
Ireland
Optimizations made to Crytek's CryENGINE 2 will allow the upcoming sci-fi shooter follow up Crysis Warhead to run smoothly with high detail settings on cheap PCs
Click to expand...



it gets even better:




Despite having stopped patch support for the original Crysis (PC), Yerli said these optimizations could eventually make their to the first game. "That will take a long time, because the fixes are fairly profound," he noted. "We are still in the process of the steps, but first we want to conclude Warhead."
Click to expand...


Does that to anyone else read like "we borked the first engine and are now thinking about fixing it"? "fairly profound fixes" aka major code rewrite.

http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/53217


Dont think this has been posted, if it has then :(
 
No its new and thanks but we heard all the same BS before the 1st game launched, eg 8800GTS Very high at 1600's and more powerful hardware (guessing that was a 8800GTX/Ultra) for very High at 1920's. ;)
 
we borked the first engine and are now thinking about fixing it
Click to expand...

made me laugh :D
i wont say that crysis singleplayer in general is bad, because when the videos was made for crysis way befor the game came out it was like omg look at them graphics, but by the time it had come out other games in the world had caught up in the graphics department and crysis just seemed like a game with better than average graphics for too much fps loss, but now i think it actually doesnt look that good? :S The graphics just arent brilliant, it had a lot of detail but not enough to look realistic and too much for it to look like a good game. Its in the middle of saying its good and stuff it imo if that makes sence :P

They should concentrate more on optimisations aswell as better LOD and for AA to not kill you and for the jungle to be more detailed but not over detailed and more life like rather than just getting a paint brush and just painting aload of trees here and there which makes everything look repeated like a background of whacky races cartoon where the background repeats its self :P
 
They suck for dropping support for the original Crysis and making a dumbed down console version sequel.
I'm wondering how they're going to make warhead run on the 7900's and x1800xt's... I bet it'll look stupid :mad:.
 
snowdog said:
They suck for dropping support for the original Crysis and making a dumbed down console version sequel.
I'm wondering how they're going to make warhead run on the 7900's and x1800xt's... I bet it'll look stupid :mad:.
Click to expand...

Warhead isn't going to consoles.
 
Am I the only one who thought Crysis ran quite respectably for what it was doing?

I still believe that, which makes this new statement confusing. I do hope the new High wont be the old medium. The patching Crysis part just baffles me though. I think I just don't believe them :p

IceShock said:
i wont say that crysis singleplayer in general is bad, because when the videos was made for crysis way befor the game came out it was like omg look at them graphics, but by the time it had come out other games in the world had caught up in the graphics department and crysis just seemed like a game with better than average graphics for too much fps loss, but now i think it actually doesnt look that good? :S The graphics just arent brilliant, it had a lot of detail but not enough to look realistic and too much for it to look like a good game. Its in the middle of saying its good and stuff it imo if that makes sence :P
Click to expand...

Nothing was even close to what Crysis pulled off and it remains that way still. Perhaps you have become desensitised! Frame rate and gameplay aside, Crysis is an absolute feast for the eyes.
 
Last edited:
snowdog said:
I thought they did, not only do I think I read it's being made for consoles too somewhere, I also remember an article where they said they'll never make a pc exclusive again.
Click to expand...

This is the last PC exclusive game they'll be making. They did spit their dummy over piracy and say they wouldn't do another PC exclusive. I think Cervat forgot this game was coming out, so they had to back track a little, and say this is the last PC exclusive, and it has nothing to do with piracy.
 
For all cryteks hype so far theyve really done nothing but produced 2 tech demos.

Farcry was an ok game that looked good, Crysis was an ok game that looked good. Nothing really has ever came from the 2 games in terms of conversion mods, and both games multiplayer component were pretty basic, Crysis obviously improved on Farcrys but thats not saying much.


As of typing this gamespy says the following about Crysis.

328 servers, 351 players


The big selling point for Crysis was obviously the graphics...well the graphics that they showed in the vids that never really materialised into the game without modding the hell out of it's even then its touch and go if they look the same as the vids.


Lets face it, the only reason people remember Farcry as much was it was involved a lot in games benchmarks when new cards were coming out and for a time was one of the standard ways of measuring a new card. Same way Crysis will go imo, good graphics but really an unremarkable game.
 
Gerard said:
Lets face it, the only reason people remember Farcry as much was it was involved a lot in games benchmarks when new cards were coming out and for a time was one of the standard ways of measuring a new card. Same way Crysis will go imo, good graphics but really an unremarkable game.
Click to expand...

I disagree.
Farcry has one of the best gameplay of all games, crysis has not.
I consider farcry a far more enjoyable shooter than most, in fact, it's in my top 3 sp shooters of all time: Far Cry, Half Life 2, CoD: UO.
If there's any 3 games for single player I would have to pick, it'd be these 3.

Crysis is just too open for me I'm afraid.
 
snowdog said:
I disagree.
Farcry has one of the best gameplay of all games, crysis has not.
I consider farcry a far more enjoyable shooter than most, in fact, it's in my top 3 sp shooters of all time: Far Cry, Half Life 2, CoD: UO.
If there's any 3 games for single player I would have to pick, it'd be these 3.

Crysis is just too open for me I'm afraid.
Click to expand...

Farcry was a pretty cack game overall i found, was the bog standard enemies with super accurate smg's at stupid ranges. Crawling slowly through the grass they would more often than not spot you. The ai was also totally dumb, on a few occasions ive been able to walk upto an enemy and just beat him with the knife a few times with them not trying to shoot me. Few instances they were stuck running against trees

Voice acting was also crap, enemies shouting retarded things like "im gonna lay the smackdown on you", or "im gonna shoot you in da head". Talk about ruining the immersion factor, suppose thats what you get when the budget goes towards graphics and only graphics, the janitor had to do voice acting apparently.


The big downfall that pretty much everyone mentions was introducig the trigens, more often than not people talking about the game will say once they were introduced they lost interest.
 
Gerard said:
The ai was also totally dumb, on a few occasions ive been able to walk upto an enemy and just beat him with the knife a few times with them not trying to shoot me. Few instances they were stuck running against trees.
Click to expand...

That's not "dumb" AI, that's called a "bug"
 
Ahh I see finally blaming something other than PC piracy for the mediocre sales of Crysis. I certainly didn't buy it based on the specs alone. At the time my 7900GT probably could have handled it at medium settings but I really don't like playing games that are set to anything but high or full settings.

Kudos to them, if Warhead can run well on slightly more modest hardware, I'm all for it. Although tbh Far Cry 2 looks way more fun.
 
Cant find the news article right now but I read this a couple days ago and he said it (Warhead) and I qoute "would run at 25-30 fps on a 379 Euro PC" hahahahahah yeah maybe but at 320x240 resolution. Also I will believe it when I see it they said similar things before Crysis was launched and that all turned out to be complete Bull. Yet more hype.

Cheers,
Hugest
 
Gerard said:
For all cryteks hype so far theyve really done nothing but produced 2 tech demos.

Farcry was an ok game that looked good, Crysis was an ok game that looked good. Nothing really has ever came from the 2 games in terms of conversion mods, and both games multiplayer component were pretty basic, Crysis obviously improved on Farcrys but thats not saying much.


As of typing this gamespy says the following about Crysis.

328 servers, 351 players


The big selling point for Crysis was obviously the graphics...well the graphics that they showed in the vids that never really materialised into the game without modding the hell out of it's even then its touch and go if they look the same as the vids.


Lets face it, the only reason people remember Farcry as much was it was involved a lot in games benchmarks when new cards were coming out and for a time was one of the standard ways of measuring a new card. Same way Crysis will go imo, good graphics but really an unremarkable game.
Click to expand...

You're right. I think ID were the same with Doom 3. Unremarkable games hyped to the max because of their graphics. Yawn.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom