Crysis and its graphics....

Soldato
Joined
26 Jan 2006
Posts
11,525
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?
 

sid

sid

Soldato
Joined
9 Feb 2003
Posts
5,178
Location
London
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
 
Associate
Joined
31 May 2006
Posts
1,132
Location
Cheshire
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.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
25 Oct 2002
Posts
30,271
Location
Hampshire
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.
 

v0n

v0n

Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
8,129
Location
The Great Lines Of Defence
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).
 
Soldato
Joined
9 Jul 2008
Posts
3,891
Location
Bristol
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
 
Soldato
Joined
28 Oct 2002
Posts
9,227
Location
Stockport / Manchester
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

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.
 
Soldato
Joined
1 Sep 2007
Posts
5,312
Location
Santa Monica, California
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).
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Jan 2007
Posts
19,751
Location
Land of the Scots
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.
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.
 
Soldato
Joined
28 Oct 2002
Posts
9,227
Location
Stockport / Manchester
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.

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
 

J.B

J.B

Soldato
Joined
16 Aug 2006
Posts
5,922
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.
 
Soldato
Joined
3 Feb 2008
Posts
5,460
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...)
 
Soldato
Joined
26 Dec 2005
Posts
15,563
Location
Paisley
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.
 
Top