crysis and ut3 tanking?
- Thread starter Gerard
- Start date
This is so true - when I see how well even Valve's latest games run on my 4 year old system, I'm still amazed. People give out about how long they take to release stuff, but it must be so well coded that I'd rather wait than have something like Crysis that just doesn't work properly.
No, that's the whole problem I have with Crysis, it does not run well on a GTX. Even after you drop down from Highest to High settings it's ok-ish at first but then it becomes jerky - on a high-end card! Awfully low FPS. I had to tell my brother not to buy it 'cos it just won't run on his system.
Crysis looks amazing, and I'll finish it when it's fixed but if it doesn't run well on a high end system then something is seriously wrong with it. Has anyone tried it on a mid-range system?
My system:
E6400 @ stock
2Gb PC 6400
Abit IP35 Pro
PNY 8800 GTS 512
17" Dell @ 1280/1024.
I play crysis with everything set at high, and I still get 60fps+ all the time.
:/
The PNY card is new, so that was £200. I don't agree you need to spend £1500 to play these games.. more like £500 if you have components you can carry over.
E6400 @ stock
2Gb PC 6400
Abit IP35 Pro
PNY 8800 GTS 512
17" Dell @ 1280/1024.
I play crysis with everything set at high, and I still get 60fps+ all the time.
:/
The PNY card is new, so that was £200. I don't agree you need to spend £1500 to play these games.. more like £500 if you have components you can carry over.
Crysis works just fine, what game are you playing?
Or are you just bitter it won't run maxed on your 8800GTX?
Crysis. Yes, I'm dissatisfied it won't run at High settings on a high-end card. It looks amazingly beautiful but it performs poorly.
Surely you've not been living under a rock. Crytek and games sites were saying for ages that it won't run maxed for a year or two, since it's designed to scale with future hardware.
Personally I'm glad. It looks fantastic on all high and when the hardware catches up it'll look even more fantastic on all very high. All this means to me is that the game lasts longer and I get my money's worth out of it.
P.S. If it doesn't run at "all high" on your GTX, there's something wrong with your system. It ran just fine on all high plus antialiasing on my GTX, and runs just fine on all high without antialiasing on my GT.
No, 'Highest' settings are for future hardware, 'High' should work now, but doesn't appear to work properly throughout the game, not just on my system but in all the reviews and on all of my friends' systems. The 'maxed' you said refers to 'Highest' settings, whereas I said 'High' settings.
Are you saying you can get 60 fps on all High settings plus antialiasing on all the last levels of Crysis on a GTX? How do you do that? I haven't tried the latest beta drivers because I heard the improvements were not that great.
No, I'm saying I get 30-60fps on all high settings. Not 60fps.
This is also without antialiasing on my GT but with antialiasing when I had a GTX. Crysis is just one of those games where you have to compromise a bit to make it look good.
If you want to run it at a constant 60fps or higher then you're going to have to turn stuff down, hardware isn't going to be up to that for a while (by design, not by fault).
Last edited:
Yeah, that's what I thought so that's why I'm leaving it for a while. I really just want to play it in all its glory, not with settings turned down. Luckily there's loads of other great games out at the moment.
Actually I played Far Cry again just before Crysis came out and playing it on all highest settings was a joy, even after all this time.
Yeah I have no issue with that at all, infact I agree with you there.
Only thing that bugged me was the way you said it's not working properly, when it is.
It does work properly, you just dont have the power to run it. Simple as that. Comparing the Source engine to CryEngine2 is a complete waste of time - they are totally different.
And that is where I have an issue with people proclaiming it as such a fantastic engine. One where you have to compromise is not a great engine.
I don't buy into the whole 'future scaling' stuff either. There are two ways of looking at that, it's either so Crytek have an engine to sell in a few years or because they've taken shortcuts and made an excuse as to why it won't run well on current top end hardware.
I know which I believe to be true, when taking into consideration they've made no effort at all to get it to scale.
But it's still slower so what's your point?
If it's not a fantastic engine then name me one engine that has demonstrated better visuals and environments than Crysis. The fact is that it's currently one of the best, if not the best looking game ever made.
Yes there are engines out there that can generate great visuals and environments with little or no compromise, obviously the Source engine being the prime example, but some people seem to have short memories and forget that the Source engine is four years old and that Half Life 2 certainly did not run at 60fps, maxed out with antialiasing, on the hardware of the time. Nothing but a case of rose-tinted glasses and nonsense.
That's a moot point as Far Cry was the same and they didn't sell CryEngine to other developers.
As for them taking shortcuts, that's a claim which is nothing but speculation on your part.
It does scale. It has a very broad range of graphics options that allow it to run on older and/or less powerful hardware by compromising on visuals, and it has graphics options that require hardware even more powerful than we have today. That's scaling, so I don't see how you can say "they've made no effort to get it to scale."
Personally I think there's no issue here except personal grudging. It doesn't run maxed out on your hardware and you're bitter about it, whereas some of us have no quarrel with just running games at settings that our hardware can actually handle and anticipating the game looking much better in the future. Common sense really.
I'm not even a hard core fan of the game. There's a couple of games I'm playing right now that have totally diverted my attention away from Crysis, which says a lot to me, but even I can see the technical superiority.
Last edited:
No I don't think it is that simple, there are other possiblilities that you've left out such as that the game is not fully optimised. It is possible that the engine was not developed as effieciently as it could have been.
Now I'm sure our benefactors at EA would never dream of rushing a game out in time for, say, Christmas sales, but it is likely that the game could perform better than it does at present, and no doubt it will in the future, on the same hardware.
What I mean by doesn't scale is the fact that, taking source as an example, on old hardware it still looked pretty good. Crysis/UT3 on old hardware look appalling, worse than a 'regular' engine would on the same hardware.
Show me another game that looks as bad as UT3 does on that 7600GS?
I have no issue with it not running maxed on my hardware, it's an X800XL, it's never going to run a new game maxed out, hell, it could barely run games three years ago maxed out.
There is technical superiority in that it looks astounding but there is no doubt in my mind that someone else could have easily developed something just as good looking but less demanding on hardware. Though saying that, Unreal was always a good engine and look what they've done to that :/
Show me another game that looks as bad as UT3 does on that 7600GS?
I have no issue with it not running maxed on my hardware, it's an X800XL, it's never going to run a new game maxed out, hell, it could barely run games three years ago maxed out.
There is technical superiority in that it looks astounding but there is no doubt in my mind that someone else could have easily developed something just as good looking but less demanding on hardware. Though saying that, Unreal was always a good engine and look what they've done to that :/
What you're saying could be applied to any game ever made. No game can ever be coded with 100% efficiency and they all have deadlines and budgets to meet, it's a fact of life and you're asking far too much.
Source: Designed for past and present. Crysis: Designed for present and future.
It's obvious a game designed for future hardware is going to look worse on old hardware. Also, need I ask you to take off those rose-tinted glasses again and keep in mind how many times Half Life 2 was delayed?
So you're saying because it looks crap on hardware that, by current standards, is totally crap then it's a bad engine? I suggest you buy an Xbox 360, PC gaming is not for you at all.
Like Rezident you are focusing on the small picture. In a perfect world with unlimited time constraints, unlimited budget constraints, and coders with unlimited talent you probably could make a 100%-optimised game.
They also say that given an infinite amount of time monkeys with typewriters could write the complete works of Shakespeare, doesn't mean we need to do it for the sake of improving the quality of literature.
I take you have looked at the screenshot in question? If you think that is acceptable for the hardware it was running on then i'm shocked.
As for the rest of it, it's exactly the same points as have already been raised, so you may as well just read the thread through again as I won't post anything different
Oh and i'm buying a 360 in January
As for the rest of it, it's exactly the same points as have already been raised, so you may as well just read the thread through again as I won't post anything different
Oh and i'm buying a 360 in January
I have seen it and it looks horrible, but we're talking about a graphics card I'd use in a HTPC.
So instead of replying to any of my points about time, budget and staff constraints you would've just repeated yourself instead? I take it that means you don't have a counterpoint whatsoever then.As for the rest of it, it's exactly the same points as have already been raised, so you may as well just read the thread through again as I won't post anything different
Good, you'll be happy with it. I should warn you though half the games on it have framerate issues so it wouldn't surprise me to see you repeating this stuff in the consoles forum. You strike me as the never satisfied type.Oh and i'm buying a 360 in January
Well, as far as i'm concerned the fact you feel the need to make such excuses just reinforces my point that it isn't the perfect magic wonder engine people proclaim it to be.
As for the 360, I only really want GHIII, and the only reason i'm not getting it for PC is because of the shocking system requirements for a game that largely has no graphics at all anyway