crysis and ut3 tanking?
- Thread starter Gerard
- Start date
Since when were budget, time and staff limitations "excuses"? They're called facts of life in a competitive world.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.
It's obvious to me that you have no idea how a business works. They don't have infinite time or resources that they can throw at making a perfect game, they have to make money and compete with other businesses.
See 3D Realms for a perfect example. Duke Nukem Forever is ten years in the making and they're a laughing stock, not only that but the end product might not be as great as expected (though I'm hoping it will be). My point is though that the only thing that's kept them afloat is other games, such as Prey and Max Payne 2, while they've consistently not delivered what we're all waiting for. Otherwise they would've crumbled.
I guess you want all companies to be like that, feel free to start one and see how long you last.
Well you've made it clear enough that PC gaming is not for you, please don't forget to turn off the lights and shut the door on your way out. Personally I play both PC and Xbox 360 games, and have no quarrel with keeping my PC in a condition to play new games.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
Last edited:
You make this feel such a welcoming place.
You come for a discussion and then get told to get out when people disagree with you. Charming.
Where did I tell you do get out? You made it sound like you were leaving for console games.
Yet again you dodge the issue of developers not having the time or resources to make a perfect game, it's clear now that you don't even want to discuss the subject but instead want to mince words and trade barbs.
Last edited:
Maybe I am asking too much of Crysis, I knew it would look great (and, in fairness, it looks better than any game I've ever seen) but I just assumed it would perform well on a decent system. Even reviewers sounded shocked that it was sometimes sluggish on their Uber machines. I can't help thinking about all the people on mid- or low-end systems that paid good money for a game that must run like a beautiful slideshow.
Surely if a game's released today, it should run well on today's mid-range systems? I don't think that's too much to ask for.
Judging from the releases of both Far Cry and Crysis I think it's just Crytek's business model to make a game that will look better as time goes on, probably so it stands the test of time even though they make so few games.
I think that's the difference between Crytek and, for example, Valve. Valve can afford to make games for present and past machines because they churn out plenty of games and support hundreds by other companies through Steam.
I guess if Crytek developed more games you'd see them more tailored to the systems of the time, but they'd also have to hire more staff and spend more time and resources on development in general, they might even have to sell up to a monster like EA, so it simply might not be an option for them.
You could argue that the game is currently only 3-4 years in the making, if they switched engines so much then its like starting from scratch, if the game has to be started from scratch then so should the time it takes to make it.
So many times i hear game devs talk about if they could change stuff they would have done this or that differently, over the years 3d realms have had plenty of time to think of stuff and wait for the tech to implement it. Ive a feeling that duke could be one of the most polished and refined games ever.
On a 7600gs or x800xl? Not a chance. Although Farcry 2 will be here soon, so keep your fingers crossed.
I hope you're right about Duke Nukem Forever, I really do. I actually completely lost all interest, but the teaser that came out recently really does look pretty impressive so I'm back to being slightly hopeful, but cautious of being let down again.You could argue that the game is currently only 3-4 years in the making, if they switched engines so much then its like starting from scratch, if the game has to be started from scratch then so should the time it takes to make it.
So many times i hear game devs talk about if they could change stuff they would have done this or that differently, over the years 3d realms have had plenty of time to think of stuff and wait for the tech to implement it. Ive a feeling that duke could be one of the most polished and refined games ever.
Still, I stand by my example of 3D Realms becoming a bit of a laughing stock for not keeping up with the competition and setting deadlines. Like I said they would've sunk years ago were it not for Max Payne 2 and Prey.
You seem to have swallowed their marketing spiel. How better to sell a badly optimised game than to make out you intended it to be that way all along!
Where's your evidence that it's badly optimised? Pure speculation, and considering the hardware you're trying to run these games on I don't think you're in a position to judge how well they are or are not optimised in the slightest.
In the case of Crysis performance is consistent as you increase your graphics power and the game seemingly scales well with SLI and Crossfire, so there's obviously optimisation there or performance would be dire across the board. I've not looked at benchmarks for UT3, nor have I played the game, so I'm not going to simply speculate like you do.
I'd go as far to say that your posts on this subject are nothing short of bitterness.
BTW shouldn't you have your nose in the Daily Mail ready to conjure up your next contraversial Muslim topic?
Last edited:
Maybe you should go and read GD/SC and then decide if I said anything false.
Are you ready to add anything of value to this discussion yet or are you just watching over my shoulder now?
I got bored of needing to repeat myself, so i'll just sit and watch if that's ok with you?
As for dirtydog's posting habits, i'd suggest maybe you're the one who needs to expand his views, however, the rules of this forum prevent me from being able to fully enlighten you
As for dirtydog's posting habits, i'd suggest maybe you're the one who needs to expand his views, however, the rules of this forum prevent me from being able to fully enlighten you
Nice
As for UT3, I've played it and you haven't - how am I speculating? I can also read the Epic forums and elsewhere, of other people's experiences.
Nice
Unless you show me some evidence for it being badly optimised then I'm afraid it is purely speculation. Yes, I haven't played the game, but I'm not the one saying it's broken.
It just sounds to me like you're annoyed it won't run on your card, which frankly is ancient now, and need any sort of scapegoat you can find to take your frustration out on Epic Games and Crytek. "It's not optimised" is an easy target because it's difficult to prove or disprove, which is why it's a term thrown around like confetti sometimes.
I didn't say it was "broken", just that it has heavy system requirements which drastically exceed those stated by Epic
On the topic of the thread, said system requirements must have some impact on sales of the game. People try the demo, see how poorly it runs and decide to skip it. (Others try it and skip it because of the gameplay and general crapness as well)The minimum system requirements state: -I didn't say it was "broken", just that it has heavy system requirements which drastically exceed those stated by Epic
• Windows XP SP2 or Windows Vista
• 2.0+ GHZ Single Core Processor
• 512 Mbytes of System RAM
• NVIDIA 6200+ or ATI Radeon 9600+ Video Card
• 8 GB of Free Hard Drive Space
It doesn't have to look any good to meet minimum requirements, just run. The fact is that you want it to look much better than it has been designed to look on your machine, I'm afraid that's just life and the answer is to upgrade, tolerate, or find a new game.
No mate. Those system requirements are a farce. A 7600GS murders those graphics cards but it runs crap on it. I shudder to think what it runs like on those - 15fps at 640x480 probably. They surely can't mean a 2.0GHz P4 or Athlon XP either as again you'd be into slideshow territory. 512MB of RAM is also ridiculous - 1GB is the bare minimum in reality (and that's for XP - Vista will need more).
I hate to get this blunt but "mate" the 7600GS is a piece of crap by today's standards, I'd use it in a HTPC and that's it. It was a cut down mid-range card even back in its day.
Honestly you're just expecting way too much. I'd either upgrade my graphics card, get a PS3, or just forget about playing the game at all since it bothers you that much.