crysis and ut3 tanking?
- Thread starter Gerard
- Start date
Are you saying Half Life 2 did nothing for progress?
HL2 is nearly 4 years old.
The thing is how many people had only DX6 only cards at the time. I don't remember many people complaining that it wouldn't run at all on there cards.
Yeah, I was annoyed when the Secure-rom on my Timeshift disc bizarrely accused me of using an image of the disc?! and I heard the problems Bioshock caused some people, (although it worked fine for me), but I don't see how these issues, that were all resolved, actually harmed any artists (how much did it affect their royalties? Less than 1%?) and it certainly didn't close up any distribution markets that I'm aware of, perhaps it will even help more proactive distributors, such as Steam, who don't have these problems.
Valve do and look at their sales and the popularity of their games online.
Way to miss the point :/
HL2 is a great game but technically it is vastly inferior to something like Crysis.
It was released November 2004. Three years old.
I don't care about 'technically better' though. HL2 looks superb IMO even by today's standards. It also runs at max detail on a GF4 with good framerates FWIW.
Might aswell play pong if you don't care about "technically better".
Indeed, I played it quite happily on my GF4 Ti, a previous generation (in fact, two generations behind the times) card at time of release. Yet also managed to work with the top tier stuff to create some of the best graphics seen at the time.
I'd love to see how Crysis and UT3 treat my X800XL (again, two generations behind now) in comparison, considering I am in a similar situation 3 years on.
Last edited:
It doesnt work like that, hardware power is increasing at a much bigger rate these days.
Pong has basic and repetitive gameplay. It fails the test against newer games based on their gameplay rather than simply the technical brilliance of their engines.
There are plenty of technically 'clever' games like say Doom 3, which are inferior to older tech games like Half Life 1 for example, in the gameplay department. I get excited about good games, not clever tech engines. Although it just so happens that HL2 has a great engine and is also a great game.
Oh and the same goes for UT2004's engine actually. Very scalable and can run well on very modest hardware, helped by lots of graphical options, most of which UT3 lacks!
Last edited:
I remember all the fuss at the time about HL2's system requirements and whether people would be able to run it very well. I think we were all pleasantly surprised by just how scalable the engine is
Jesus christ, stick with pong mate. Crysis coded lazily? I forget you're a professional graphics, physics and AI programmer with access to their source code, and a publisher of an engine that's won awards. Half-life 2 is about as techincally advanced as crysis as a push bike is to a Motorbike, suffice to say you need more energy to run the motorbike.
The quicker new tech gets released the quicker we will reach a point where you can't further it as much, and then people can focus solely on GAEMPLAYszz and you can quit whining about progress.
I remember all the fuss at the time about HL2's system requirements and whether people would be able to run it very well. I think we were all pleasantly surprised by just how scalable the engine is
Indeed:
Even at max settings, the 6200 does 42fps.
What about the gameplay? Will Crysis 2 be as eagerly awaited as Half Life 3? No it will be forgotten about in a few months.