• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Nvidia’s GameWorks program usurps power from developers, end-users, and AMD

You're missing the point (And also commenting out of context), the amount of tessellation in it is pointless, they could lower the amount of tessellation while keeping that IQ while improving frames (Hence inefficiency. Maybe to change the context, you can achieve the same effect using 10 lines of codes or 20, what's more inefficient? The 20 lines)

Probably best to forget it, I'm getting your stance now.
This isn't just another "I hate Nvidia, I'm an AMD fanboy" posts, because I'm critical of AMD all the time.

Also, I'm pretty sure that's not all down to the tessellation, there's the high res (Not vanilla) textures 'n the bump mapping.

You only have to see a maxed out Witcher 2 to see what they're able to do with just DX9 and no tessellation and the effect good modelling/texturing can make.
 
Last edited:
No I understand perfectly, you're saying the use of it in Crysis 2 is inefficient. I'm commenting on aspects which are incredibly effective and efficient within the game. Techreport are showing you excessive amounts of detail on certain objects. But when I'm showing you just how good the technology is in most aspects of the game, I find it difficult to take an article which shows you a few objects in which could have done without nit picky surely? I would in no way say it is massively excessive.

I can see the angle, but frankly the same logic can be applied to any tech and relative performance. When is a texture size too much for a piece of wood for instance? It's a mediocre game anyway but still lol.
 
To much Tessellation in C2 for whatever reason or not it only affected the HD 6K series.

The HD 7K is much better at dealing with tessellation, Nvidia's tessellation tactic 'if there ever way one' does not work any more anyway.

 
Well then there you have it. As Techreport actually touch on toward the end of the article anyway, I doubt there would be any DX11 effects within C2 if it weren't for Nvidia's intervention. So would safely say some effects are better than none in this case
 
Oh well that makes it all better then.
Can we blame Nvidia for it being a few months late then ;)? (Seeing as tessellation didn't for months after it launched) Although had it been AMD, we'd have had to wait for someone else to patch it in :p

Think I'ma give up.
 
MjFrosty said:
Well then there you have it. As Techreport actually touch on toward the end of the article anyway, I doubt there would be any DX11 effects within C2 if it weren't for Nvidia's intervention. So would safely say some effects are better than none in this case
Click to expand...


I have C2, i still play it on and off, it looks awesome, then again so did the first one, and Warhead, i don't know what effects your referring to, but i do think the 2D falling dust looked pretty naff.

The floor that you posted an image of does illustrate just how good this game looked, a lot of texture and detail, and yes. a lot of tessellation.
 
Martini1991 said:
Oh well that makes it all better then.
Can we blame Nvidia for it being a few months late then ;)? (Seeing as tessellation didn't for months after it launched) Although had it been AMD, we'd have had to wait for someone else to patch it in :p

Think I'ma give up.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why Crysis 2 was delayed so couldn't comment there, but the patch came a few months after the game was released. Which is more a piracy avoidance tactic more than anything else next to releasing the game for PC a bit later (Ubisoft). Crytek obviously were hurt fairly badly by Crysis not making the cut so lost faith in the cutting edge with C2. There is some sloppy optimisations with the level design in relation to tessellation but I still stand by what I've said in that it does for the most part make a positive impact.
 
Last edited:
Crysis was a very well selling PC game (Reported at over 3 million now, it took a while to get the sales, what with the incredible IQ)
EA's the reason behind destroying Crysis 2, smelling the money tree 'n all that.
 
Martini1991 said:
Crysis was a very well selling PC game (Reported at over 3 million now, it took a while to get the sales, what with the incredible IQ)
EA's the reason behind destroying Crysis 2, smelling the money tree 'n all that.
Click to expand...

Its a shame for Crytek most of those sold for £3.99 on Steam.

Crysis 3, thats an incredible game, it can be a lot of fun online, it looks amazing, better than BF4.
The problem with it is, the same problem Crysis 2 had, Crytek just don't know how to make a good MP FPS, weapon balancing, behaviour and all that kinda gameplay is just wrong. as i said it is a lot of fun, in small doses. anything more than that and it becomes very annoying. as soon as you start to get seriously into it, you just don't like it anymore.

This seems to be a universal agreement among even its fans

I go back to it every now and then for a quick fun blast, until the fun wears off. everytime i do go its becoming hard and harder to find well populated servers.
 
The first million weren't for 3.99 that's for sure.
It was by May 2010 that it'd sold 3 million, I wouldn't be surprised if Crysis 2 made less money (At least on PC sales only)

I dislike Crysis 2 and 3 because they've ruined what made Crysis 1 good, and I liked the story, Crysis 2 ruined it and made it irrelevant.
 
humbug said:
Its a shame for Crytek most of those sold for £3.99 on Steam.

Crysis 3, thats an incredible game, it can be a lot of fun online, it looks amazing, better than BF4.
The problem with it is, the same problem Crysis 2 had, Crytek just don't know how to make a good MP FPS, weapon balancing, behaviour and all that kinda gameplay is just wrong. as i said it is a lot of fun, in small doses. anything more than that and it becomes very annoying. as soon as you start to get seriously into it, you just don't like it anymore.

This seems to be a universal agreement among even its fans

I go back to it every now and then for a quick fun blast, until the fun wears off. everytime i do go its becoming hard and harder to find well populated servers.
Click to expand...

Crysis 2 MP could have been good - was a bit of a cross between COD and FEAR2 MP but it wasn't really fleshed out beyond the barebones of the gameplay :| was fun for about half an hour but then just didn't really go anywhere.
 
Martini1991 said:
The first million weren't for 3.99 that's for sure.
It was by May 2010 that it'd sold 3 million, I wouldn't be surprised if Crysis 2 made less money (At least on PC sales only)

I dislike Crysis 2 and 3 because they've ruined what made Crysis 1 good, and I liked the story, Crysis 2 ruined it and made it irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Agreed on that. sequels and all that.
 
Last edited:
Indeed, Crysis and Crysis: Warhead were great games - in terms of visuals, gameplay and storyline. Crysis 2 was alright in my opinion, it just lacked in all areas a bit as I thought the graphics weren't brilliant and the AI system was very bugged.

However, I disagree with a lot of people about Crysis 3 - I love the game, I think the comabt is excellent, the AI is really improved and the graphics are the best I've seen in any game. Incidentally, it's also one of the only games I cannot run maxed out at 2560x1440 on my rig - I get around 25fps, which is rubbish of course. It's the AA that really seems to kill your frame rate on C3, as well as certain effects like Pixel Accurate Displacement Mapping which are only toggled on at the highest graphical settings.
 
I haven't played Crysis 3, but if I was to use Morphological AA, would it possible to max every other setting out (7970 / 1200p) and get a reasonable frame rate?
 
Last edited:
arc@css said:
I haven't played Crysis 3, but if I was to use Morphological AA, would it possible to max every other setting out (7970 / 1200p) and get a reasonable frame rate?
Click to expand...

Its possible to get very high settings (minus a lot of AA) and still get good frame rates, the problem i find with C3 is you need very high frame rates or you end up with input lag, or some form of lag where your just not getting the kills, i don't know what it is, all i know is high FPS = lots of kills no problem, lower FPS = less kills, not good in a MP FPS game.

I keep it above 60, so at best high setting without AA, Medium is very good performance.

For whatever reason i only get this lag with C3 unless i have high Frame Rates, BF3/4 its never a problem.
 
Last edited:
Thanks, Humbug. At some point, hopefully soon, I'll finally get around to buying it and get to have a blast. I don't mind toning down the AA in games, but I do like to push everything else up as much as I can. :)
 
humbug said:
To much Tessellation in C2 for whatever reason or not it only affected the HD 6K series.

The HD 7K is much better at dealing with tessellation, Nvidia's tessellation tactic 'if there ever way one' does not work any more anyway.
Click to expand...

So the original articles claims of using too much tesselation to cripple the competitor is BS?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom