Warning: Crysis 3 Will Melt Your PC, Says Crytek

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/Crytek-Crysis-3-Keplar-FPS-Melting-PC,news-39673.html#

From what I gather it will push massive levels of tessellation and particle effects from reading other articles. So basically another poorly optimised game from Crytek.

However,unlike Crysis it will be on consoles too,probably meaning more linear levels,which were seen in Crysis 2.

Meh.

 

[Spenty]

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/Crytek-Crysis-3-Keplar-FPS-Melting-PC,news-39673.html#

From what I gather it will push massive levels of tessellation and particle effects from reading other articles. So basically another poorly optimised game from Crytek.

However,unlike Crysis it will be on consoles too,probably meaning more linear levels,which were seen in Crysis 2.

Meh.

Wait, so you're saying because it uses massive levels of tessellation and particle effects it's poorly optimised?

 

[MooMoo444]

Wait, so you're saying because it uses massive levels of tessellation and particle effects it's poorly optimised?

Think hes just using Cry1 as an example. Pushed the boundaries like never before, but was poorly optimised in the process

 

[Martini1991]

Wait, so you're saying because it uses massive levels of tessellation and particle effects it's poorly optimised?

Yes, because it was literally doing it for the crack.

 

[Spenty]

Yes, because it was literally doing it for the crack.

No, it's doing it to make use of sli and crossfire top end GPU setups. The ones who usually complain about performance crank the settings max and expect their £100 6850 to max it out.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Yes, because it was literally doing it for the crack.

This.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

No, it's doing it to make use of sli and crossfire top end GPU setups. The ones who usually complain about performance crank the settings max and expect their £100 6850 to max it out.

Martini1991 has spend shedloads on cards,so he is hardly one who is a budget card user. He has had the HD7970,HD7950,GTX680 and GTX660TI.

Poorly optimised means nothing about how good it looks.

Tessellation over a certain level does not necessarily make something look better,but it craters performanace for no reason. If you think tessellated underground oceans which you cannot see are great then waste your money. Look at even Crysis 1 - DX10 hardly improved it and yet under custom DX9 configs it was absolutely beautiful and much better looking than the menu settings.

But you know what?? The large open maps and great interactivity with objects really made Crysis believable. Its a game which I wanted to get a great card for and so did others.I spent the most on a card for Crysis. It was groundbreaking.

Even with custom higher resolution textures under DX11,Crysis 2 for me is still inferior to the first Crysis. Its flipping linear and so will be Crysis 3 as it has to be made with consoles in mind.

Tessellation was invented primarily for efficiency uses(before DX11 games hit this was being touted).

There are loads of other effects which are just as important and contribute to image quality. Just wasting it levels of massive tessellation levels which, makes no difference IMHO as they could be spent on other effects which make the game more believable. Its like having 64X AA at 2560x1600.

Textures would be one area,where more effort could be spent by Crytek on.

 

[Spenty]

At least let the game launch before having a go at performance levels though.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

At least let the game launch before having a go at performance levels though.

Crysis 2 severely dented my trust in Crytek. Tessellated underground oceans,hyper tessellated boulders,lower quality textures than the first game(!),linear levels,changing the aliens to walkers so they could use the same AI models as humans(easier on consoles),etc.

I can see Crysis 3 being so poorly optimised for PC,that it will make Crysis and Crysis2 look like games that can run on an IGP! Basically,AMD and Nvidia will be rubbing their hands in glee,especially with the simply pathetic performance increases we are seeing each generation(with the excuses being leveled at TSMC,who are the scape goat for all of this).

 

[Martini1991]

No, it's doing it to make use of sli and crossfire top end GPU setups. The ones who usually complain about performance crank the settings max and expect their £100 6850 to max it out.

So, the fact it was tessellating objects which aren't even visible is kosher with you?
It was using ridiculous amounts of tessellation that weren't visible and was absolutely pointless, it was the definition of an unoptimised technique.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I hope Metro:Last Light and Aliens: Colonial Marines,do push the boundaries but in meaningful ways.

 

[Gerard]

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18431173&page=3&highlight=crysis

 

[TheCenturion]

Excellent news, that's what made the original so special, and the 2nd so poor.

Hopefully the console version won't exist.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Excellent news, that's what made the original so special, and the 2nd so poor.

Hopefully the console version won't exist.

It will be on consoles - the articles says they are making compromises. So expect a linear game with crappy textures,but with tessellation and particle effects ramped up to compensate.

 

[Duff-Man]

I think a lot of people make the assumption that "if it can't run well on my high-end PC then it must be poorly optimised".

Providing options that overpower any present day machine does not necessarily mean poor optimisation. Providing the option for extreme levels of tessellation or particle effects does not imply poor optimisation - you can always turn down these features. Same goes for smoothed / volumetric shadows etc.

I think some people just don't like the idea that they can't run a game "maxxed out", even if some of these features are unnecessarily strict for today's PCs.

There is nothing wrong with catering for the technology of tomorrow. It extends the life of the game, graphically. The key is not to get upset about it.

 

[Spenty]

I already tried explaining what you've said Duff-Man but I'm afraid this guy just wants negative posts only.

 

[titaniumx3]

I have to cringe when I read people on these forums (or any forum for that matter) using terms like "poorly coded" or "poorly optimised", especially when they probably have little or no understanding about how modern 3d engines work or the development process.

I myself have no understanding of these things either, but it doesn't take a genius to understand that the types of effects used in Cryengine 2 & 3 (especially the massive amounts of dynamic/real-time stuff) are going to tax your graphics card. Just look at the original Crysis. People were moaning about it on release, saying that it runs crap and therefore it must be poorly optimised/coded/whatever, but to this day there still isn't a game that can fully rival the graphics in Crysis and even if they do, they still run poorly.

 

[Martini1991]

I think a lot of people make the assumption that "if it can't run well on my high-end PC then it must be poorly optimised".

Providing options that overpower any present day machine does not necessarily mean poor optimisation. Providing the option for extreme levels of tessellation or particle effects does not imply poor optimisation - you can always turn down these features. Same goes for smoothed / volumetric shadows etc.

I think some people just don't like the idea that they can't run a game "maxxed out", even if some of these features are unnecessarily strict for today's PCs.

There is nothing wrong with catering for the technology of tomorrow. It extends the life of the game, graphically. The key is not to get upset about it.

I agree, however rendering something that isn't visible is pointless, wasted GPU power, it's a poorly implemented technique, for a lack of a better word "unoptimised" gets thrown around.

Unless of course you'd say throwing in tessellation no one in the world can see, and rendering things that aren't visible is kosher.

I already tried explaining what you've said Duff-Man but I'm afraid this guy just wants negative posts only.

No you didn't, you made an excuse.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I have to cringe when I read people on these forums (or any forum for that matter) using terms like "poorly coded" or "poorly optimised", especially when they probably have little or no understanding about how modern 3d engines work or the development process.

I already tried explaining what you've said Duff-Man but I'm afraid this guy just wants negative posts only.

What?? So when Martini1991 explains to you why Crysis 2 was not that well optimised you just conveniently ignore it. Why?? Because he owns loads of high end cards and does not agree with you.

So again why do you find underground tessellated oceans perfectly fine?? Maybe,explain why tessellating something you can see,is not an example of poor optimisation.

So what would you prefer on say £1000 quid of cards:
1.)20% better framerates
2.)20% better visual fidelity
3.)No improvements based on things you will never see

I agree, however rendering something that isn't visible is pointless, wasted GPU power, it's a poorly implemented technique, for a lack of a better word "unoptimised" gets thrown around.

Unless of course you'd say throwing in tessellation no one in the world can see, and rendering things that aren't visible is kosher.

Exactly - you see me complaining that much about Crysis?? I thought the DX10 mode was a waste of time(as I said before),but custom configs were beautiful and well worth splashing out decent money on cards.

 

[Martini1991]

I have no problem if a game comes out that won't run maxed out on whats available at the time.

I do have a problem if its due to bodged up implementation, like Crysis 2's tessellation.

Also, onto predicting Crysis 3's performance, doesn't it run on the same engine as Crysis 2? It stands to reason the tessellation implementation will be the same.