Something looks suspicious when they can't run the 2900XT on 1920x1200 when the closest thing to it, the 8800GTS can...
edit: Isn't Crysis an NVIDIA sponsored game? :shakes:
Printable View
Something looks suspicious when they can't run the 2900XT on 1920x1200 when the closest thing to it, the 8800GTS can...
edit: Isn't Crysis an NVIDIA sponsored game? :shakes:
The game was developed on the best hardware available at the time of development (the 8800GTX)... It is much easier to optimize a game for the hardware you use, and of course NVIDIA has been in on the whole process, supplying drivers and updates...Quote:
Originally Posted by Zytek_Fan
But wherever there was any money changing hands, I don't know...
Best Regards :toast:
This might sound a bit fan-boy-ish (again), but I feel that's untrue :) ...Quote:
Originally Posted by Syn.
The gameplay isn't in your objectives... Objectives are a means to an end, telling the story, giving you something to go by...
It's what happens in between, that makes the game...
So, by your account, in the "stone age", they had
a) large, open enviroments, which allows you to approach the situation in any way you want (some ways are better than others, but nothing's forced)
b) the ability to adapt your gear to the situation at hand, including a suit which supplies you with 4 different abillities, which further enhances the amount of options at your disposal
c) an advanced physics system which allows you to use litteraly everything in sight as weapons or distractions (HL2 did it, but not to the same extent)
d) AI which actually acts in a "human" and believable way
What I'm trying to say is, you focus too much on objectives (too much ET:QW and BF-series I believe, which isn't even a proper excuse), and too little on what goes on in between...
I don't know what you defines as "present-day" gameplay, but if it's along the lines of BF2, then I can duplicate you post to this:
go to flag a
capture flag a
hold flag a
repeat on flags b through z
Once again, you have to look at what's in between, and that's where the fun is...
Best Regards :toast:
I'm not buying this game for the single player action, I'm buying it for the multi. The multiplayer beta has been an absolute blast for me.
Who buys games for single player anymore? :ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by Danger30Q
*raises hand*Quote:
Originally Posted by Zytek_Fan
Believe it or not, some of us actually don't care that much about multi-player shooters :)...
If the multi's nice, fine, bonus-points... But I want.. Scratch that, NEED my single-player... Making multi-player only games is a bad excuse for not being able to write a proper story :p:
The only multi-player I find great, is co-op story mode... Ironically
It ran fine with decent settings on my 9700 proQuote:
Originally Posted by DTU_XaVier
FarCry, Unreal 3 demo, Call of Duty 4 demo, Half-life 2, all have better image quality/performance ratios than CrysisQuote:
Originally Posted by DTU_XaVier
Please elaborate.Quote:
Originally Posted by DTU_XaVier
There was a little sarcasm in there :)Quote:
Originally Posted by DTU_XaVier
I love Oblivion, and am not too fond of WoW just because it gets rather boring. For shooters, FEAR had a nice story. Multiplayer shooters are awesome, but it is nice to be able to play by yourself every now and then.
I was exagerating (sp?) to make a point... The same people who complain about Crysis not running fine at highest settings on current hardware, are probably in the same boat as the people who complained about Far Cry not running fine 3 years ago...Quote:
Originally Posted by KoHaN69
I play Crysis at everything high, except shaders, shadows and textures at medium, 4xaa and 8xAF, 1680x1050, and it runs and looks great... That's what I call very decent settings on a 1 year old GFX-card design, but some people apparently think that anything below the highest possible, is unacceptable from a completely new game.
Also, I doubt anybody was actually using that high a res back in the day, even on their "high-settings" setups..
I wasn't talking about image quality/performance, but pure image-quality compared to what people expect of their hardware... And when Far Cry came out, it sure as hell didn't have better quality/performance ratios than Crysis does now... Unreal 3 is "old" news by now, it's had over a year to mature and get optimized through its lifetime... CryEninge 2.0 hasn't been used in other games, and once again, I put forward my claim that Crysis' graphics are more intense on the level called "realism"... UT3 looks very bland in my eyes, compared to Crysis, it's very "mono-chromatic"... It just doesn't look as great to me...Quote:
Originally Posted by KoHaN69
Call of Duty 4: Sucky/non-existing water-effects so far, and the enviroments are a lot smaller, allowing for more detail/square-foot of level... And even then, some of the effects are terrible (RPG smoke-trail, the exploding building at the end)
Try making maps as open and large as Crysis in any other game, and I'll almost gaurantee you, they'll run worse than Crysis :)...
And if you don't think Crysis' got some of the greatest graphics ever, I urge to you watch the starting cut-scene a few more times... That's right, that briefing on the plane is done IN-GAME!
Even Half-Life 2 doesn't have as detailed characters :p:
People, IMHO, expect way too much from their hardware... Everybody who complain about the game not being optimized, need to look at the game properly.. It's amazingly detailed, the lighting-effects are fantastic, and the graphics in general are excellent..Quote:
Originally Posted by KoHaN69
But all this comes at a price, a price which appearantly surprises most people, even though we've all seen the screenshots..
Some people need to realise what their hardware's capable of.
Best Regards :toast:
Ditto, I like to play a fair bit of single player mostly because of the story but also because it allows me to play at whatever pace my mood demands.Quote:
Originally Posted by DTU_XaVier
When you cripple a single player part of a game until you do x, y & z online is imo worse than having no single player part, and yes it's an EA title ;).
wow.
the game feels a lot smoother than that
1680*1050 8x MSAA and the game is entirely playable on an OC 8800GTS. no mods on the 8800 either, not even flash.
Xlink, what fps and detail settings are you getting? I get a tad under 18 with a GTS @ 621/1000 shader moded and a 3.7ghz xeon on high 1920*1200. Uh... that's about 0.3fps more than tweaktown got at 3ghz with a 320mb GTS. Oh how I regret not buying a GTX...
i have no idea, all i know is that playability isn't impacted. let me download fraps...Quote:
Originally Posted by afireinside
running @ 628 core 1728 shader, 1008 mem damn stable. apparently rivatuner does weird increments, what I'd originally put as 655; 1020 is really lower...
Quote:
Originally Posted by DTU_XaVier
and see/do all that in a slideshow :rofl: :rofl::ROTF:
just joking :up:
You've got VERY impressive eyes, if you see a slideshow at 40 frames per second :DQuote:
Originally Posted by mascaras
:up:
i can in CSS, but in crysis 18 is comparable apparently.Quote:
Originally Posted by DTU_XaVier
it's the motionblur.
for the record all high 1680*1050 8xQ AA, 16x AF generates a median FPS of around 18. Seems playable though. Weird. Feels like lost planet at 40-50
Quote:
Originally Posted by xlink
with my BFG 8800GTS OC1 and Q6600 , 1680x1050 ,NO AA , NO,AF , HIGH Game settings = 15-20 FPS
with my sapphire HD2900XT and Q6600 , 1680x1050 , NO AA , NO AF , HIGH Game settings = 25-30FPS
this is one of that games that we would like to play every time a new graphic card gen. release ( + FPS , + High settings ) ;)
:up:
Thats what I hate about these new games, you turn the settings down till they are playable, then they end up looking worse, then the older better performing games.
Does SLI work properly in the demo? I'm getting 30 fps on low at 1600x900 on my 3.2 e6600 and 7800gt sli. Does Crysis need AFR2 or 1?
here are my benchies from the crysis demo, (can be found in the bin folders)
comparing 32 and 64bit. 163.69 drivers, 1440x900, 0aa, and medium settings
http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/3...markwn1.th.jpg
So 64 bit is slower? How did you get it to work anyway?Quote:
Originally Posted by darkorb
64bit works on the 163.69 drivers, not on the beta ones
SLI is broken for me. I get MORE FPS with sli disabled then enabled.
25-30fps average framerate on both the CPU and GPU timedemo batch files.
E6850 @ 3.6Ghz (400x9)
2Gb DDR2 @ 1000 5-5-5-15
8800GTS 640Mb
Sad.
Sad indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulburner
It has come to where people would rather have better image quality than uber FPS, but when FPS is that low...