Does Crytek's Engine suck?

[Guest SuppA-SnipA]

ya this is definitely one of those games that u play again when u upgrade ur pc

just like with hl2, far cry, splinter cells, and dozens more

[schoolslave]

Well, I guess some of your points make sense. I dont hate the game or anything, it plays just fine w/ mediums and low settings on my PC at 1440 res. Thats not my point though. Im wondering why this game runs like crap and HL2 didnt when it came out.......

Which leads me to conclude that Source is a superior engine than the Crytek one.

[Angry_Games]

Well, I guess some of your points make sense. I dont hate the game or anything, it plays just fine w/ mediums and low settings on my PC at 1440 res. Thats not my point though. Im wondering why this game runs like crap and HL2 didnt when it came out.......

Which leads me to conclude that Source is a superior engine than the Crytek one.

 

um

 

no

 

again you are thinking on an entirely incorrect track

 

HL2 engine is a couple of years old. Crytek engine is BRAND NEW.

 

HL2 engine is a native DX9 engine.

 

Crytek is a native DX10 engine.

 

I really shouldn't have to go on anymore about why HL2 scales so well for you when Crysis does not, but go back and read my rant once more. You'll see why. HL2 has been out for a while...Crysis has been out for a week or two.

 

 

HL2 engine just scales a long way, cryteks doesn't, its a great engine imo.

 

not sure exactly what this means, as it's a contradictory statement.

 

HL2 scales well, but it's already at the limit of what it can do without an engine upgrade. It was built a few years ago and when it first came out, it crushed any current top of the line system if you put the graphics all the way up as high as they would go.

 

Crysis is no different, except that it is a next-gen (DX10 native) game engine. It scales as well if not better than HL2...the problem right now is there isn't any hardware on this planet that can play Crysis in all it's glory at max settings and resolutions without dragging down into the single digits in frame rate.

 

Nothing. Nada. Zip. Zero. Zilch. The game is too new. As I said in the rant, give it a year and we'll have new gpu's and such that will start to show the age of the Crysis engine, just like ANY new video card out right now will easily be able to run HL2 in full 1920x1200 with 8xAA/16xAF all options maxed. I can already do this on my X1900XT Crossires though my 8800GTS has a bit of issue at those resolutions because my 8800GTS only has 320MB of RAM. If it were a 512MB-640MB-768MB 8800, I wouldn't have this problem because the card would have enough video RAM to handle all that AA etc.

 

My 8800GTS 320MB can however play any HL2 engine game at 1600x1200 with 8xAA/16xAF and still pull over 70fps on any dual-core cpu, whether AMD or Intel.

 

Crysis, I cannot even play at 1600x1200 on medium settings without the game being unplayable.

 

There's a fundamental difference between these two engines and that difference is time. HL2 is a couple of years old by now, and hardware has moved on a couple of generations since it's release.

 

Crysis is a couple of weeks old and hardware has not moved a single generation since it's release.

 

Common sense guys, think about it.

[Angry_Games]

hey Angry, do u like crysis? lol

im playing that game at all high 1280 x 720 (i think)

 

CryEngine 2 is a wonderful engine, even nvidia said so, now i know ur thinking "companies say things to support other companys" but i'd believe its a wonderful engine, mess around in the sandbox editor 2 a little bit.

now STALKER's engine, Xray, was on a bad side, gfx weren't as high as todays standards, and look at that games recommened system requirements, need a bloody 7900 for everything on, with full dynamic lighting, if i remember right. and those gfx look like from 2004. although GSC said they will cleanup Xray for STALKER Clear Skies

if u read anything on incrysis.com forums, most of the people say not to get a 320 mb, go higher for the best performance (as always lol)

-SuppA-SnipA

 

Crysis is a wonderful engine for sure, and it looks incredible.

 

However I'm not a big fan of the game itself. It's farcry2 almost from the instant the game starts and you go up the same damn beach and do the same damn things you did in original FarCry. I'm not impressed with the game or gameplay at all. It doesn't bring a single new thing to the gaming table as far as I can tell other than intensely beautiful graphics.

 

Graphics just don't make a game in my opinion. They are pretty to look at but the game itself is rather boring and repetitive.

 

But the graphics make me have to change my undies quite often lol.

[Guest SuppA-SnipA]

haha ya, they are hot, i just got out of the zero g environment, main part i love about crysis is the story, to be honest, never played a game with alien invasion, halo series is aliens but the war continues, in crysis the aliens awaken now, and modding the guns, such a sweet feature

[slick2500]

I think what he meant was that the Source engine scaled down farther when it was released than the Crytek engine does now. When the Source engine came out you could play it on a system with 256MB ram Geforce 2 and a 1.2Ghz cpu. The minimum system requirements for Crysis are higher than the recommended for Source.

[Angry_Games]

I think what he meant was that the Source engine scaled down farther when it was released than the Crytek engine does now. When the Source engine came out you could play it on a system with 256MB ram Geforce 2 and a 1.2Ghz cpu. The minimum system requirements for Crysis are higher than the recommended for Source.

 

again, go back to where I point out that HL2 engine has been out for a couple of years, and Crysis a couple of weeks.

 

Hardware has moved on, and that trend started with Battlefield2, as almost all of us had to upgrade our systems to 2GB of RAM to play it properly (that game caused the single biggest push to 2GB RAM more than anything else in this particular forum).

 

Also consider that Valve is an "Everyman's" game company. They still have 100k+ players playing old HL/CS/DoD etc. There's no way a company that still has the kind of player base from a 5+ year old game is going to not allow ALL of those fans a chance to play HL2.

 

Crysis on the other hand, is a relatively new dev, and their fan base compared to Valve is about 1%. Their game is all about the glory of the graphics, and very little story substance. Same as FarCry.

 

Valve on the other hand loves to weave in intricate stories and plots etc.

 

Crytek wants to wow everyone with their graphics.

 

Valve wants to let everyone play, regardless of system.

[Guest phoenixdancer]

Crysis has made my day.

 

I ONLY buy games that have Great graphics, as thats what i love.

 

Hellgate london, Timeshift and crysis have done that for me.

 

 

with my Quad 6600 @ 3.5 and my 8800GTX at 648//1080 i get 19-25FPS with Most settings on very high and water and shadows on med..... WITH 16x AA!!!!

 

 

in my eyes thats totaly playable! i only need to tturn the settings down for large places!

 

One problem though i see all these pics of the tree's leavs all smooth but mine seem to allways be jagged like AA ant working on them or summit

[Angry_Games]

tree leaves and grass are usually only pixel textures, not 3d rendered models. No matter how sharp your graphics are, textured pixels won't ever look sharp compared to 3d models (because AA doesn't work on textures, only on 3d objects)

[Uber-Noober]

Seriously, this game plays like crap even on the guys with dual Ultra's + Quads w/ phase at like 4Ghz + 8Gbyte RAM.....What gives?

 

I can't see how you guys with 8800gtx can barely run this game. My meek system in my sig plays the game great.

 

I used the DX10 config enabler ("custom" settings) and set everything to very high. I play it on a 47" Westinghouse 47lvm1 in 1980 x 1080 resolution in a 7.1 sound setup. AA is off.

 

Aside from the ground breaking graphics that I won't bore you by re-hashing here. I think the game is magnificent. Why you ask?

 

SOUND: :eek2:

Best part of the game hands down. Thats right I said it. The precision rifle is the most satisfying rifle sound to grace a video game since the mauser in Return to Castle Wolfenstein. Its SOUNDS like it would really, really hurt. Bad.

 

For you naysayers, tell me the initial tank battle doesn't rock balls with the sound of the tank shells blowing up around you in surround sound glory? My neighbors were pissed and I love it.

 

Even better, the level where you have to go in and take out the AA guns in the harbor and how the atmospheric game-theme music gets progressively louder as more and more . hits the fan with F15's flying overhead? Top notch video game design folks.

 

This one is an epic. No doubt about it.

[snugglealufacus]

Yep. I probably own the oldest computer out of everyone who has replied to this thread, and fraps reports the game running at 25 fps. how? turn off shaders. the shading is what brought my entire computer to a halt faster than a go cart hitting a freight train. of course, not everything is on high (if there was a medium-high setting, i would be using it) but even so the game is astonishing on DX9 and a two year old 7800GT. i thought that HL2 and Portal's graphics were the caviar of games, but Crysis makes those games look like pong.

 

[edit]

 

i have found out that turning AA on automatically bumps shaders up to max, and turning down sharders even to medium turns AA compleatly off. ive got Crysis set up as follows:

Video Res: 1680x1050

Anti-Aliasing: off

Texture: Custom

Objects: High

Shadows: Low (frame killer)

Physics: high

Shaders: Low (frame killer)

Volumetric Effects: Medium

Game Effects: Medium

Postprocessing: Low

Particles: Medium (somewhat frame killer)

Water: High

Sound: High

 

[currently running nvidia's ForceWare Release 169 beta drivers for windows XP

Testing the game, i turned everything off and got around 45-50fps, and turning AA up to 4x (and thus turning shaders to 'high') i couldnt get anything more than 15fps.

I then turn AA off and shaders to low, and everything else to high. i got around 15-18fps, but green squares appeared where some textures and/or objects were supposed to be (sometimes a tree would be solid green, and sometimes just a green cube). This might be an effect of nVidia's beta drivers, the ones that TimeShift requires you to have in order to play the game.

 

[/edit]

[bcbooter]

um

 

no

 

again you are thinking on an entirely incorrect track

 

HL2 engine is a couple of years old. Crytek engine is BRAND NEW.

 

HL2 engine is a native DX9 engine.

 

Crytek is a native DX10 engine.

 

I really shouldn't have to go on anymore about why HL2 scales so well for you when Crysis does not, but go back and read my rant once more. You'll see why. HL2 has been out for a while...Crysis has been out for a week or two.

 

 

 

 

not sure exactly what this means, as it's a contradictory statement.

 

HL2 scales well, but it's already at the limit of what it can do without an engine upgrade. It was built a few years ago and when it first came out, it crushed any current top of the line system if you put the graphics all the way up as high as they would go.

 

Crysis is no different, except that it is a next-gen (DX10 native) game engine. It scales as well if not better than HL2...the problem right now is there isn't any hardware on this planet that can play Crysis in all it's glory at max settings and resolutions without dragging down into the single digits in frame rate.

 

Nothing. Nada. Zip. Zero. Zilch. The game is too new. As I said in the rant, give it a year and we'll have new gpu's and such that will start to show the age of the Crysis engine, just like ANY new video card out right now will easily be able to run HL2 in full 1920x1200 with 8xAA/16xAF all options maxed. I can already do this on my X1900XT Crossires though my 8800GTS has a bit of issue at those resolutions because my 8800GTS only has 320MB of RAM. If it were a 512MB-640MB-768MB 8800, I wouldn't have this problem because the card would have enough video RAM to handle all that AA etc.

 

My 8800GTS 320MB can however play any HL2 engine game at 1600x1200 with 8xAA/16xAF and still pull over 70fps on any dual-core cpu, whether AMD or Intel.

 

Crysis, I cannot even play at 1600x1200 on medium settings without the game being unplayable.

 

There's a fundamental difference between these two engines and that difference is time. HL2 is a couple of years old by now, and hardware has moved on a couple of generations since it's release.

 

Crysis is a couple of weeks old and hardware has not moved a single generation since it's release.

 

Common sense guys, think about it.

 

what i meant by my statement was that when Hl2 engine came out tons of older rigs could play the game still, yet you can change details up a ton and crush even the newest systems. whereas crysis wont let you run such old hardware because the games settings cant be turned down so much. however it still plays on pretty fair variety of hardware for how powerful it is.

for example i was able to play hl2 engine games on a geforce2 while when graphics were cranked it could even give a 6800 a hard time.

hl2 engine you can also customize the dx levels to an extreme, turn it down to use like as low as dx6 or something.(which made teh engine more versatile)

and when considering that cryteks engine is brand new which is why it doesnt scale as far...no. hl2 engine when just a few weeks from release (liek cryteks) was compatible with hardware that was much older. whereas brand new crytek engine will only play min on like 6800 or something. 6800 isnt nearly as old as the min hardware which would run on hl2 engine when it was first released

oh and for the record crysis could be maxed at time of release. 2x8800gtx/ultras will do the job, just maybe not as good as some would like, but its playable at max. esp at lower res so we've seen as how far the engine will go, until further updates