Crysis 3?

[gridiron whirlw]

Originally Posted by Cambria

hahaha oh yes! I remember that now! The carrier level was rather hard on the hardware too. Musta been all that fire!

That is the slide show I was talking about earlier...that was awful.

Running at truely max settings, which I agree with others is 1920x1080 to start with....then add the good eye-candy....that level ran like a slide show, sometimes dropping to single digits.

[Cambria]

Originally Posted by gridiron whirlw

That is the slide show I was talking about earlier...that was awful.

Running at truely max settings, which I agree with others is 1920x1080 to start with....then add the good eye-candy....that level ran like a slide show, sometimes dropping to single digits.

Well mine didnt drop to single digits, it was still playable. Just dropped about 10FPS overall. But I also was not at 1080.

I thought you were talking about the ending video. Thats why I was so confused.

[viren]

AA off and crysis 1 used to run smooth at high level details. I believe many people were still on xp, and so was i, when crysis was released.

So, was it vista to be blamed or something else i don't know but windows 7 really made crysis worthwhile.

I don't know who is to be blamed, the hardware or the software but it is definately someone, not us for sure.

Again, my personel opinion on the above.

[DireBadger]

Originally Posted by PR-0927

Crysis and Crysis: Warhead will remain among my favorite games. They were by no means just "glorified tech demos," like many like to say. They were TRULY fun. Sandbox-style gameplay rocked. You could play stealthily or like Rambo. Vehicles, North Koreans, and aliens.

Although to be fair, I enjoyed the game more before the aliens showed up. Same with Far Cry (although it had mutants rather than aliens).

Crysis 2 is an abomination. AWFUL story which is absurdly-confusing and disconnected from the first (and they do a piss-poor job in bridging the gap). Different story-writer, but still. And the sandbox-esque nature of Crysis and Crysis Warhead are not there at all.

Not to mention the vastly inferior physics and model poly counts.

It was a console port. With a crappy CoD-clone MP. Crytek betrayed PC gamers and also threw away the epic nature of Crysis Wars (MP from Crysis Warhead) to appeal to console scrubs.

I will forever distrust Crytek, and will never buy another game of theirs unless they make it up to PC gamers and de-casualize their games.

- PR-0927

Aboslutely agree, Crysis and Warhead were great and then they went and ****ed the whole story up in 2, no explanation as to what happened to Psycho or Nomad other than they died herp derp.

[ElementalDragon]

Originally Posted by Cambria

If your single GTX could ALMOST run it at 16x10 then would 2 Ultras in SLi not fair a bit better? I could not find any results of someone using 2 Ultras with Crysis, so Im not sure.

Lower than native or not I would have to say 1680x1050 is a high resolution. More so back then too.

Yea.... i guess i forgot to mention that my 1680x1050 was with almost maxed settings, but still absolutely no AA. And the Ultra wasn't really all that much different from the GTX. The clocks were a little higher.... but still the same amount of memory. IIRC, a GTX could easily be overclocked up to and potentially beyond the Ultra's base specs.

And even so... like i said, once i got to certain points in the game, even 1680x1050, no AA, and almost maxed settings, something had to be dropped to continue at a playable framerate.

As far as 1680x1050 being a high resolution "back then"... you do realize that "Back then" was only the end of '07, right? back then, 1920x1200 was the sought after resolution for most people, although 30" 2560x1600 and such resolution monitors did exist. there's quite a pixel quantity difference between 1680x1050 and 1920x1200.

[Cambria]

Originally Posted by ElementalDragon

Yea.... i guess i forgot to mention that my 1680x1050 was with almost maxed settings, but still absolutely no AA. And the Ultra wasn't really all that much different from the GTX. The clocks were a little higher.... but still the same amount of memory. IIRC, a GTX could easily be overclocked up to and potentially beyond the Ultra's base specs.

And even so... like i said, once i got to certain points in the game, even 1680x1050, no AA, and almost maxed settings, something had to be dropped to continue at a playable framerate.

As far as 1680x1050 being a high resolution "back then"... you do realize that "Back then" was only the end of '07, right? back then, 1920x1200 was the sought after resolution for most people, although 30" 2560x1600 and such resolution monitors did exist. there's quite a pixel quantity difference between 1680x1050 and 1920x1200.

Yes but back then 1920x1080 was not as common as it is now. Hell, back then I was still using my 17inch CRT monitor so 1920x1080 was out of the question completely! Not saying everyone had an old CRT from 92, but still.

[pokerapar88]

to play crysis 1 at decen quality levels you needed 2x 8800 ultras or 2x gtx 280s in SLI
295GTX in SLI FTW

I played it with a 6800 ultra... it was a slideshow XD

[Redemption80]

Actually not bothered if there is another one, more interested in CryEngine3 than any further Crysis games, as while i think Crytek make fantastic game engines, i have not liked a single game they have ever made.

From Far Cry - Crysis 2, all i've done is force myself to play them so i can see the next pretty image.

2011 was a very poor year for SP FPS's in my opinion anyway, BF3 being the biggest and also the worst, and that is including the popular to hate DNF.
Thankfully SS3 restored a little of my faith that the genre isn't completely dead to me.

[lmimmfn]

Originally Posted by Stone Gargoyle

And then you'd plunge to your doom through the map hole in the ship. Took me forever to complete the game thanks to that little party popper.

yeah, that drove me f***ing nuts, back in the day i was furious that it was obvious they havnt even played the damn last level themselves. They knew about it, still released the game and patched it 2-3 weeks after release when everybody already suffered from it.

[Cambria]

Originally Posted by Redemption80

Actually not bothered if there is another one, more interested in CryEngine3 than any further Crysis games, as while i think Crytek make fantastic game engines, i have not liked a single game they have ever made.

From Far Cry - Crysis 2, all i've done is force myself to play them so i can see the next pretty image.

2011 was a very poor year for SP FPS's in my opinion anyway, BF3 being the biggest and also the worst, and that is including the popular to hate DNF.
Thankfully SS3 restored a little of my faith that the genre isn't completely dead to me.

Yes but CryEngine 3 was quite a step down from CryEngine 2. So who knows what graphical features will be reduced/cut for the next game to make way for something that takes more processing power but is less noticeable.

[Redemption80]

No, it wasn't, not even close, everything that was in CE2 is in CE3, plus more.

[Dictator93]

Originally Posted by Redemption80

No, it wasn't, not even close, everything that was in CE2 is in CE3, plus more.

The truth.

[Cambria]

Originally Posted by Redemption80

No, it wasn't, not even close, everything that was in CE2 is in CE3, plus more.

Minus the lower resolution textures, a different and less appeasing lighting system, those are the 2 main things I can think of off the top of my head. But nothing was "added" to CE3 other than some blur effects and from what I could tell poor tessellation.

CE3 was no improvement over CE2, other than running better only due to lower resolution textures and less physx going on.

The textures alone made the graphics look horrible. The people looked alot worse as well. And since it would not let me use the high resolution texture pack since I have less than 768MB (prompt came up saying I could not use it) then those better be like 4000x4000 textures since I can play Metro 2033 just fine and its textures look 100x better with 320MB.

Fact is though, Crysis 2 was nothing more than a console port. Was not built for the PC like Crysis 1 was. And very very little was done to it on its way to PC to enhance it. I have a feeling Crysis 3 will be more of the same.

[Gaizokubanou]

Originally Posted by Cambria

Minus the lower resolution textures, a different and less appeasing lighting system, those are the 2 main things I can think of off the top of my head. But nothing was "added" to CE3 other than some blur effects and from what I could tell poor tessellation.

CE3 was no improvement over CE2, other than running better only due to lower resolution textures and less physx going on.

The textures alone made the graphics look horrible. The people looked alot worse as well. And since it would not let me use the high resolution texture pack since I have less than 768MB (prompt came up saying I could not use it) then those better be like 4000x4000 textures since I can play Metro 2033 just fine and its textures look 100x better with 320MB.

Fact is though, Crysis 2 was nothing more than a console port. Was not built for the PC like Crysis 1 was. And very very little was done to it on its way to PC to enhance it. I have a feeling Crysis 3 will be more of the same.

You are talking about the game.

They are talking about the engine. Engine can support high resolution textures, as Maldo proved it to us with his awesome texture pack.

[Redemption80]

Your talking about Crysis 2, i'm talking about CryEngine 3.

Engine wise, everything that was in CE2, is still there in CE3, textures have nothing to do with the engine.

Edit: lol, very similar post.

[Cambria]

Originally Posted by Redemption80

Your talking about Crysis 2, i'm talking about CryEngine 3.

Engine wise, everything that was in CE2, is still there in CE3, textures have nothing to do with the engine.

Edit: lol, very similar post.

So in what other game has CryEngine 3 been used in? How am I supposed to know what an engine does and does not have without seeing it in action?

So maybe if they would make a game to better display this so called superior engine then I would be on board. But from what I saw with it, myself and many other people were really disappointed.

The engine can have whatever it wants. But the engine is made to run a game. That game was Crysis 2. So I feel like we are talking about the same thing :/

[Redemption80]

There is plenty of documentation on the engine, and the sdk has been out for some time.

Most people were disappointed in the textures, which were pretty bad, but it was easily fixed by Maldo, everything else was just personal taste when it came to setting and art style.

Talking of mod's, and since Warhead is my favourite, this is something i have been keeping an eye on, even if i'm not always keen on the TOD choice they sometimes go for.

[Gaizokubanou]

Originally Posted by Cambria

So in what other game has CryEngine 3 been used in? How am I supposed to know what an engine does and does not have without seeing it in action?

So maybe if they would make a game to better display this so called superior engine then I would be on board. But from what I saw with it, myself and many other people were really disappointed.

The engine can have whatever it wants. But the engine is made to run a game. That game was Crysis 2. So I feel like we are talking about the same thing :/

Like I said, some mods show amazing quality texture working seamlessly in CryEngine 3.

And no, the engine can't have whatever it wants... there are limitations of gaming engines, that's why people spend fortunes fixing existing ones or making new ones.

Think of game engines as... a computer hardware. Now if someone ran a pretty crappy looking game on that hardware, yes, the demonstration blew, but that doesn't logically mean that the hardware is only capable of crappy looking games. At best, it's a small piece of inductive argument. In the case of CryEngine 3, this inductive argument is countered by much stronger deductive arguments of mods showing the engine's high quality.

[Redemption80]

Nicely said.

Thinking about it, i wouldn't mind a new Crysis game using CE3, this time open world and in a prettier setting, but not the jungle again!!

If anything i wouldn't mind Crytek Budapest doing it rather than Frankfurt, while i thought Warhead was the worst looking of the three games, gameplay wise i think it was the best, well was the one i enjoyed the most anyway.

[Cambria]

I just hope CryTek goes down. They were only good with Ubisoft. They suck now. And I dont expect to see anything special with Crysis 3 that hasnt already been beaten to death.

[Dictator93]

Just to put this CE2 vs. CE3 debate to rest. Engine-wise, CE3 is ridiculous more powerful and better optimized.

1. Fully deferred lighting (unlike the forward renderer in CE2 limiting the amount of lights per scene)
2. Better multi-core support that scales from 2-6 processors.
3. Better shader support (Screen space sub surface scattering for example)
4. more-accureate yet cheaper to render post-processing
5. Better ambient occlusion
6. REAL TIME GLOBAL ILLUMINATION

These are just the things that are obvious too. The engine itself runs better than the previous with the same assets on screen. Who knows what other wizardry is under the hood making it do that.

[Cambria]

Originally Posted by Dictator93

Just to put this CE2 vs. CE3 debate to rest. Engine-wise, CE3 is ridiculous more powerful and better optimized.

1. Fully deferred lighting (unlike the forward renderer in CE2 limiting the amount of lights per scene)
2. Better multi-core support that scales from 2-6 processors.
3. Better shader support (Screen space sub surface scattering for example)
4. more-accureate yet cheaper to render post-processing
5. Better ambient occlusion
6. REAL TIME GLOBAL ILLUMINATION

These are just the things that are obvious too. The engine itself runs better than the previous with the same assets on screen. Who knows what other wizardry is under the hood making it do that.

Now they just need to learn how to implement a dynamic sky. And then they might have a decent engine.

[ElementalDragon]

Originally Posted by Cambria

Yes but back then 1920x1080 was not as common as it is now. Hell, back then I was still using my 17inch CRT monitor so 1920x1080 was out of the question completely! Not saying everyone had an old CRT from 92, but still.

Yes... because back then, 1920x1200 was the most common resolution when people sought after a widescreen LCD monitor. It wasn't until High Definition movie formats came around which spiked the urge to invest in a HDTV that we started seeing "HD 720p" and "FullHD 1080p" branding crap on TV's... and then monitor manufacturers started ditching 1920x1200 to go to 1920x1080.... and now 16:10 ratio monitors are few and far between.

Redemption: I may be having a bit of a brain fart here.... but.... SS3?

[Redemption80]

Sorry meant Serious Sam 3, been trying to spend less time on the PC, so I’ve been writing many of my posts on a small smartphone.

[WhiteLightning]

Originally Posted by Redemption80

I’ve been writing many of my posts on a small smartphone.

Pure torture if you ask me