Crysis Multiplayer Beta

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: Canai
Yeah I'm buying it, and I plan on buying a GeForce 9 series at launch since it's been a year since I bought my x1900 and I really want to have all these great games I'm looking forward to run as fast as possible.

Such a big upgrade there. I thought going from X1900xt to HD2900XT was a giant leap.

 

[TehMac]

I'm running an x1900xt right now, and I'm running M2TW max'd, CoH OF max'd. I built my system over a year ago. :\

 

[Canai]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: Canai
Yeah I'm buying it, and I plan on buying a GeForce 9 series at launch since it's been a year since I bought my x1900 and I really want to have all these great games I'm looking forward to run as fast as possible.

Such a big upgrade there. I thought going from X1900xt to HD2900XT was a giant leap.

Well I can still run pretty much everything at pretty much the highest settings (minus the shadows, everything I play is on this highest settings), but for the defining DX10 game also known as Crysis, I want to be able to play on max details, and I am preparing to spend $500+ on it. Of course, I hope this will happen to coincide with UT3's release, so I can get all the eyecandy possible .

I know it's not that huge of an upgrade leap, but I think once a year is a good time frame to update video cards. And the fact that the new games are under a format that my card does not support is a major prodding towards getting a new card.

 

[TehMac]

So how is the gameplay?

 

[XNice]

The problem with peoples argumens here is that their timeline is all messed up. This game should be able to run maxxed out settings on an 8800gtx, period. I'm sick of developers requiring faster hardware to run their games instead of emphasizing efficient code. One of the reasons the Valve engine is so good is its lower requirements.

Now why did I say the 8800gtx shoudl be all thats required? Crysis comes out in Nov 2007 I think. 8800GTX came ~Nov 2006. Crysis was SUPPOSED to come out in 2006 before it started a its long series of delays. So the developers were coding to make a game playable on the soon to be launched 8800 hardware. Don't let their delay to bringin the game to market fool you. If this game runs like crap on a 8800gtx with maxxed out settings(in game) at a 1280x1024 resolution(kinda sorta standard nowadays); Then Crytek lost alot of respect as developers.

What someone else said was true, who cares that I can run the game the way it was meant to be played 8 months down the road? There'll be better games. Now I do know that this is a pre-beta which is unfortunate for a game set to release so soon. My real benchmark on expectations from a DX10 game will come when UT3 is released so perfomance and quality comparisons can be done. Imagine is crysis runs like Crap and UT3 doesnt. Right now I can run Rainbow Six: Vegas maxxed out with no problems, so I have somewhat of an expectation of performance.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: XNice
The problem with peoples argumens here is that their timeline is all messed up. This game should be able to run maxxed out settings on an 8800gtx, period. I'm sick of developers requiring faster hardware to run their games instead of emphasizing efficient code. One of the reasons the Valve engine is so good is its lower requirements.

Now why did I say the 8800gtx shoudl be all thats required? Crysis comes out in Nov 2007 I think. 8800GTX came ~Nov 2006. Crysis was SUPPOSED to come out in 2006 before it started a its long series of delays. So the developers were coding to make a game playable on the soon to be launched 8800 hardware. Don't let their delay to bringin the game to market fool you. If this game runs like crap on a 8800gtx with maxxed out settings(in game) at a 1280x1024 resolution(kinda sorta standard nowadays); Then Crytek lost alot of respect as developers.

What someone else said was true, who cares that I can run the game the way it was meant to be played 8 months down the road? There'll be better games. Now I do know that this is a pre-beta which is unfortunate for a game set to release so soon. My real benchmark on expectations from a DX10 game will come when UT3 is released so perfomance and quality comparisons can be done. Imagine is crysis runs like Crap and UT3 doesnt. Right now I can run Rainbow Six: Vegas maxxed out with no problems, so I have somewhat of an expectation of performance.

well you can either take delays or have another shitty EA game. i'll gladly take delays. or simply don't put a release date, like blizzard does

 

[videogames101]

anyone happen to know when the next keys will be released?

 

[math20]

Originally posted by: videogames101
anyone happen to know when the next keys will be released?

I can't know for certain, but I heard that they will be released on Monday for both fileplanet and incrysis.

 

[videogames101]

Originally posted by: math20

Originally posted by: videogames101
anyone happen to know when the next keys will be released?

I can't know for certain, but I heard that they will be released on Monday for both fileplanet and incrysis.

ty, good to know...

 

[jdoggg12]

Originally posted by: XNice
The problem with peoples argumens here is that their timeline is all messed up. This game should be able to run maxxed out settings on an 8800gtx, period. I'm sick of developers requiring faster hardware to run their games instead of emphasizing efficient code. One of the reasons the Valve engine is so good is its lower requirements.

Now why did I say the 8800gtx shoudl be all thats required? Crysis comes out in Nov 2007 I think. 8800GTX came ~Nov 2006. Crysis was SUPPOSED to come out in 2006 before it started a its long series of delays. So the developers were coding to make a game playable on the soon to be launched 8800 hardware. Don't let their delay to bringin the game to market fool you. If this game runs like crap on a 8800gtx with maxxed out settings(in game) at a 1280x1024 resolution(kinda sorta standard nowadays); Then Crytek lost alot of respect as developers.

What someone else said was true, who cares that I can run the game the way it was meant to be played 8 months down the road? There'll be better games. Now I do know that this is a pre-beta which is unfortunate for a game set to release so soon. My real benchmark on expectations from a DX10 game will come when UT3 is released so perfomance and quality comparisons can be done. Imagine is crysis runs like Crap and UT3 doesnt. Right now I can run Rainbow Six: Vegas maxxed out with no problems, so I have somewhat of an expectation of performance.

Buy a different game or learn how to code and make your own.

You don't need to play the game at the highest settings. The medium settings still look better than just about any other game out there. Besides, who are you to say the game is poorly coded anyway? Are you even taking in to consideration just how massive the game really is in terms of physics, graphics, draw distance, AI, and interactivity?

Here's a question for you. If someone made a game that looked truly photo-realistic TODAY but said that hardware to run it wont be ready for 2 years, are you going to call crappy coding? I doubt it. I'm glad they're making it the way they are, unlike HL2, i still like going back to FarCry and playing it b/c its so gorgeous... HL2 looks bland by comparison.

But to each their own, right?


I really just dont get why everyone expects every game to ship with the max settings instantly attainable. If you want that, go buy a console, otherwise its the upgrade trend as usually... same as the last 10 years...

 

[TehMac]

I really don't see how anybody expected to run this max'd out the day it came out. Especially with it being common knowledge that Crysis will not be able to be truly max'd out for at least 8 months.

 

[Sniper82]

Too bad after I play and beat the game I will have no desire to load it back up 8 months down the road when I can max it out. I might just wait till a card refresh comes to even bother with the game. I see no point in buying a 8800 series if it can't play the game the way I want.

 

[jdoggg12]

Not everyone who buys it is going to do so the day it comes out... keeping unattainable graphics in todays gfx card market gives incentive for people who buy top end hardware later to buy this game then.

Not to mention the engine licensing.

I cant wait to beat the game more than once... try it using stealth, then run 'n gun etc... then tack on some mods... i've beaten GC 3 times, HL2 2 times, D3 3 times.... i like trying different things each time i play games through

 

[XNice]

I don't think you understood what I meant by maxxed out. I'm not talking about super high resolution and high AA/AF. I said maxxed out IN GAME settingd. Nowadays the focus of performance is starting to demand high resolutions, especially widescreen formats. A simple 1280x1024 or 1024x768 should not be difficult to obtain with maxxed out IN GAME SETTINGS. Don't get me wrong, I'm still a big fan of crytek, I just hope they don't keep a bad trend alive. The skill these days with such refiniement in game design methodologies is not making a game look pretty anymore. Anyone can make the game look pretty. But make it run efficient and how the develpper intended using current gen cards is now the benchmark for a good game, besides the ever important gameplay factor, ie Spore. I don't pay my money for potential, I pay for what can be delivered now.

 

[jdoggg12]

Well... lets just wait till the final version is ready till we crucify the game... there aren't even any profiles by nvidia/ati for their cards and this game.

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: XNice
The problem with peoples argumens here is that their timeline is all messed up. This game should be able to run maxxed out settings on an 8800gtx, period. I'm sick of developers requiring faster hardware to run their games instead of emphasizing efficient code. One of the reasons the Valve engine is so good is its lower requirements.

Now why did I say the 8800gtx shoudl be all thats required? Crysis comes out in Nov 2007 I think. 8800GTX came ~Nov 2006. Crysis was SUPPOSED to come out in 2006 before it started a its long series of delays. So the developers were coding to make a game playable on the soon to be launched 8800 hardware. Don't let their delay to bringin the game to market fool you. If this game runs like crap on a 8800gtx with maxxed out settings(in game) at a 1280x1024 resolution(kinda sorta standard nowadays); Then Crytek lost alot of respect as developers.

What someone else said was true, who cares that I can run the game the way it was meant to be played 8 months down the road? There'll be better games. Now I do know that this is a pre-beta which is unfortunate for a game set to release so soon. My real benchmark on expectations from a DX10 game will come when UT3 is released so perfomance and quality comparisons can be done. Imagine is crysis runs like Crap and UT3 doesnt. Right now I can run Rainbow Six: Vegas maxxed out with no problems, so I have somewhat of an expectation of performance.

I actually think it would be better to have games coming out with some lifespan to them.

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: XNice
I don't think you understood what I meant by maxxed out. I'm not talking about super high resolution and high AA/AF. I said maxxed out IN GAME settingd. Nowadays the focus of performance is starting to demand high resolutions, especially widescreen formats. A simple 1280x1024 or 1024x768 should not be difficult to obtain with maxxed out IN GAME SETTINGS. Don't get me wrong, I'm still a big fan of crytek, I just hope they don't keep a bad trend alive. The skill these days with such refiniement in game design methodologies is not making a game look pretty anymore. Anyone can make the game look pretty. But make it run efficient and how the develpper intended using current gen cards is now the benchmark for a good game, besides the ever important gameplay factor, ie Spore. I don't pay my money for potential, I pay for what can be delivered now.

"Maxed in game settings' is totally arbitray. All crytek needs to do is lop out the upper 30% of its graphic quality, call whats left "Highest" and its met your desires.

I'd actually rather have games include extremely good graphics (for the time) settings meant to be used on future hardware so when I fire up BF2 two years later like I'm about to, it'd look a lot better than it does.


I do agree with your sentiment about poor code however

 

[XNice]

Originally posted by: Frackal
I actually think it would be better to have games coming out with some lifespan to them.

I agree with that but lifespan to me is getting 60fps on 1920x1200 widescreen resolution with full AA/AF. We can assume max ingame settings. Taking Crysis for example, to have maxx settings with no aa/af at 1280/1024 with a min of 30fps should not be a problem for a 8800GTX. I use 1280x1024 resolution as the standard because 19in and 17in LCD's make up a big part of the market.

 

[cmdrdredd]

I agree with XNice and what he's getting at. In 8 months we will likely be looking at ID Tech5 and other games based on UT3 engine etc. Maybe even new games on new engines that will probably have something Crysis does not. I hope that Crytek doesn't expect everyone to wait 8 months to max the in game settings. I sure as hell won't play the game again 8 months after I finish it just to see how fast it runs now. I understand the engine's longevity is a factor in this, but at the same time. Half-Life 2 ran really nicely on even 1 year old hardware at the highest settings. Even Doom3 played well on hardware that wasn't the latest stuff. Sure FPS increased and you could enable AA/AF at higher resolutions as time went on, but the game was super playable on hardware that wasn't the highest of the top end. I just really hope Crytek has the game playable with maxed in game settings at say 1280x1024 which as XNice said is about standard now where as 1024x768 was the standard a few years ago.

Shouldn't be a problem because Carmack says they got ID Tech 5 up and running on PC, Mac, Xbox360, and PS3 in about 10 days time and equally smooth on all platforms. The demo I saw looked really well done and graphics were excellent. Now, Crytek has had a few years for their engine. The game was postponed from last year. Last year we wouldn't even have DX10. Maybe that is why they had the delay? I don't know. My point is, if ID can take an engine and make it run at a good framerate in less than 2 weeks, Crytek should be able to do it in a few years. That's all. Granted ID uses OpenGL.

 

[Polish3d]

I agree with the general "It ought to run at high settings on current top end hardware" as well, but don't you guys see the error of the "Highest settings" obsession?

There will ALWAYS be the capability to add a higher quality setting no matter how good the code is and how good the game looks, and ALWAYS a level too high for current gen hardware.

Assuming a minimum level of competency in their coding, the only choice for developers is to leave out the above 'too high' content, or to include it for the future. I would rather they include it, particularly for a multiplayer game.

 

[Canai]

Wow, this thread has taken a huge shit over the weekend.

You guys are bitching about crappy coding. It's a beta. The code is crappy. The whole point of the beta is to streamline the code. You haven't even played the game, and yet you are talking about the coding like you made it.

Since when do we pass judgment on a game at the beginning of the beta phase?


And WHY is it a good thing if, when a game comes out, you can run it on maxed settings on year-old hardware?

I just think that all you guys with the 8800gtx jumped the gun on your hardware upgrade. I'm still running an x1900 and not having any problems, so the natural upgrade will be to the next gen of nVidia's cards. I think perhaps you upgraded at the wrong time, and would have been better served waiting for a game that actually NEEDED the gtx to run, instead of just jumping from 100fps to 150fps in whatever game.

I always get a playable framerate on high settings on my x1900 AIW, which is slower than the normal x1900.

edit: 3000 posts

 

[brandonb]

They should just rename Medium Setting to High Setting and delete High setting... Then the bitching will stop.

Then a year from now, they can release a Gold version (that we have to pay for) that enables Super High Setting (which was just High setting as seen today) when the hardware has caught up.

I vote for leaving the game as is, I hate buying Gold Versions.

 

[jdoggg12]

BATCH 2 IS UP!!! I'M IN!!

 

[Miklebud]

YAY! I'm IN FTW!

 

[Canai]

I'm going to hop on for a few hours now.. I'll be in whichever hypernia server has the most players. I'm Canai, obviously