Crysis Multiplayer Beta

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: TheUnk

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: Canai
No system should run this game at max

You don't think so? Why not?

Perhaps because it's highest settings are not made to be run at playable fps with todays hardware?

I think it's a great idea. If a game comes out that you can run at it's highest settings already, when you spend $500 on the latest card again, all you'll get is more fps. With this you'll get more than that.

As long as the playable fps rate visuals on todays high end hardware look great and aren't neglected/gimped down to make the future visuals appear better, then I'm all for it.

Agree, so many games would be much more awesome if they were done this way. Crytek really knows what they're doing.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: Frackal

Originally posted by: TheUnk

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: Canai
No system should run this game at max

You don't think so? Why not?

Perhaps because it's highest settings are not made to be run at playable fps with todays hardware?

I think it's a great idea. If a game comes out that you can run at it's highest settings already, when you spend $500 on the latest card again, all you'll get is more fps. With this you'll get more than that.

As long as the playable fps rate visuals on todays high end hardware look great and aren't neglected/gimped down to make the future visuals appear better, then I'm all for it.

Agree, so many games would be much more awesome if they were done this way. Crytek really knows what they're doing.

Again It should run well on today's top hardware. That's all. If they make it unplayable/impossible on an 8800GTS or HD2900xt and a 3Ghz+ C2D with 4GB memory then they failed in my eyes. This game was slated for release last year, before the 8800 cards released even or right around that time. If that hardware isn't good enough then they hurt themselves. Obviously FPS will go up as newer cards come out and then you can run higher resolution and AA etc. However, if an HD2900XT or 8800GTS at 1280x1024 with no AA is unplayable with the highest settings in game then Crytek did not do their job properly IMO. We will see soon enough anyway.

Like I said before, 8 months even 6months from release most gamers will not care about loading up Crysis and saying "oh look how pretty" no, they will be playing something else or looking forward to something else. We should not have to wait for the game experience we paid for right now.

Then think about it this way. This multiplayer beta is two things. First it's a beta with lots of trash code (no optimizations) and second it's focused on the multiplayer mechanics not necessarily the graphics or framerate. There is always lower FPS in online situations than there is in a single player game because when you go online the game and your CPU has alot more to calculate. I think the single player will be fine.

 

[Canai]

OK. One last time, so maybe it will stick.

Crysis looks amazing. Better than any other game I've seen. Have any of you considered that maybe today's (COUGH YEAR OLD COUGH) hardware is simply not powerful enough to run the highest settings on a game that has been touted, in countless different sources, to be so 'advanced' that it will take eight months for the silicon to catch up?

And think of it this way: would you rather Crysis was released with lowered details and settings, effectively putting a cap on what graphical options are available, and then have those limits removed via episodal upgrades (think source engine),

OR

Would you rather have all the options available from the start, weigh your options, enable the ones you want, and then wait for the hardware to catch up so you can enable all of them?





If the game does not run 'perfect 150 fps on max settings all the time on my fancy piece of hardware that is a year old,' would you really want crytek to remove the options and dumb down the graphics to run all smooth and unpretty?


I hope that makes as much sense as is did in my head. I'm tired and have been awake for far too long.

 

[TehMac]

Those village idiots said I wasn't eligible even with an x1900xt, 4200x2 and 2GB of ram. Bloody homos.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: Canai
OK. One last time, so maybe it will stick.

Crysis looks amazing. Better than any other game I've seen. Have any of you considered that maybe today's (COUGH YEAR OLD COUGH) hardware is simply not powerful enough to run the highest settings on a game that has been touted, in countless different sources, to be so 'advanced' that it will take eight months for the silicon to catch up?

And think of it this way: would you rather Crysis was released with lowered details and settings, effectively putting a cap on what graphical options are available, and then have those limits removed via episodal upgrades (think source engine),

OR

Would you rather have all the options available from the start, weigh your options, enable the ones you want, and then wait for the hardware to catch up so you can enable all of them?





If the game does not run 'perfect 150 fps on max settings all the time on my fancy piece of hardware that is a year old,' would you really want crytek to remove the options and dumb down the graphics to run all smooth and unpretty?


I hope that makes as much sense as is did in my head. I'm tired and have been awake for far too long.

You didn't read what I said obviously. I said PLAYABLE not 150fps. :roll:

Do you really think UT3 will be unplayable with max in game settings with current hardware? I sure as hell don't, and ID Tech 5 even already has code up and running on Mac, PC, 360, and PS3 equally as fluid and it looks amazing in itself. I doubt highly that Crytek will shoot themselves in the foot by making it totally unplayable if you put everything on max. (no AA)

 

[Oakenfold]

Let's try to be a little more polite.
There are comments bordering on personal attacks in this thread. I don't feel like giving out any vacations over something I know we here @ AT in the PC Gaming forum are capable of resolving by using a little bit more judgment in our posts and showing a little more respect to our fellow members.

Edited-I didn't like the text completely bolded.

 

[KeithTalent]

Originally posted by: TehMac
Those village idiots said I wasn't eligible even with an x1900xt, 4200x2 and 2GB of ram. Bloody homos.

Yeah you always have to lie on those things, I mean they don't even list my card.

KT

 

[Sniper82]

Originally posted by: KeithTalent

Originally posted by: TehMac
Those village idiots said I wasn't eligible even with an x1900xt, 4200x2 and 2GB of ram. Bloody homos.

Yeah you always have to lie on those things, I mean they don't even list my card.

KT

I lied and said I had a 8800 and still didn't meet it.

 

[Oakenfold]

Originally posted by: Sniper82

Originally posted by: KeithTalent

Originally posted by: TehMac
Those village idiots said I wasn't eligible even with an x1900xt, 4200x2 and 2GB of ram. Bloody homos.

Yeah you always have to lie on those things, I mean they don't even list my card.

KT

I lied and said I had a 8800 and still didn't meet it.

What else did you choose?

 

[Sniper82]

Originally posted by: Oakenfold

Originally posted by: Sniper82

Originally posted by: KeithTalent

Originally posted by: TehMac
Those village idiots said I wasn't eligible even with an x1900xt, 4200x2 and 2GB of ram. Bloody homos.

Yeah you always have to lie on those things, I mean they don't even list my card.

KT

I lied and said I had a 8800 and still didn't meet it.

What else did you choose?

Intel Core Duo, Cable, ect(which I have).

 

[KeithTalent]

Originally posted by: Sniper82

Originally posted by: Oakenfold

Originally posted by: Sniper82

Originally posted by: KeithTalent

Originally posted by: TehMac
Those village idiots said I wasn't eligible even with an x1900xt, 4200x2 and 2GB of ram. Bloody homos.

Yeah you always have to lie on those things, I mean they don't even list my card.

KT

I lied and said I had a 8800 and still didn't meet it.

What else did you choose?

Intel Core Duo, Cable, ect(which I have).

Don't pick the Core Duo, pick an X2 500+ or something. That's what got me last time.

KT

 

[Canai]

Alright well all I'm saying is that the developers SAID that Crysis would be eight months ahead of the hardware, and now that it's come true, people are up in arms about it.

 

[Polish3d]

I'm not arguing about this any more. It's so ridiculous that someone does not understand the complete arbitrary IRRELEVANCE of the "highest settings" designation. arg

 

[Canai]

Originally posted by: Frackal
I'm not arguing about this any more. It's so ridiculous that someone does not understand the complete arbitrary IRRELEVANCE of the "highest settings" designation. arg

Yup yup. Let's just agree that the game is awesome and go play some TF2

 

[VashHT]

Got in last night with the 3rd batch of keys. I'll just say the multiplayer is a lot more in depth than i was expecting, which is a pleasant surprise. Originally I only cared about the sp for this game, but the mp is pretty fun.

 

[Canai]

LAST BATCH OF KEYS is available NOW.

http://www.fileplanet.com/promotions/crysis/beta/


GOGOGO!

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: Canai
OK. One last time, so maybe it will stick.

Crysis looks amazing. Better than any other game I've seen. Have any of you considered that maybe today's (COUGH YEAR OLD COUGH) hardware is simply not powerful enough to run the highest settings on a game that has been touted, in countless different sources, to be so 'advanced' that it will take eight months for the silicon to catch up?

And think of it this way: would you rather Crysis was released with lowered details and settings, effectively putting a cap on what graphical options are available, and then have those limits removed via episodal upgrades (think source engine),

OR

Would you rather have all the options available from the start, weigh your options, enable the ones you want, and then wait for the hardware to catch up so you can enable all of them?


If the game does not run 'perfect 150 fps on max settings all the time on my fancy piece of hardware that is a year old,' would you really want crytek to remove the options and dumb down the graphics to run all smooth and unpretty?


I hope that makes as much sense as is did in my head. I'm tired and have been awake for far too long.

You didn't read what I said obviously. I said PLAYABLE not 150fps. :roll:

Do you really think UT3 will be unplayable with max in game settings with current hardware? I sure as hell don't, and ID Tech 5 even already has code up and running on Mac, PC, 360, and PS3 equally as fluid and it looks amazing in itself. I doubt highly that Crytek will shoot themselves in the foot by making it totally unplayable if you put everything on max. (no AA)

Not having played UT3 my comment may be premature, but I think it is safe to say UT3's graphics will not compare to Crysis. And the U3 engine has been out for, what, a year already? Crysis on med/hi probably looks as good as UT3 on max. Crysis goes for realism though, not cartoony effects.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: Canai
Alright well all I'm saying is that the developers SAID that Crysis would be eight months ahead of the hardware, and now that it's come true, people are up in arms about it.

no, this game was supposed to release last year before you had 8800s in the market. I'm saying if an 8800 would not run the game well then they failed. Simple. There are other devs who's engine won't tank on this hardware and will look just as good.

I have a good feeling that it will run fine. People will complain that 1920x1200 with AA and AF is slow. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that standard resolution right now is prettyy much 1280x1024 and bordering on 1680x1200. That being said, these low resolutions with high end hardware right now should play the game smoothly if they get their code effecient enough.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: Canai
OK. One last time, so maybe it will stick.

Crysis looks amazing. Better than any other game I've seen. Have any of you considered that maybe today's (COUGH YEAR OLD COUGH) hardware is simply not powerful enough to run the highest settings on a game that has been touted, in countless different sources, to be so 'advanced' that it will take eight months for the silicon to catch up?

And think of it this way: would you rather Crysis was released with lowered details and settings, effectively putting a cap on what graphical options are available, and then have those limits removed via episodal upgrades (think source engine),

OR

Would you rather have all the options available from the start, weigh your options, enable the ones you want, and then wait for the hardware to catch up so you can enable all of them?


If the game does not run 'perfect 150 fps on max settings all the time on my fancy piece of hardware that is a year old,' would you really want crytek to remove the options and dumb down the graphics to run all smooth and unpretty?


I hope that makes as much sense as is did in my head. I'm tired and have been awake for far too long.

You didn't read what I said obviously. I said PLAYABLE not 150fps. :roll:

Do you really think UT3 will be unplayable with max in game settings with current hardware? I sure as hell don't, and ID Tech 5 even already has code up and running on Mac, PC, 360, and PS3 equally as fluid and it looks amazing in itself. I doubt highly that Crytek will shoot themselves in the foot by making it totally unplayable if you put everything on max. (no AA)

Not having played UT3 my comment may be premature, but I think it is safe to say UT3's graphics will not compare to Crysis. And the U3 engine has been out for, what, a year already? Crysis on med/hi probably looks as good as UT3 on max. Crysis goes for realism though, not cartoony effects.

remember that Crytek slated this game's release for last year but pulled it to wait for DX10 and Vista. They had alot more time to make it playable. I think people forget what playable means. Playable does NOT mean 1920x1200 4xaa 16xaf at 60fps. No, playable is say 1280x1024 2xaa and 8x af at 30fps. Heck, even 1280x1024 no AA and no AF with max details on in the game's options should be 30fps. Who says UT3 won't look as good? From what I've seen it has potential to, but developers licensing the engine get a old version and the team leaves out alot of things to make it harder on the developer who bought the license. This is why AA doesn't really work properly etc in games like Bioshock which use the UT3 engine.

Both engines are good, but again I think people are forgetting that Crytek wants everyone to experience the game, and you know as well as I do that the #1 question asked when a game releases for PC is "will my rig run it?". Don't you think they want everyone to say "Yes if you run 1280x1024 and no AA you can achieve 30fps in single player" which is very playable and also very practical. I'm not trying to say that a x2 3800 with 1GB of memory and a 8800GTS 320MB will run it 60fps at 1920x1200, but that when you take a system with 2GB+ of memory, 3Ghz CPU, latest graphics card (DX10), you should expect to be able to use the DX10 features that are shown off in the videos with a playable experience. Too much emphasis on super high resolution and AA spoiled the lot of us.

What it comes down to is this. They show off all these features and make people buy it. Then when it runs at 10fps they will go on forums and tell their friends "don't buy this game it runs bad". They will avoid that I guarantee. They will have the single player game, with all effects on, running on decent high end hardware similar to what I mentioned above, at ~30fps. I can't see it happening any other way. There are people who say 30fps is not playable and too slow and they need 60fps. Well, let them turn off features to get it...I'll play the game at 30fps.

I hope what I'm saying makes more sense...

 

[KeithTalent]

I will be extremely interested to play the game when they actually put out a DX10 version. Hopefully that will happen with the demo.

KT

 

[NikolaeVarius]

I actually wonder how Developers play their games at highest settings, if consumer level cards can't run it. Are they using Quadros or something?

 

[Modelworks]

Personally I don't think crysis as a game will be that big a seller.
The hardware required to run it well is too high.
Instead what you have is a company instead trying to push an engine to other developers, who might make games from it in the future.
Thats where the real money is.
And it always helps the sales of an engine if it has a shipped title going for it.
Personally company is going for Id tech 5, simply because it works on multiple operating systems and the hardware requirements scale better.

 

[KeithTalent]

Originally posted by: Modelworks
Personally I don't think crysis as a game will be that big a seller.

Personally I think you are crazy.

Have you played the game?

KT

 

[Modelworks]

Yes I have played the game.
I don't see anything really special.
Its like Halo3 as far as I am concerned, all hype.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: Modelworks
Personally I don't think crysis as a game will be that big a seller.
The hardware required to run it well is too high.
Instead what you have is a company instead trying to push an engine to other developers, who might make games from it in the future.
Thats where the real money is.
And it always helps the sales of an engine if it has a shipped title going for it.
Personally company is going for Id tech 5, simply because it works on multiple operating systems and the hardware requirements scale better.

This is somewhat a valid argument except the team is working heavily on certain gameplay aspects like the AI and the nanosuit. To say the game won't be good is really selling them short. The engine probably won't sell well anyway. How many games used the farcry engine for instance? Most companies looking to license an engine would go for UT3 as it's already been used in a few titles or the ID Tech 5 engine as it would run solidly on multiple platforms with little work.

That being said, the game will sell well based on hype alone.

FYI: Halo3 has alot of hype, but the game is really well done (i have played it).