Crysis Killer

So,

I am about to purchase the n81vp-d1...And I am starting to wonder...

What is going to be the next game that everyone is going to compare their computer performance to?

I am asking this because I am worried that my n81vp-d1 will not be able to play new games in a few years on the graphics card. Right now this system will be able to run crysis with med-high settings. But what is going to be the game that will be harder to run then crysis in the future? Do we know yet?

Thanks,

Adam

 

Yes we know crysis 2

 

It looks like that will not come out until sometime in 2010...So I have a year until I start crying that I can not play the latest game?

How much more demanding do you expect it to be?

I have heard that hardware is moving at a faster pace then software...So this means that our current gear will last longer then it use to?

 

Actually, I would suspect Crysis 2 will be easier to run on computers.

 

Yeah, it's not necessarily that Crysis' is that much farther ahead than other games' engines (though there's little contest that it is at least better to some degree), a lot of it was because it was just badly optimized at tweaked, hence explaining how Warhead looks about the same (or better) and also runs much smoother than Crysis.

 

So, you think that Crysis 2 will be able to play at the same settings as Crysis 1 on the n81vp-d1?

 

Possibly higher. Crysis 1 was so badly coded that it didn't run well on most computers. You had to get a tip top gaming DESKTOP to get it running at high. Same goes for GTA 4. Hopefully Crytek doesn't make the same mistake again

 

Well, I beg to differ......the Asus G51 can run it at max settings (except for AA) at native resolution very well.....I bet the Sager gaming laptops can run it pretty well too.

 

I am pretty sure Crysis 2 will be quite a lot less of a graphics handful as Crysis 1 as this time the engine is designed to work well on consoles too. So it will probably be more taxing on CPU and similar on GPU with better scaling as PC offers potentially better graphics performance.

 

Thanks for all your help...

So, Crysis 2 does not seem to be the killer...So what game will be

Maybe no one knows...

I heard COD MW2 is going to be less demanding then Crysis...Is this so?

 

COD MW2 will be nearly the same as COD MW. it wont hold a candle to crysis graphics wise. i havent seen any next gen games that are trying to take crysis spot and you shouldnt worry if you computer wont be able to max out a game thats not even out (or even in development).

 

Many thought it would be Far Cry 2, but that didn't pan out, so it's unknown.

 

Lol if Crysis taught game publishers anything, it is that you DO NOT market a game based on how no one will be able to play it on their current hardware. Crysis had one of the worst marketing campaigns ever conceived imo.

"Can you play this game? No, ok go buy CoD 4 then."

 

That's what I did

 

psh, if anything it told them "make super amazing graphics and people will buy" they sold over a million copys by january 2008.

not saying it wasnt a terrible marketing campain, but it worked, and thats all that matters.

 

Far Cry 2 came out after Crysis?

 

Far Cry 2 still looks awesome and has awesome lighting. Crysis looks better but not by much.

Nevertheless when you throw a grenade in Far Cry 2 it has more effect on the nearby vegetation than it has in Crysis, the way the trees bends and bushes and grass when the grenade blows up.

I have tweaked Crysis a lot for many many hours, but saying Far Cry 2 looks much worse than Crysis is just not true. Considering how large the maps is in Far Cry 2 compared to Crysis levels and the amount of detail the graphics has in Far Cry 2 for those large maps it´s amazing.

Now when Arma 2 is out, those graphics maxed out is very near Crysis quality. Now we talk about realistic graphics here, Crysis has very colorful graphics but Arma 2 has more realistic graphics. Texture wise Crysis doesn´t take the lead anymore, shader wise yes sure, physics no.

 

yep. it stumbled out of brown washed out jungleville a full year after crysis came.

edit: dont get me wrong far cry 2 looks great, but the colors are just terrible, and since im red/green colorblind anyway it makes me wanna puke.

 

Well it´s africa, mostly savannah and jungle. Sure the jungle isn´t as green as Crysis jungle but it still looks damn good. Might be hard if you are color blind I agree.

 

Haha I'm also red/green colorblind, and I felt the exact same way when I played the game. I had to stop after 30 minutes because it was so bad.

 

Assault on Dark Athena runs a bit slower than Crysis, but thats due to the heavy Ambient Occlusion Mapping, which looks dang good. Very shader intensive. Crysostasis also required more gpu power than crysis, but I blame that solely on poor programming, as it doesnt really look that great. Far Cry 2 looks alright, but I got tired of staring at flat cardboard textures after 40 minutes.

Crysis was released almost 2 years ago, and nobody has even come close to the quality of visuals as they have, yet modern games coming out today, which dont look nearly as good, perform about the same. Everybody gives Crysis crap for poor programming, but I think it is far better programmed than most games coming out now. People just need to not max the game out if they don't have maxed out hardware. The fact that the options are there to go crazy with visuals, and the ability to not run it at those settings, does not mean that it was poorly programmed.

Assassins Creed 2 is looking like it might be really gpu intensive, and Need for Speed: Shift might take a heavy hit on sys reqs too.

 

Agreed with an overclocked 8600M GT I could run it maxed in Dx10 at 1024x768 Still it looked very nice and the gameplay was perfectly smooth. Unless you have an I7 and quad 295SLI you are not going to max it in dx10 at high resolutions with aa etc turned on.

 

Farcry2 does look good graphic wise, I just wish the gameplay wasnt so crappy its first game i had to take back to the store because the game suck, too bad its had so much potental

 

I agree entirely. I am no expert on coding, but I'm pretty sure Crysis has to have good code to run on all the PCs it does... GTA4 on the other hand is just badly written for PCs. Crysis is just a really expensive tech demo for their engine as was the original Far Cry. Sort of like UT for the Unreal Engine and Quake for the id tech engines... They just wanted to show how scalable and how impressive its effects were (I absolutely hate Crysis' game play...CoD2&4 are much better)

On topic: Rage & Doom 4 will kick Crysis & Crysis 2's butt. Yay for id!

 

S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Clear Sky is pretty great graphics wise, comparable to Crysis for sure. Might also want to look to the publisher 1C. They made Cryostasis and Necrovision. Cryostasis more known for PhysX and Necrovision for using volumetric lighting/explosions and ambient occlusion.

 

i think rage will be close but it wont beat crysis, doom 4 however i bet will.

 

Rage will come in 3 or 4 double-layer DVD's, it will be kind of interesting to see how well it looks and how well it performs. IMO, Perfomance matters much more than graphics quality, so even if it's about 5 years old already, I would say that the source engine is way better than the engine from Crysis.

 

Rage will be better looking and better playing. Crysis had rather bad gameplay in my opinion. I'm quite sure that Rage will have better graphics even though it is for Xbox 360 (id is using some crazy scaling technology in their new engine). Check out the trailer for it... looks incredible.

 

i have watched it, it looks amazing, and i have no doubt that the gameplay will be much, much better (dont really care for the gameplay on crysis), im excited for it, but i still doubt it will look better graphically. problem with apocolyptic games is while they can have great graphics you cant really compare them to a game like crysis where there is beautifully constructed foliage everwhere to create some fantastic shadows and light effects.

 

I read this title and thought that a new version of crysis was released and it was called crysis killer. lol

 

lol! that woulda been an extremely cheesy name.

 

Well I always laugh at when people say GTA IV is badly coded. Quad Cores runs the game very good my Dual core runs the game very good on my desktop computer.

What makes the game intensive is the AI which is far more advanced than most games out there considering what it has to do with all people driving, walking you name it.

That´s where the culprit is the CPU not the GPU. Crysis also is not badly coded it´s just the hardware that wasn´t up to snuff for it, which it is now and the game could be tweaked like crazy like I did to be able to run it at 1920x1200 on my XPS M1730 with average framerate of 40 fps and the game looks like Very High.

If Far Cry 2 would have been as tweakable as Crysis I am sure the game would have look like Crysis in the end. Now it´s near Crysis quality, it doesn´t surpass it but it is very near.

 

i run crysis 1 on resolution 1900x 1200 and max setting on my new alienware m17x with 35 fps. i will have no problem runnign crysis 2

 

Lucky you! Judging by your sig once you have the quad in place all you will need is a couple of SSD's in raid 0 I can't wait to stick Q9650 in mine...

 

It's not that Crysis was badly coded as much as it could've been better coded. The Crytek engine was new and the fact that Crysis Warhead looks just as good as Crysis and is less intensive on the system shows the advancements in terms of efficiency on the graphics engine. Also comes the fact that Crysis can be modded to run and look good on mid range systems shows that the engine wasn't being used to it's most efficient way.

IMO, Crysis looks good, but I don't really care much for it. Sure, it's a benchmark like any other and chances are it'll remain a benchmark for a small while to come, but honestly, it's not my type of game, regardless of how good it looks and if it's not the type of game i play, I have no interest in running it.

It's not like there's a table somewhere that says "20FPS in Crysis at Ultra high = 76.8 FPS in Very high at Bioshock" so really I see little point in actually running Crysis as a benchmark other than for your pure interest in either the game itself or the pushing the limits of your hardware.

 

The next Elder Scrolls game?

 

1. Proof?
2. Crysis sales figures were way, wAY, WAY below targets.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=crysis+sales+figures&aq=0&oq=crysis+sales&aqi=g3
3. Lol CoD 4 sold that many copies in like 1 week, and that's just 360 figures.
http://vgchartz.com/swlaunch.php?re...rfare+-+X360&reg3=All&game3=&weeks=4&weekly=1
4. And by Jan 2008 CoD 4 was over 7 million units sold
http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/50951

But in any case, it was still the worst idea for a video game campaign. It's like trying to sell peanut butter that won't spread unless you have exactly the right bread and advertising it like that. o.0

 

i dont really think Cod4 is a fair comparison. Call of duty was already a tremendously popular series and crysis was a new IP.

hmmm... appearently it was q3 when they announced it, but the artical says it was writtin in january.
http://www.incrysis.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=612

 

You are absolutely right, it is not a fair comparison, nor was it a brilliant idea to launch a brand new IP alongside CoD4 with a campaign that stank.

Anyways, all I am trying to really say is it is not in the best interest of a game developer or publisher to release a title that will "kill" the hardware found in the majority of PC computers at the time of launch. And I think Crysis was an excellent example of this.

 

@ the OP

Here you go right from the horses mouth.
http://gamescom.gamespot.com/story/6215393/current-gen-to-last-until-2012-crytek

 

All i can really say is i don't know what the game is but i hoep it's atleast more fun to play than crysis. I loved teh graphics in crysis but that was it for me. The gameplay wasn't that much for me. Didn't care for it.

Graphics are the most important thing for me in a game. Well tied with gameplay. When i bought oblivion the first thing i did was set out to find as many retextures to improve teh standard textures as i could. QTP3 and his other TPs allowed me to actually enjoy oblivion.

The graphics weren't worth it for me to replay the game. I used his much higher quality, very well done. And i could play through it again. Games need to be more beautiful as far as graphics go. low quality textures anger me. Games like infinite undiscovery and other square enix games anger me when they use such horribly low sized textures on their characters but make the enviroment look nice.