How to run crysis on all high settings

guru3d.com did a review of tri sli which is used in this rig and it shows at lot of preformance increases

 

Does your PS3 even have any games at all to play in the first hand?

 

COD4..... for starters

 

I was replying to the fellow who was claiming that the game was crap because not a single card could run it maxed out when it arrived.

Please read all the posts related.

I think you caught me out of context.

 

From your attitude, I doubt you deserve an answer, and the only reason for not reporting your dumb post is because I believe in free speech and that everyone is entitled to an opinion,however stupid it may be.
Dear sir, I ran HL2 on more than 5 different systems,and the only reason for which I happened to mention the FX5200 was because the game ran beautifully EVEN ON IT. I ran HL on my primary desktop wih a 6600GT and it was awesome.
If you can`t understand that a game should be released closer to real demands, than it`s your problem, go ahead and live in a world where people will throw at you games like Crysis and GPUs like the 8600GT and let`s see you handle that.
My statement, again mentioned for the likes of you , was that this game , IMHO was not meant for today`s graphics capacities. If it were released after the launch of the 9th series,were even a performance GPU would play it on higher standards, than the situation would be different. It`s like the analogy I`ve made with going into outer space.
But you sir,have no common sense.

After reading StormEffect`s reply to my latest post,I tend to agree with him on some sides of the story,but for the best part,Crysis is pure eye candy and super suit.Nothing more.

 

If you had read the rest of my posts you'd realize that I said crysis wasn't the funnest of games. But I still stand firm that it is downright silly to call a game bad for it's graphics demands.

I don't see how it could be better than HL2 in that regard, as the majority of everyone I knew had a 9600 variation and couldn't play it on the highest.

And yes, I played Crysis on a gddr2 8600mGT, and it was still a beautiful, albeit not the most innovative, gaming experience.

 

Do you guys know a little how game programming works? If you do then i think ya will have a bit more respect for the graphics part of the game.

I'm not a pro in such stuff but i respect the way crytech made the game.

 

yea, programming goes like this : send a wave of hypes, sell a gazillion preorder dvds of the game, make it impossible to enjoy at maximum current hardware and let users fight each other about who has the best system etc etc.
Seriousely, have you ever heard of a programmer giving a damn about you or if your system can run his product? he makes millions while you soar at your system and ask why notebooks are so expensive and lacking performance
See?Crysis is such a game ,that even after launch, people still fight over it. LOL

 

I havent played crysis yet, but with the demo and screen shots, crysis was one reason i built my new rig.

 

SEE? system are built for specific games, not games for specific systems.
Damn, I wish I was working for nVidia...

 

You want games that are built for systems? Then buy a console. That's not what PC gaming is about.

You're complaining because Crysis is too demanding to be played at max on the best single GPU's available. So what? Settings are mostly arbitrary anyway, what you need to consider is how the game looks. You can max out COD4 on your rig, right? Or at least close, with smooth framerates. What you need to do is tweak your Crysis settings so you get just as smooth framerates (ignore what settings you use, just tweak them so you have the best graphics possible with smooth framerates). Then compare how the two games look. If crysis looked considerably worse than COD4, then you'd have a point. However it doesn't. It looks nearly as good, or even better on some machines. Meaning that Crysis is at least as well optimized as COD4.

Your complaints essentially make no sense. You're saying that you'd be happy if Crysis simply didn't allow you to set the graphics above a certain level, so that current hardware could run it at max. But that wouldn't actually benefit anyone, and it would remove the incentive to advance GPU hardware, and it would limit the playability of the game several years down the line.

 

@odin

I agree, people arent tweaking the game like they need to if they are going to complain about graphics. But then again, there hundreds of different tweaks available from weather wind affects objects to how antialiasing on tree leafs, i dont think the average user will ever spend the man hours it takes just to find the right settings for their system

I found a nice config file and edited it to the point where i get ~15-20 fps with post processing so it looks much smoother, but even then, the game still doesnt play the way i'd like it to.

that being said, i do not think this game is optimized to its max, but well enough that it can be played, the complaints are coming from people with low to mid range cards that are angry they cant max out the game, which is unresonable, but then again, with my tweaks, im trying to make it look like a maxed out game.

ppl have to ask them selfs, are they playing crysis for the gaming or the graphics, and ppl who play for graphics shouldnt be using low - mid cards.
______________________________

on another note, i honestly didnt have that much fun with crysis, yeah there were some good moments, but it got redundant, and the fact that i can shoot someone directly in the face and they didnt die pissed me off, the guns wouldve been better off shooting pellets than bullets in this game

like someone else said "see enemy, cloak, kill, see another enemy, cloak, kill, see another enemy, etc", the terrible weapons prevented the heavily populated close combat fights that i anticipated, but then again, im not the greatest FPS player i know

 

This board is full of CoD4 fan boys. That game and Crysis are totally different. They should not be compared. Ever. CoD4 is a linear FPS game with scripted AI and everything. Crysis is a more open game similar to Oblivion.

 

Oblivion????? So you can enchant your weapons? or have a variety of armors? I tought Crysis is a First Person Shooter, not a Role Playing Game. Correct me if I am wrong.

 

I think you could get the same results with a little over 2000 dollars

1350 on 8800gtx(not ultra) @450 a piece

200 MB thats tri Sli capable

270 OC qx6600

100 dollars in ram

100 dollar hd

200 1000W ps

2220 dollars plus tax.

Off course you would need a monster screen to go with this monstrous computer

 

+1 rep sir.

Well said. :]

 

Wait until next year's video card releases.

 

I love it when "crysis fanboys" get all excited just because MY OPINION is that this game sucked for all the hype it was meant to be...

 

i can see where everyone is coming from. i can somehow see what ELERON911 is saying.

its gaming experiences to be honest.

dont raise youre expectations too much and you wont be disappointed.

with HL2 back when it came out, i was keen on playing it. i didnt have a powerful ring. and yet...it surprised me when it worked smoothly and beautifully. it also has crazy physics and kiiinda average A.I and great storyline.

new benchmark

NOW crysis is out. ive tried it....and i got pised off with it..ran like crap..i took it off my system (which aint that powerful ATI X1900) then i got second idea. i put if back on and tweaked it to oblivion. it kidna ran ok. I WAS SHOCKED. and yet.....it still felt obsolete. after a while...you stop gawking a the beauty of the place and try to actually enjoy the game. yet...i didnt. and i started *****ing again. its crap..you shoot them in the face and they dont die.

i realised later on that maybe crysis decided to break new benchmarks through a different criteria. not through game play. but more through good looks...AND IT WORKS.

quite frankly....everyone is moving away in diffrent ways.

@GOBMOSTER. i agree with what you said. people arent tweaking thyre games.
i can see why. the average gamer wants to install it...then play...they dont really care for tuning the bloody thing.

some....like in previous post..mentioned the PS3. see...he might be slowly moving away from PC gaming.

i think what ELERON911 is saying is that maybe the pace is too great these days.

to be honest i remember days when PC gaming was way more accessible.

install game...and play...but things are picking up pace...new game...new GPU.

consoles are becoming cheaper and better looking graphics and whatnot...so why should i always upgrade my PC.

why do we have to buy all teh time blah blah blah...

i don't really know half the crap im saying....im not particularly good at arguments but i see where people are coming from...

i think what im saying is...

everyone is moving in diffrent direction and everyone has an objective point of view.

some prefer console gaming because its more accessible.
maybe the days of accessible PC gaming are over. thats why some dont like the idea that crysis is pushing too far and is too expensive to run.
some couldnt care less.

P.S.

i found COD4 really boring at first...but put it up on high settings and you have a scorcher.....couldnt care less about "corridor gaming" the mayhem alone made up for it.

but to be honest...id take tetris any day!

 

As impartial as I can be, I can't honestly see how someone can say crysis is an amazing game in terms of gameplay. It just didn't have that immersive quality.

Crysis=Oblivion? I don't think so, nearly not as close. Wow I can either go invisible and sneak up to them or use speed/or strength mode to move in. Which by the way all everyone does is go invisible and play the game the cheap way. Regardless Crysis was low on my list of best games of this season.

 

Play the game at low settings and you still have a really detailled game. The only thing i miss with low shaders is that you can see shadows (even if shadows rest of settings are at high), not even static shadows.

At the moment i play the game untweaked, and i use these settings:
Low: Shaders, shadows, post processing, volumitric effects
Medium: Sound, Textures, Objects, game effects, physics, partical effects.
High: Water

When i'm not in a fight i get 30 to 60 fps. (inside a building i get more sometimes)
When i am in a fight or when i see enemies far away i get 16 to 30 fps.

I love this game because of these reasons:
- very open field, you can be everywhere
- Detailed world outside (not only stupid walls like in fear which is much more unoptimised than crysis imho) like very nice trees, butterflies, etc
- High detail on Humans
- At moments you get arround 30 fps the game looks very smooth somehow (some games dont look very smooth at 30fps).
- Most trees can be broken and with my settings the standard buildings can be damaged too.
- When breaking trees you dont get a drop in fps which i find very positive.

 

kamikazefly, FINALLY, somebody got my point.! +1rep to you mate for actually paying attention to all that I`ve been trying to say.

Also, amen to The Forerunner, Crysis in terms of gameplay was dull as a brick. And guess what, I`ve used the same strategy with cloack and kill,the game became easy even on Delta!

 

I'm sure Nvidia stock holders are loving the release of Crysis.

 

I just want to say that I think Crysis was one of the least satisfying games I've played this year, in terms of gameplay. My post above was not to defend it as a game (far from it) but to say it's resource requirements are NOT a valid negative to the game.

 

Hm...I kind of agree with you. What I found was the funnest part of the game was finding new ways to beat a mission. i.e. guns blazing, stealth, mind games, assasination, etc.

 

Since almost everything can be destructed there's no way to do static shadows, all shadows must be dynamic. The game looks good in the configuration I use on my go 7600, but I miss the shadows. I would really love to see the game with something like the low poly grass of oblivion.
But I really don't see the point saying that if the highest settings can't be used the game is poorly optimized, If the game looks bad and runs bad it is poorly optimized. But the medium settings look great and runs well, I agree with that guy that said that the very high settings should only be unlocked in mid 2008, when the new midranges card should play the game on high at 1280x1024(If they do like geforce 6600 gt and 7600 gt this scenario should be real)

 

You know you can tweak the settings so that shadows are on, right?

 

Im going to have to install XP to play this game the way i want to. Im suing Vista and a G92 8800 GTS. The .21 forceware drivers dont support 1280x800 or 1440x900 so im stuck using 1680x1050 and 1680x1050 plus DX10 in crysis is a HOG. I get very smooth gameplay at med settings with amazing detail but when i get into a open enviornment i cannot play at all with the lag, even at with everything at low there is a lag.

 

You can add those resolutions manually, if you'd like. Or just run DX9 mode.

 

I am nowhere near a Crysis fanboy.
I merely completely disagree with your opinions on what kind of graphics should be releases with a new game.

I am an Ultima Online fanboy. ;\

 

I actually like Crysis. I just got the 169.25 drivers and with most things on medium and some high (physics, water, something else) I now get around 25FPS in gunfights, and over 40 FPS sometimes walking. Lowest it's dropped to recently was like 18 FPS and that was zooming in with binoculars or s niping while invisible.

What I really like is how there are so many ways to compete your objective it really adds to the replayability to me. I put charges down once in the road after I spied a car coming up it, waited for them, blew it up and over a cliffside, so much fun.

 

I thought support for sli cards was not provided, or something funky was had to be done to make it work?

 

Bottomline: Anyone stupid enough to buy a $500 video card or building a new system for a video game - needs there head checked. Never mind $1800 in video cards, then the $1200 for a CPU and such, yes, $1200, with 3 high end cards why buy a stupid little processor, hell buy the best!.. How much is a 1200watt PSU go for ? I seen them run for $200 - $900 - RIDICULOUS..

COD4/UT3 < if you can run those I will tell you right now that's what the demand will be for games for the next awhile. Because NO one uses Cryteks engines. Crytek can't develop anything that runs perfectly. Farcry - cool game but the graphics were so glitchy. They still haven't learned because Crysis has a massive number of graphical errors too.

Honestly anyone stupid enough to load thousands of dollars on a machine to run a poorly developed game - Needs to seek help or get a girlfriend. Frig, not even a girlfriend is that expensive.

Crytek = EA
EA = Low Quality
Low Quality = Time any money wasted.

I'm not bad mouthing Crysis gameplay here. Just it's lazy developers, as usual pushing tittles out the door as fast as possible to cash in instead of making it a even better experience for - Everyone. Not just script kiddies with rich parents.

 

B2TheEYo, you're a hypocrite.

 

You still have the option to play the game at low/medium settings with medium it already looks great, so i see no point in complaining about graphics in that game.

 

I'm gonna let that go, because I'm assuming you have absolutely no knowledge of how much R&D time and hours of coding have to be spent producing something like CryEngine 2.

 

This thread makes me all giggly
Seriousely though,why do you guys even bother ? I mean, I`ve seen Crysis on a 8800 Ultra, yea,it looks nice, but the point of this game was that is would be the most advanced , best looking and more realistic game ever. Now,if this feature alone required a 5k worth in dollars system, that just kinda makes gaming in medium another shoot first shoot later kind`of game.
Never you mind about med settings, I`ve played on them, but on high and very high lights and shadows are beyond imagination,and this kind of imagery makes the game pretty much unplayable.
As I said, what I love about COD4 is that it look awesome, even though not you`re most realistic game, with an awesome gameplay,pretty interesting AI and kewl weaponry.
Not that Crysis hasn`t got weaponry, but you`d think Koreean enemies had more brains...not to mention that if you want to see the spark in his eye, that means you`re already lagging...
My main concern was that nobody could play this game at maximum feat. without sacrificing performance, and personally I never heard of such a thing. Might or not be scalable,in terms of graphics, 11/10 ...in rest 5/10, nothing spectacular to make up for the graphics requirement. My 2 cents...

 

Well reviews would dis agree with you. Did you actually play it till the end? I'm not done yet but there's a pretty interesting storyline, the guns are varied, the weapon modification system is great, the system isn't too overpowered (you can't stay in stealth forever), and with the suit you have so many different ways of killing people, be creative. Of course its going to be boring if you run around stealthed shooting people then running back. Use some strategy, place some traps. I once put c4 at the bottom of a tower, shot some guy to get the a ttention of the camp, and as they walked by blew the tower and watched debris rain on them.

 

Of course I`ve finished it, twice, once on hard, and once on Delta.
About the stealth thing, whenever it`s out, duck under a rock or something,and to get there use maximum speed. It`s easy. Makes me feel like the Predator against aliens
I am being hard on crysis because of the requirements, but I`ll be the first to admit that it`s an open universe and you can do a lot of things in it.

 

@hyakku

I just beat the game yesterday

i guess because its none linear play, i'd have to give it >replay value than COD4

that being said, i dont know if this game is sooo mainstreamed or hyped, or if it generally isnt that good, but im not all that impressed

the story line: Kill some military people, but wait, DER R TEH ALI3NS! KEWL!

The game wouldve been genius staying in military strike mode, making larger and larger battles, but either way, the game literally felt like a tech demo, and not a game, this plot was not compelling, i just beat the game cause i like a challenge (which is good enough cause the game did get really challenging even with "cloak kill")

any ways, my real reason for getting this game was the sandbox editor and not the plot, so i guess im happy.

And even with everything on low, at my native res, i dont get a constant 30 fps, i smell shenanigans, its unoptimized, that why nvidia is doing double duty with these supposed 'Crysis' drivers

 

If you wanna start labeling me, you can start by explaining the reasoning for your conclusion.

odin243, yes, I'm completely aware of the size of development for these types of games. I work in the media creation industry. My company has done cut scenes and art directions for some of EA's titles, and yours truly was the modeler and shader designer for some of them. So I've had extensive time spent sitting besides the developers and studying. So I can safely say I know more about what goes into game development then you and all the other Crysis fan boys put together.

Still doesn't justify the fact they pushed this tittle out the door without properly testing and optimizing the engine. Unreal 3 engine is a perfect example. Looks great and works nearly on all 'recent' hardware with ease.

Honestly - NOTHING anyone says can justify this.

- Kill people/aliens and there gibed bodies remain hovering above the ground and you can walk through them.

- The AI is to be put bluntly, retarded. People spend more time covering and looking at walls/lockers/trees then they do being useful or doing there job, like attacking for one.

- The physics are just as bad as the AI. How often does a tank flip over on fire, continue shooting and moving around on it's roof? meanwhile while it's on it's roof, part of it is on a wall and the other on the ground and it's sliding around, that's just one example..

The only thing this game was suppose to deliver is 'mind blowing graphics' - which it does, don't get me wrong. Just only script kiddies with rich parents get that privilege..

Sure, play it at medium, defeats the purpose.

But what ever, fan boys will defend this lame tittle to the death - or until bans are handed out and threads are locked.

My whole point is - when you need 1800 dollars in graphics cards just to play a game at max settings, obviously what your trying to run is poorly executed. Like I said UT3, COD4, honestly look just as good, little lacking on post effects COMPARED to Crysis but at least I can crank those games on lightweight hardware.

POORLY OPTIMIZED - Stop debating it because it's true, this game could easily run on a single 8800 maxed out if they did things better. Foliage whoring in half the environments doesn't help the cause any either.

Pros:
Good graphics,
mediocre gameplay,
plenty of replayability

Cons:
Buggy as hell,
Poorly executed
Poor execution results in to expensive to even run at preferred detail levels.


That's all I'm saying, if people continue to debate my opinion, which is hard facts, then you're own stubbornness and lust for this mediocre tittle, cloud your vision to seeing the truth. End of story - cheers fanboys - flame me all you want - who you trying to convince, me - - or you..?

 

I think he meant your a hypocrite because of your setup.

Regardless, I was upset at first when Crysis was so demanding but after playing an a few hours into it I didn't feel so bad because the gameplay was nonetheless dissapointing. Crytek did a fantastic job with the graphics but came up short for me in terms of gameplay. Irregardless, its one of those Love it or Shove it games.

 

Wow, I'm a hypocrite because I have a good paying job, that requires a very fast machine to actually do my job - when, not in the office - yup, that makes me a hypocrite.

I paid no where near retail for it. And if I had to I sure as hell wouldn't. But then again, spending money to play a video game and spending money to do my job and make more money, is two different things. Kind of out of balance don't you think?

LMFAO.. wow.. in my perspective, dave932932 seems like a d-bag, pulling out any card he can because he can't handle the fact someone said something about his beloved video game.

Learn your facts, get background and stop jumping to conclusions, before you start running your mouth kid.

The Forerunner, Entirely agree

 

I think your whole point is wrong. You have to admit that this game is much better looking than any other game when you play at max settings. So its obvious that this game runs harder than any other game.

Like i said before, in most games you dont have a complete forest with loads of trees. And if you have, then i think those trees arent looking very great. At least not as detailled as in crysis. In the trees of this game you see very much detail, and beside that you can break them easily. In trees in a game like oblivion you see them moving, but when you stay still and watch closer then you see its made in a fake scripted way.

I think the game is also hard to play because you can watch very far. In most games the depth of field isnt very great (is this the depth of field what i mean?). I wont talk about oblivion agian now, because that would be lame
But FEAR is a good example too, when you watch far away you see 5 years old houses .

Try to compare FEAR or Oblivion with this game and then judge again. Also keep in mind that newer games in future will also require more GPU power. Are they bad optimised then because they need more power? NO

I have to agree about the gameplay, but i try to play the game without cloacking, suit armor etc and its very funny. I have to use strength sometimes though. I also try to finish this game without being killed even once.

 

You do - a command needs to be added to the Crysis shortcut target or you need to enter a command in the console. See this guide:
http://www.tweakguides.com/Crysis_1.html

 

Wait for the 50 barrel explosion.

<object width='425' height='355'><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/YG5qDeWHNmk&rel=1&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999&border=0"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/YG5qDeWHNmk&rel=1&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999&border=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width='425' height='355'></embed></object>

 

The debate has become more important than its content.

Everyone is arguing over different points using different interpretations of the same terms.

Before this continues the word and proper execution of "optimization" needs to be thoroughly nailed down. On second thought, this thread has become boring, I say we all drop it.

EDIT: +rep for making me eat my words with that awesome video Amadeus.

 

If this is your point, then it's logically invalid. Cranking the settings up on UT3 provides the same graphical quality as maybe medium-high settings does on Crysis, and guess what? Any relatively modern hardware can run medium-high settings on Crysis without problems. As I said in an earlier post:

You have no idea what video game "optimization" entails. Running a test as I described above shows that (at least in terms of graphics) Crysis is no less optimized then any other modern title. It's simply more scalable upwards.

 

well, to get my 2 cents in here... in my rig below (but with a 8600GTS, my 8800 isnt here yet) i run COD 4 with everything on the max setting, full res, aa, the whole deal.... crysis i run at 1440x1050 (or whatever that second number is) and it has no AA and med-high settings..... i decided i WONT TOUCH crysis until my 8800 comes... its un acceptable... COD 4 looks and runs better..... well... ATM atleast.....