crytek

Maybe. But Crysis went crazy with shaders, hdr, lighting, ambient occlusion and all the extras that most games don't even touch. I mean it's not just the shaders and etc, it also has a whole setting for post processing. This game probably has the best implementation of motion blur and depth of field of ANY game still. DOF and Motion Blur and ambient occlusion just kills performance, those are the three things IMO kill performance most and Crysis went over and beyond with them.

Crysis also has massive draw distance. It's one of the few games where detail is so high at even the furthest distance and it seems you can see for miles in that game. Most games, at distance draw, detail etc becomes minimal, in Crysis it doesn't stop.

There is physics on just about everything. So that's a little taxing.

It's no different than Starcraft 2 right now. Both Crysis and SC2 can run on decent systems. But once you start cranking on everything, that's when it becomes hell.

There is a reason why Crysis is still difficult to run. Any game that is difficult to run, ambient occlusion, depth of field, draw distance, and motion blur are things that are always recommended to be turned off, on any game and is taxing on any system.

 

No doubt crysis is a great looking game, and it does a good job at the things it does, im saying they may be a case of sloppy code, because theres a bunch of games that do all of those effects. Just because Crysis crunches your GPU doesn't its doing it in the most effecient manner. Its an old engine which they already released its successor that looks to be setting back the bar because for the tech demo to look as good as it does on DX9 capable hardware(ei: xbox 360 and ps3) tells me they've put more time into the dx9 code refining it rather than working on dx11 or even dx10. Im thinking they got caught with their tails between their legs for creating a bloated engine that yes has all these features but uses resources poorly.

 

Thank you. If it is true that the other members are saying there are better looking games that run better, then I am convinced that their argument has gone pear-shaped or they're completely oblivious to the above-mentioned features that are so heavily used in Crysis. Such a claim automatically destroys any credibility or grounds for further discussion. Yes, there are plenty of games that don't excessively dwell on every leaf texture, which results in a game with high frame-rates, fast-paced action and an engrossing atmosphere that doesn't involve staring at every mud-texture on the ground. So in a sense, I also agree that Cryengine 2.0 was a bit bloated. But to say that there are better looking games on that same scale of effects and features that run better is just factually incorrect. I think Killzone 2 looks better, in my opinion, but when it comes to technical features, it doesn't hold up against Crysis.

For example: Killzone 2 looks pretty. However, it is a linear shooter for one thing--it lacks scale. Most of the fancy cloth-effects are in fact, scripted. Animations are great, but so is the very instrumental use of depth of field and other blur filters that actually help to conceal the finer flaws of the game while making it all the more beautiful in motion. Physics is also amazing. Over and above all that, it just looks great in motion. . . cinematic, almost. However, while the game looks great, in terms of technical features, it is no where near the level of Crysis. KZ2 isn't even using actual HDR, but very efficiently uses deferred-rendering and lighting to actually out-do Crysis on some fronts, including full screen motion blur on hardware that predates DX10. Now do you know what I call that? Making efficient use of limited hardware. Making something look pretty while cutting corners in the background to make room for performance. Making something that looks amazing, without using a long list of high-end effects and features. Crytek was too ambitious in the sense that it tried to do all this and much, much more in one bleedin' game.

 

Crysis is still the best looking game i've played to date :/, there isn't any other game outside of crytek that directly compares to me, from what i've read on these forums, it's not that the game has sloppy coding it's just that computer hardware was not powerful enough at the time ( and still isn't unless your an enthusiast millionaire with i7 980X 16GB RAM & 3x GTX 580s ^^ ), however I will retract my statement if anyone can show me some proof, also from what i've read crysis 2 ( i'm guessing will use cryengine 2.0? ) is apparently the same specs and just as demanding the higher enthusiast settings you go.

 

I won't do the research since I am lazy. However, Crysis 2 is using CryEngine 3.0, which employs a hybrid of deferred shading along with whatever the hell it is they were using before. I think they want similar lighting to Crysis and Stalker, but with a means to make it economic for the consoles, kinda' like Killzone 2. I am certain when running at maximum, this game will be taxing, but probably not as much as CryEngine 2.0, simply because they're using certain features that help economise on the lighting. It will still look amazing, better than a majority of games and probably second only to the original Crysis. However, knowing the stuff that I am reading on these forums, people will probably praise it more because it'll run faster on contemporary hardware as opposed to the original game, which is still kicking the of most PC hardware.

By the way, with all this banter about APIs. Crysis was essentially built on DX9.0, with DX10 added additionally. This game's DX9 engine, still stands above the best of what we had from DX10 and DX11. Not to disagree with some folks here, but most games touting DX11 are doing very little with API. I am much more optimistic of Crytek keeping DX9 as its base for Crysis 2 and continuing to show that working within the tested and known limits of an API yields a finer and even better looking product than experimenting with something new, only to get it half-right.

 

width='640' height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/OaMRrL3RxBg&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/OaMRrL3RxBg&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width='640' height="390"></embed></object>

 

that made me drop a tear.

 

My rig will definitely drop a tear or 2 trying to run this

 

That.Looks.Amazing.

 

Doubt it. IMO you should be able to run it fine. Crysis 2 will likely be like any of the console ports that are supposed to have advantages for PC. The higher settings will make it more difficult to run, but the difference in visuals will be so minimal you'll think, what's the point.

BC2 DX9 vs DX11 whatever. Metro 2033 DX9 vs DX11, again meh, whatever. Even Crysis DX9 vs DX10 is meh, almost indistinguishable. Dirt 2 DX9 vs DX11 again, whatever. Lost Planet 2 DX 9 vs DX11 is laughable. I don't see why Crysis 2 will be any different.

Lastly Crytek ran a demonstration of CryEngine 3 on the same scenery as CryTek 2. On PC guess which looks better? You got it, CryEngine 2 looks better...
- Everything in CryEngine 2 looks better, from shaders, lighting, shadowing and even physics. CryEngine 3 at least what CryTek has shown so far is a step backwards.
- We'll see in March if CryEngine 3 on PC will be better than CryEngine 2. I suspect it will not be significantly better than CryEngine 2. Disabling tessellation and maybe DoF should make it run just fine.

<param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/2WJG14uLA3k?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/2WJG14uLA3k?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width='640' height="385"></embed></object>

That's what I predict for Crysis 2. You should be fine, just run it in DX9.