Why you shouldn't get RTX just yet.

Even if they werent dying. THe performance is abysmal for the money

 

Honestly people with a GTX 980 TI back from 2014 wouldn't even need to upgrade. We are hitting a point where we don't get good performance improvements anymore.
Performance increases have been slowing down since 2012 where we got kepler and Ivy bridge.

 

Pascal was a great boost imo. But RTX until know isnt. Unless its a driver/engine optimization issue. But the numbers shown by BF5 are abysmal imo.

I was really looking forward to raytracing.

 

Games dont look all that much better than 4-5 years ago and need more and more hardware for no apparent reason..

 

5-6?
Crysis is from 2007, still holds up with games today.

 

It really doesn't, that's just a meme.

 

Crysis doesn't but Crysis Warhead (which I call polished Crysis) does. I just played both. Also it lags on Extreme graphics with x8 AA + transparency AA for me. Even on high with a erage AA it may go slow on my bottlenecked GDDR3 850M Maxwell.

 

Yeah the game is quite demanding. Original Crysis looks as good as Warhead. It has extremely high res textures as well.

 

Nah it lacks a lot of technologies that are current today. No advanced subsurface scattering, advanced parallax occlusion mapping, advanced HBAO and many more technologies. I think a game like BF5 looks a loooooot better now. Witcher 3, Assassins Creed Origins, Destiny 2, etc are all right up there imo.

 

It's the other way round. Crysis has more feature to offer that have been abandoned because it would be to demanding for consoles.
Textures are higher res than most games, Volumetric clouds are rare as well in newer games, Being able to destroy enviroment, enviroment being affected by the player (grass, leaves, stuff on the ground etc.), a much better physics engine and the list goes on.

Also Crysis does have advanced parallax occlusion mapping and it does have subsurface scattering, how advanced it is idk. Obviously we got new technologies such as hairworks, Tress FX, HBAO and so on which crysis doesn't have, yet because of technologies that have been abandoned due to console performance problems, crysis still holds up.


This is just a map with small tweaks to the config. Beast many games in terms of graphics.

 

There are some nic emods for it. But it was mainly the beginning of a now a lot wildly used effects and the effects now are far more detailled. I agree graphics didnt improve that enormously much. But I wouldnt blame the consoles, its incredibly expensive to create assets for current details levels, the costs of gamemaking have skyrocketed unfortunately. Also 20000polygons hardly looks better than 100000polygons per model, so we need stuff like raytracing as the next paradigm.

But Crysis does look a tad dated (especially the models) and it is still a heavy game to run because the optimization is so bad now. Too bad they never really made a real proper proper follow up. Did enjoy Crysis 2 and 3 but those where kinda different games.

 

No mods, simply map + some config tweaks.

Also consoles are to blame. Sadly, PC only titles which are graphically demanding were way way more advanced.

 

Ah couple of my friends are part of the gaming industry. and they state it is simply too expensive. each objects costs so much more time to model, textures are more expensive to create, motion etc. The cost of making a game is more than trifold than it was 10 years ago. But the prices remained the same. Its quite a ****ty industry to work in because they also have to deal with crunch schedules.

 

Don't care about your friends. I care about facts. There is a good reason why Crysis 2 and 3 are so much more limited compared to crysis 1, it's all because of the consoles.

 

But you present your opinion as facts. It's nto a fact that consoles are the cause of a slower progress in game graphics?

I mean have you even tried for example God of war 4 on the PS4? Apart from the 30fps that game is gorgeous and it is pretty much one of the best looking games out there right now. Same goes for Horizon zero dawn, RDR2, Spiderman etc. All top notch looking games which can measure with the best looking PC games out there. So how are consoles slowing the market down? It is a fact that financial costs of creating games is now a large factor, manpower, return of investments
https://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/RaphKoster/20180117/313211/The_cost_of_games.php

and the diminishment of returns in graphic complexity
https://wccftech.com/difference-polygon-count-resolution-xbox-one/

Crysis was a milestone but at of this time which cannot be replicated now, just as the stagnation of computer hardware in terms of performance. Crysis 2 and 3 arent the entire industry. Also Crysis 3 was ways ahead of Crysis one in terms of engine performance and complexity.

 

It is a fact because the moment you compare an PC exclusive title with cross platforms you notice the difference in quality. This also makes sense because the hardware of the console is way inferior to PC hardware.

Yes god of war 4 looks good, but if you look closely, its because of how the game is designed, and that's what sets things apart. It's not that the game is graphicially outstanding or innovative, but how well the designers have put together the little ressources they had. The world of Crysis 1 was massive, it felt like an open world where you could do whatever you wanted, while the next games forced the whole game to play like an arcade game. God of war 4 is no different, cross platform games become smaller and smaller in size and use trickery to appear bigger than they really are.

On a technical standpoint Crysis 1 is superior to Gow 4.

And saying that games are more expensive to produce, well yes, of course they are, because games are more accessable than ever. Obviously you pump more money into something that will get you even more money. I don't know why you think that's a factor for anything.

You don't have to be a genius to notice how the consoles have changed the games. Before the whole cross platform thing PC games were getting bigger and bigger, after the whole cross platform thing games became small.

 

I think you underestimate what God of war does on a technical level. Its even more impressive because it runs on such outdated hardware. But thats because of excellent optimization. Its always a marriage between artistry and pure development. Crysis was great for the time but really, its outdated now, in terms of scope, modelling, artistry, engine advancement etc.



Ofcourse you an do more on a PC, the thing is and thats my main point of this whole discussion, its financially not feasible anymore the costs are too high, the gains not big enough and the market not big enough.

 

On a technical level, Crysis 1 is still from the 7th gen console era. Standard things you'll find in modern AAA titles like multi-threading, tessellation, deferred shading, PBR, photogrammetry, global illumination, volumetric lighting and particles, particle lighting and shadows, contact hardening shadows, screen space reflections, HBAO+, temporal anti-alising, etc. are all absent

 

I think Raytracing is still viable today - the problem is that they are trying to do too much all at once. Right now, they need to limit raytracing only to the places where it has the most effect, and combine it with standard rendering techniques to get a large visual increase while only using the few RTX cores available. And they are realizing that - in the one game that supports it, they updated it to decrease how many rays it used, focusing only on really reflective surfaces like water or metal, while removing raytracing on mud and other objects which don't get much of a visual boost from it.

Later on, when the hardware can support 8x the rays current hardware can, then maybe we can get 100+ FPS with the whole screen raytraced. But I'm afraid that's still a few years in the future.

 

You forgot the kinda important part. The Game.

I couldnt see Crysis as anything more than a glorified benchmark.

 

That tells me you never played it, because Crysis was a fantastic example of sandbox FPS design, and Crysis Wars wasn’t half-bad either.

 

I've played it, but I'm one of those types that appreciates fidelity with a strong narrative over photo realism with a weak narrative.

Its just an interactive benchmark to me.

 

The gameplay and technology were the standouts, I didn’t care much for the narrative in the second half once the Ceph showed up.