I admit it, I was wrong.

D

Dan_D

Extremely [H]
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
63,076
All this time I had defended Crysis for being so tough on the systems and being well optimized when many said it wasn't. Granted I still think that many people swearing it was poorly coded aren't well educated on the subject, but that's not the point. I think my conclusion was generally reasonable in remembering how things were with Farcry and seeing at what all Crysis is capable of and what kind of demands it might place on the system due to the sheer amount of polygons and physics calculations. It is and should be more demanding than other games so it still reigns partially true. However it doesn't have to be as bad as it is by Crytek's own admission.

When Crytek stated that Crysis Warhead would run on low end hardware with high detail (even not knowing what resolution that will be possible at) I figured Crysis had to be a piece of shit code-wise. This was confirmed by statments by Crytek indicating that they would fix the performance problems in Crysis but that the fix would take quite a bit of time. That tells me right there that they know its' a piece of shit as well. They've pretty much admitted it was coded poorly and not optimized very damn well.

So I'm wrong. Mark your calenders folks, I don't say it often. Discuss........................
 
yeah there has to be something wrong with a game engine when you throw a brand new card that is twice as fast as it's previous generation, and you don't get the top settings at a descent resolution.

This whole crysis thing reminds me of how bad the original Halo 1 port was, no matter what you threw at it, it still ran like crap.
 
Didn't you say you'd drive around in Kyle's hummer wearing a pink dress or something? Or was that another bet? Irrelevant! Bring on the pink dress!
 
I love when [H] editors are wrong...it happens so often! Okay, that's not true. Well Dan, I'm not sure what to say. A lot of people have been bitching for a really long time, and I would agree with you that many are not educated enough on why it runs like crap, as to actually make a compelling or comprehensible argument. That being said, I will agree with Deviationer in that you should be able to throw the top of the line video card (or system, for that matter) that comes out after the games release, and finally be able to max it out. The last time I can recall this kind of bullshit happening was Doom3, trying to run with the uncompressed textures. I had a friend that went from an A62 3200 (oc'd of course) with 2GB of RAM and a x800XT PE to a Opty 170 (OC'd) w/4GB of RAM and an x1900XTX 512, and still couldn't run at a playable framerate with everything cranked.

Game developers in general are doing less bug fixing before the release date, for whatever reason (call it top level pressure, plain lazy, trying to hit a release scheduled date, or just bad testing). They know they can patch it down the road. The trickle down effect is carrying over to consoles these days, and it's getting fucking annoying. I can say one thing about id software though, that regardless of how I have felt, personally about the games that have come out over the last 5 years (they've lost the touch, IMO), they've always been a "when it's done" kind of shop, even to the extent that they temporarily alienate their fanbase by pushing back another 6 months.

That Crytek has made the comments that they have shows how true this notion of "we'll fix it later" still is, despite the ultra-rabid gaming fans continually bitching about this type of business pledging to "make it right," only to have that happen after the game's popularity has piqued, and no one plays the fucking thing anymore. Patching it a year later isn't going to instill confidence that the next game you release won't also be victim to "rectal-cranial inversion syndrome."

Dan, you may have been wrong, but I don't think that anyone here is going to flame you for it. That you can admit your misjudgement is what we all appreciate. Crytek needs to do the same, and fix before 1 year from now.
 
I never thought Crysis was a "piece of shit", but I never thought it was too stellar on the all-important fidelity to performance ratio either. Obviously NVIDIA and Crytek really put a lot of emphasis on optimization, NVIDIA on one occasion going a tad too far, but it never seemed to have much of an impact.

I'm hesitant to believe that Warhead actually 'fixes' anything. Cevat Yerli is the Sultan of Spin and is clearly not afraid of spouting misleading garbage and flat out lying (remember that "patch within two weeks" bullshit?) in order to put Crytek, and their products, in a good light. The guy's just a gasbag.

Does Warhead run better than Crysis? Maybe, but maybe not. Is a $600 PC going to run Warhead well? Sorry, but no.
 
$620 PC, that's like not even the cost an GTX280...and that cant play crysis on max (very high and the likes). I don't buy their bs, they did this once before and it was a lie, they are not fooling anyone here.
 
I wouldn't read into it too much. They also said Crysis would run decent on 3 year old machines. They are talking out their ass, in both cases.
 
I expected Crysis to be really heavy. It's a new engine, and with all new game engines that do something new, there will be optimizations required along the way.

Are people critical of it? Yes. Part of that, is the expectations that it would represent the most realistic experience to-date. They delievered.

No one is highlighting that point, but choose to focus on how hard it is on their current systems. I think people expected that it will provide the best experience for their current system, which is not possible if you want to move forward in the graphical environment without a lot of engine optimization and driver reworks.

Personally, it was a fun game and I have no buyers remorse.
 
Ugh it's sad to see people we're supposed to look up to cave on bullshit like this.

Crytek have caved to pressure of lower than expected sales and realise the main reason I suspect is that not many people can play Crysis in very high settings.

I want to make this absolutely clear, the "max settings" is completely arbitrary, there is no defining standard where developers agree to cut off the scaling of settings, the developers behind Crysis could have easily have put all the "very high" settings at a lower value and we'd all be able to "max out" Crysis, but it's going to look worse...so whats the fricken point? it looks and perfoms the same it's just we lose future the ability to sale the graphics in the future when we have the hardware to do so, and that's totally backwards.

What matters, pure and simple, is how the game looks compared to how it performs. Crysis looks fantastic I have never ever seen another game look so good in such large scale environments.

Does anyone, anywhere have links to media, tech demos, white papers, or any kind of rendering which points to anyone making anything that looks as impressive as Crysis and also run better?

If they release Warhead and it indeed does look the same as Crysis and runs better by a wide margin I will happily join Dan in admiting I was wrong. So far we have the developers word that it will run better in "high" on xyz hardware, but they have not stated what resolution, or if those gains are going to be through legitimate optimisation or if they've decided to dumb down the high settings so they're not rendering as much.

My bet is a lot of the work done will be akin to what Nvidia did with Tri/bilinear filtering when they cut corners around the 5900 era to save performance but it looked 95% the same, not enough difference to easily tell.

if this is what happens with Warhead then I will simply not admit being wrong on this, cutting corners adn accepting lower image quality is not "coding better" in the context of Crysis currently being badly coded and unoptimised.
 
sabregen said:
I love when [H] editors are wrong...it happens so often! Okay, that's not true. Well Dan, I'm not sure what to say. A lot of people have been bitching for a really long time, and I would agree with you that many are not educated enough on why it runs like crap, as to actually make a compelling or comprehensible argument. That being said, I will agree with Deviationer in that you should be able to throw the top of the line video card (or system, for that matter) that comes out after the games release, and finally be able to max it out. The last time I can recall this kind of bullshit happening was Doom3, trying to run with the uncompressed textures. I had a friend that went from an A62 3200 (oc'd of course) with 2GB of RAM and a x800XT PE to a Opty 170 (OC'd) w/4GB of RAM and an x1900XTX 512, and still couldn't run at a playable framerate with everything cranked.
Click to expand...
Um even an 8600gt can play Doom3 on Ultra settings and with AA so something is wrong with your "friends" pc. Hell I played it on Ultra settings and no AA with a 7600gt and 1 gig of ram just fine. I hated to get off topic but you brought it up.

As for Crysis, I have never thought it looked good enough to justify how poky it ran on very high end systems. The inside environments look like shit from 3 to 4 years ago and only some parts of being outside are actually stunning. By the time a card comes out that can play at 1680 on very high and with AA we will have better looking games anyway. Crytek should really go back and optimize the original game as well as they are claiming Warhead will be.
 
Deviationer said:
yeah there has to be something wrong with a game engine when you throw a brand new card that is twice as fast as it's previous generation, and you don't get the top settings at a descent resolution.
Click to expand...

WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG!

I'm sorry but this is just utterly fallacious reasoning, could we cut this crap out please?

"Top settings" is totaly arbitrary and decided by the developers, setting object quality to very high could mean that objects reach their max LOD at 100m away from you, or they could equally tweak that so very high object settings means that the LOD drop off is 100000000000m away from you, it's completely and utterly up to them how they scale the settings.

DO NOT ASSUME THE scaling of the low/med/high/very high settings is linear and that we simply need twice the power to go from high to very high. That is just a pure assumption.

Sorry about this rage response but this rubbish is getting out of hand now, people need to start thinking about what they're claiming here.
 
At this point, frostex has thrown his chair against the wall and is standing up typing at his keyboard, I can see it now :p
 
Nothing said in this thread is ever going to change the fact that Crysis was entirely tepid and uninspired.
 
Beautiful? Yes.
Ratio of beauty to hardware-slamming "GPU getting punched in the balls" power? Terrible.
 
friedchicken said:
I expected Crysis to be really heavy. It's a new engine, and with all new game engines that do something new, there will be optimizations required along the way.

Are people critical of it? Yes. Part of that, is the expectations that it would represent the most realistic experience to-date. They delievered.

No one is highlighting that point, but choose to focus on how hard it is on their current systems. I think people expected that it will provide the best experience for their current system, which is not possible if you want to move forward in the graphical environment without a lot of engine optimization and driver reworks.

Personally, it was a fun game and I have no buyers remorse.
Click to expand...


QFT. I, personally, really enjoyed the game. Performance was fine for me, I had no big complaints. Granted, I'm on a CRT and I could dial down the resolution without losing image quality and in doing so, I could turn up alot of the settings and eye candy. It was never butter-smooth for me but it still ran well and looked damn good too.


I agree with Monkey God though, the game looks great but the ratio of looks to GPU power needed is a little ridiculous. I'd rather take a game like The Witcher, where the visuals were great (in some ways on par with Crysis, IMO) but still runs smooth with high settings/resolution.
 
I knew it was poorly optimized all along, like many other titles, it was pushed in development because the hype machine got ahold of it.
 
Dan_D said:
All this time I had defended Crysis for being so tough on the systems and being well optimized when many said it wasn't. Granted I still think that many people swearing it was poorly coded aren't well educated on the subject, but that's not the point. I think my conclusion was generally reasonable in remembering how things were with Farcry and seeing at what all Crysis is capable of and what kind of demands it might place on the system due to the sheer amount of polygons and physics calculations. It is and should be more demanding than other games so it still reigns partially true. However it doesn't have to be as bad as it is by Crytek's own admission.

When Crytek stated that Crysis Warhead would run on low end hardware with high detail (even not knowing what resolution that will be possible at) I figured Crysis had to be a piece of shit code-wise. This was confirmed by statments by Crytek indicating that they would fix the performance problems in Crysis but that the fix would take quite a bit of time. That tells me right there that they know its' a piece of shit as well. They've pretty much admitted it was coded poorly and not optimized very damn well.

So I'm wrong. Mark your calenders folks, I don't say it often. Discuss........................
Click to expand...


It takes a real man to admit his mistake, especially when its something he breathes his life into.
 
Haven't seen the guy in quite some time, so you may just be right. Perhaps he's Cevat's right hand man ;)
 
inotocracy said:
Didn't you say you'd drive around in Kyle's hummer wearing a pink dress or something? Or was that another bet? Irrelevant! Bring on the pink dress!
Click to expand...

No I believe that was Kyle saying he would do that if the new ATI cards dont come out this year. Looks like they are coming out next week and the 4850 is already out, so looks like Kyle won that one.
 
Dan_D said:
When Crytek stated that Crysis Warhead would run on low end hardware with high detail (even not knowing what resolution that will be possible at) I figured Crysis had to be a piece of shit code-wise. This was confirmed by statments by Crytek indicating that they would fix the performance problems in Crysis but that the fix would take quite a bit of time.
Click to expand...

OMG! Crytek in "improving engine after spending more time working on it" SHOCKER!

I would reserve judgement until actually seeing what these optimizations are. For all you know it could just be more efficiently designed maps.

Cryengine 2 is very well optimised. Nobody really seems to appreciate just how powerful it is, and why it needs hardware to match.
 
I believe it's more of a pr move to hopefully change mentality. The game ran fine on most machines. But people think they had to have High and Ultra high for everything. The game is suppose dto be scalable for 5 years ahead and everyone just ignored that. Medium looks great especially for a high end machine.

But mentally your thinking "I'm on medium. I JUST spent $500 or so on my graphics card and it's just medium. This sucks"

If they called Medium >> High and some how unlocked the game later for more detail, this wouldn't be an issue.
 
A $620 pc could easily have a 8800gt class video card. A 8800gt can already run Crysis on high settings. I don't think Crytek got extra performance out of the engine...just the prices on hardware dropped:D
 
I knew this game was fucking coded poorly! Everyone told me otherwise, but deep down I KNEW it!

RAWR!


Thanks Dan, I appreciate your post on this. This is why you are a part of [H]ardOCP. Any other site would have defended the wrong reason until the very end. This honestly shows character in the leaders here at [H]ard. :cool:

EDIT:

Krenum said:
It takes a real man to admit his mistake, especially when its something he breathes his life into.
Click to expand...

QFT
 
Netrat33 said:
The game is suppose dto be scalable for 5 years ahead and everyone just ignored that. Medium looks great especially for a high end machine.
Click to expand...

Scalable is only relevant to crytek. When you're a company, your main concern should be NOT disappointing your customers in the here and now.

There's a certain blow one takes to their psyche when having to resort to medium settings. You know what I mean, the feeling where you want to set it to high but you know you can only set it to medium. feels like shit. Crytek has made the majority of their customers feel like shit, and its costing them.
 
damonposey said:
Scalable is only relevant to crytek. When you're a company, your main concern should be NOT disappointing your customers in the here and now.

There's a certain blow one takes to their psyche when having to resort to medium settings. You know what I mean, the feeling where you want to set it to high but you know you can only set it to medium. feels like shit. Crytek has made the majority of their customers feel like shit, and its costing them.
Click to expand...

I know. I agree. that's pretty much what I said in my post :) They just really shouldn't have done that. Do a patch later sort of like how the Witcher is doing (enhanced version later down the road)
 
Crysis runs reasonably well at best on my rig, but frankly the thing that cheesed me off were some broken missions and audio bugs that forced restarts (though a lot of the blame for that rests with Creative and its Vista support for Audigy 2 cards I suspect). On one of the early chapters where you rescue the hostage from the KPA, I went into the wrong building first or something and broke the mission script.

After wasting something like 3 hours I started over and it worked, but by that time the "wind was out of my sails" and I haven't really gone back to it yet.

Though the admission that it could and will in future releases run a lot better is a little irking...my rig isn't THAT low end and I'm not playing on a huge screen or anything.

Maybe I'll go back to it now that I'm close to finishing GTA IV, but I'd probably be better of doing the Orange Box stuff that's still in my backlog first. I'm not sure I can take another day of all the Portal jokes going over my head...heh.
 
baddog121390 said:
A $620 pc could easily have a 8800gt class video card. A 8800gt can already run Crysis on high settings. I don't think Crytek got extra performance out of the engine...just the prices on hardware dropped:D
Click to expand...

QFT!
 
With all I've said about Crysis, I still found it to be a fun game. Essentially they could have easily called it Farcry 2099 or something like that as its' largely the same thing just with aliens instead of mutants and a super-suit instead of a hawaiian shirt. Otherwise, the same thing but prettier.
 
Dan_D said:
With all I've said about Crysis, I still found it to be a fun game. Essentially they could have easily called it Farcry 2099 or something like that as its' largely the same thing just with aliens instead of mutants and a super-suit instead of a hawaiian shirt. Otherwise, the same thing but prettier.
Click to expand...

Tri-SLI GTX 280's yet Dan?

I agree, we have seen some MASSIVE video card performance increases over the last couple of weeks and still the performance is less than perfect. When $2000 of Consumer Video Card hardware still cant make a title runn at full capability, then something is wrong with the code, especially when other engines deliver similar visuals on 1/8th the hardware.

(Like Mass Effect or COD4)
 
Dan_D said:
When Crytek stated that Crysis Warhead would run on low end hardware with high detail (even not knowing what resolution that will be possible at) I figured Crysis had to be a piece of shit code-wise. This was confirmed by statments by Crytek indicating that they would fix the performance problems in Crysis but that the fix would take quite a bit of time. That tells me right there that they know its' a piece of shit as well. They've pretty much admitted it was coded poorly and not optimized very damn well.
Click to expand...

I'll acknowledge your expertise but I don't buy your reasoning. You're basing actual performance with marketing hype from someone who has been proven wrong in the past.

Of course, that doesn't make Crysis well optimized. I would love to see some information from people with the time & knowledge to do some performance comparisons between Crysis and other games. Not the usual x fps min/max/average but comparisons with other games, performance with x polys on screen or y enemies (passive and in a firefight). It would still be subjective but also more interesting than the usual crap that's flung around here.

I loved Crysis for it's gameplay and beauty but everything else was (IMO) average or in some cases weak (especially the arcarde-like final boss fight.)
 
TheBluePill said:
When $2000 of Consumer Video Card hardware still cant make a title runn at full capability, then something is wrong with the code, especially when other engines deliver similar visuals on 1/8th the hardware.

(Like Mass Effect or COD4)
Click to expand...

I don't know about that. The thing is there can be no apples to apples comparison. What other games besides farcry and crysis have expansive tropical outdoor environments?

The only one I can think of is that wacky one where you can activate your parachute on a motorcycle, forgot its name. But it doesn't have the detail crysis does by a long shot.
 
we knew you were wrong all along Dan, don't worry 'bout it, we won't tell anyone ;) :D

it takes a real man, (or woman) to admit they were wrong :)
but being a [H]ardOCP Motherboard Editor also does the trick ;)
 
TheBluePill said:
Tri-SLI GTX 280's yet Dan?

I agree, we have seen some MASSIVE video card performance increases over the last couple of weeks and still the performance is less than perfect. When $2000 of Consumer Video Card hardware still cant make a title runn at full capability, then something is wrong with the code, especially when other engines deliver similar visuals on 1/8th the hardware.

(Like Mass Effect or COD4)
Click to expand...

Similar visuals is somewhat subjective. I still think Crysis is and should be the most demanding title out there. The maps are larger and the amount of polygons in a given scene is likely far greater than anything else. The game has more physics calculations than other games do and as a result I expect it to run slower.

With Farcry it took two generations or MORE before the game could truly be experienced in all its' glory. It wasn't unti the 7 series that HDR performance was good enough to be useful and maintain higher resolutions. I expect the same out of Crysis. However it seems clear from the acknowledgement made by Crytek themselves that the game isn't optimized as well as it could be.

eggrock said:
I'll acknowledge your expertise but I don't buy your reasoning. You're basing actual performance with marketing hype from someone who has been proven wrong in the past.

Of course, that doesn't make Crysis well optimized. I would love to see some information from people with the time & knowledge to do some performance comparisons between Crysis and other games. Not the usual x fps min/max/average but comparisons with other games, performance with x polys on screen or y enemies (passive and in a firefight). It would still be subjective but also more interesting than the usual crap that's flung around here.

I loved Crysis for it's gameplay and beauty but everything else was (IMO) average or in some cases weak (especially the arcarde-like final boss fight.)
Click to expand...

Refer to my post above your quote on this. However I think that while Crysis is probably not a total pile of shit it seems clear that it isn't as well optimized as it could be. This can really be evidenced by its' terrible Crossfire and SLI performance. The scaling with multiple video cards is seriously bad and worse than the scaling typically is with those types of solutions.
 
Lazy_Moron said:
No I believe that was Kyle saying he would do that if the new ATI cards dont come out this year. Looks like they are coming out next week and the 4850 is already out, so looks like Kyle won that one.
Click to expand...

Yeah I know, I just wanna see a grown man in a pink dress. :(
 
Dan_D said:
Similar visuals is somewhat subjective. I still think Crysis is and should be the most demanding title out there. The maps are larger and the amount of polygons in a given scene is likely far greater than anything else. The game has more physics calculations than other games do and as a result I expect it to run slower.

With Farcry it took two generations or MORE before the game could truly be experienced in all its' glory. It wasn't unti the 7 series that HDR performance was good enough to be useful and maintain higher resolutions. I expect the same out of Crysis. However it seems clear from the acknowledgement made by Crytek themselves that the game isn't optimized as well as it could be.



Refer to my post above your quote on this. However I think that while Crysis is probably not a total pile of shit it seems clear that it isn't as well optimized as it could be. This can really be evidenced by its' terrible Crossfire and SLI performance. The scaling with multiple video cards is seriously bad and worse than the scaling typically is with those types of solutions.
Click to expand...


Well.. One thing to ponder, most game engines in the first title or two are not optimized to their maximum potential, but are in later game titles. Most id Software engines are like this at launch, but by the time the 2nd crop of games and 3rd parties get ahold of them, they are rock solid and fast as hell.

Crysis / Crysis Warhead would then follow the same formula as all of the other engines on the market.
 
Deviationer said:
yeah there has to be something wrong with a game engine when you throw a brand new card that is twice as fast as it's previous generation, and you don't get the top settings at a descent resolution.

This whole crysis thing reminds me of how bad the original Halo 1 port was, no matter what you threw at it, it still ran like crap.
Click to expand...

WTF are you talking about on the Halo 1 port. I ran it perfectly fine on the highest settings with a Geforce 6800GT, granted the card came out after the Halo 1 port but still...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top