10 years ago i debated someone in the forums that Crysis was crap since his supposed rig ran Unreal 3 games and COD4 just fine. i wonder if that guy is still here. i mean side by side circa 2017 put Crysis along COD4 you'd see and probably understand why the latter was so much ahead of its time. The Map scale and the physics, too.
can anyone give me a clean cut answer as to why crysis was/is so demanding? Is it that they took all of the new graphics technologies at the time and put them into one game? and then over time those technologies matured/were optimized and now we can see games that are better for less?
was it just poorly optimized?
There will never be another Crysis. Imagine a developer releasing a game where a 1080ti couldn't run it on the highest settings in 2017. 1. Optimization played a factor I know, but 2. Because it looked 20x better than any game available.
It was a product of the times where developers were still trying to push the envelope for cutting edge graphical techniques.. Pretty cool
Crysis is notorious for utilizing nVidia Gimpware. Purposeful usage of technology to make your competitors product run poorly. Same with Project Cars. AMD winning the console contracts has changed this in the last several years, but there are still some entrenched review sites that purposely benchmark games to make AMD look worse.
Another out-of-the-box idea from Tom's that no other tech website thought of! Great job again Chris!
In any event, I didn't get this game until early 2009 with a new build (E8400 C2D overclocked to 4.4GHz, GTX 285, 4GB RAM) because my rig at the time was very outdated (Northwood Pentium IV 3.06GHz, 1GB memory, AGP 7800 GS). With that C2D build, the in-game benchmark showed a 45FPS average with "very high" quality setting using a 1680x1050 monitor.
From there it was on to Crysis 2 with an i5 2500K GTX 970 build using a 1080p monitor and Crysis 3 with 970 SLI using a 1440p monitor. My rigs never struggled since. But I will never forget that first experience in Crysis 1. Compared to the other games I had recently played like Half Life 2, FEAR, Left For Dead 2, and STALKER, it was like looking through a window in realism and immersiveness to near 3D. Compared to the other games, especially with foliage, water, and lighting textures, it was a true out of this world jump to the next level of PC gaming graphics.
@HDMARK, I think the game engine for the original Crysis was just poorly optimized, because Crysis 2 ran better on the same hardware.
While Crysis 2 came out a few years later than the original, it was a less demanding game, since they designed it with 2005/2006 era console hardware in mind. Gone was the more open island environment with dense foliage stretching into the distance in every direction, replaced with mostly linear corridors down city streets with tall, simple to render buildings blocking the view in most directions. It's much easier to make a game perform well when you only need to render a linear corridor. So while there were undoubtedly optimizations done to make the game engine perform better while improving the visuals in certain areas, most of the reason it wasn't as demanding was because they wanted the game to run well on lower end hardware, so they moved it to a more simple environment to accomplish that.