Crysis 3 Multiplayer Beta Arrives on January 29th

[upgrade_1977]

[citation][nom]BigMack70[/nom]Do you know how to read? Because your posts sure make it sound like you don't.My point was only that all this talk about how Crysis 3 is so impressive visually needs to have some perspective on it. The game is a great looking game but it's hardly ahead of its time. More like long overdue.And yeah, I'd love to see a game come along and be what Crysis was - something to push the boundaries of what is possible graphically in games. PC gaming is steeped in the sewer of console ports and games made to cater to lowest-common-denominator console hardware. It would be a breath of fresh air for someone to come in and make a PC exclusive engine built to show off what hardware not tethered to consoles can do.[/citation]

LOL, ur a funny lil guy aren't ya? Yeah, I assure you, I can read.. I understand what ur saying, I just don't agree with ur viewpoint. If you think bashing me is the way to win an argument, then I feel sorry for ya.

As far as Crysis 3, just so you know, it's not out yet.. So how do you know what it looks like just based on some video's? Either way, i'd like to see you program a game if your so good at it. And, while Crysis 2 wasn't designed for the PC first, it was patched and looks way better with the patch. Crysis 3 is according to Crytek, designed on the PC first, and will be the best looking game ever created for the PC. What more do you want?

 

[DarkSable]

Also, just throwing out there, you're dead wrong when you think that it's GOOD that crysis 3 is easier to max out than crysis was.

It's NOT a good thing - if you had your wish and all games could be maxxed with your hardware, then games would never push hardware, and in turn, games would never get better.

 

[upgrade_1977]

Wrong, I am commenting on your "original" viewpoint..

Guys, this game looks good, but it's nowhere near what Crysis 1 was.

Remember... 3-way 8800 GTX SLI (the best setup available at the time) could NOT run Crysis at 1920x1200 at very high settings.

For Crysis 3 to be as demanding as Crysis, it would need to be unplayable maxed out on tri-SLI 680s or tri-CF 7970s at 1920x1080 or at least 2560x1440..

And my opinion is exactly opposite of yours. And i'm sorry if your only argument is that I don't know how to read.
-One, the game isn't even out, and you act like you've played it already. Have you?
-Do you have benchmarks I am unaware of?

Even if you did have benchmarks, as I said before, there is no way to compare the games, as the gtx 680 is generations ahead of even 3 8800gtx's, and standard resolutions have changed, and considering many other factors, you are comparing apple to orange's. So your argument is invalid.

 

[upgrade_1977]

[citation][nom]darksable[/nom]Also, just throwing out there, you're dead wrong when you think that it's GOOD that crysis 3 is easier to max out than crysis was.It's NOT a good thing - if you had your wish and all games could be maxxed with your hardware, then games would never push hardware, and in turn, games would never get better.[/citation]

Yes, I agree that game's should push the edge of technology, that is true, but what I meant is that game's should be at least playable on current hardware, or at least optimized to play on current hardware, that way multiplayer is more fun, vs. nobody has the hardware, and empty servers. Not designed to run on machines 10 years into the future, that run 10fps on high end hardware.

 

[upgrade_1977]

[citation][nom]BigMack70[/nom]I don't even think you understand what my argument is. There's nothing you can bring to the table to invalidate my argument, because the fact is that Crysis was so far ahead of its time that it was completely unplayable maxed out at a very standard resolution (1080p) when it came out. That is not the case with Crysis 3 - not by a long shot. You do not need a hypothetical future computer to max Crysis 3. You did to max Crysis.I played the Alpha. Maxable quite nicely at 1080p on a single 7970. Looked a bit better and was a bit more demanding than Crysis 2.[/citation]

Ah, I see ur problem. Thats the thing, 1080p wasn't the standard then, it's the standard now. 1080p was the ceiling high end limit when crysis came out, I think that most people were running 1200 x 1024. So today 1080p is standard, and 5670 x 1080 in 3d or 4k or 8k (super high end) is the ceiling today, so thats what you should be comparing it to.

http://www.pclabs.com.tr/2007/10/29/crysis-benchmark-with-8800gt/
http://www.pclabs.gen.tr/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/crysis/image001.png

 

[upgrade_1977]

[citation][nom]BigMack70[/nom]1080p was not the ceiling high limit. 1600p was the ceiling high limit, same as today. Only difference is that triple screen setups weren't around then.The single display market segment has been largely stagnant since 2007. The main thing then was 1080/1200p monitors, and the main thing today is 1080p monitors. Obviously there were fewer people with them - more folks had 1280x1024 and 1680x1050 displays, but there were plenty of 1920x1200/1080 displays out there.Comparing 1080p in 2007 to 4k (which costs like $20K+ now) or 8k (which isn't even in commercial production as far as I know) is just silly. It's probably fair to compare 1080p Crysis 2007 to 1440p Crysis 3 2013 but not 4K.Crysis 3 isn't what Crysis was. Get over it. That doesn't mean ANYTHING about the value of the game. It's a simple fact of the technology.[/citation]

What I'm saying is that the average user was playing games at 1280 x 1024 back then and 1080p was pushing the envelope, now the average user is 1080p, and 5670 x 1080, 4k or 8k is pushing the envelope.
And this shows in any benchmarks you read. 10% may have had ultra high gear, 1080p monitors, that the original Crysis couldn't run in ultra on, but most people had lower res monitors that the game ran fine on ultra with 2xaa. All i'm saying, is it's basically the same with Crysis 2, and pretty sure Crysis 3 is gonna take more hardware to max, but 1080p it'll run fine, any extreme setups it'll take some future hardware to max out. If i'm wrong and it plays fine on today's hardware maxed out, then It's not because it's not a good game, it's because it's a very well optimized game, and the hardware is leaps ahead of what was out when the original Crysis came out.
And as far as the original Crysis, I didn't think it was all that great. I still think Crysis 2 was a much better game, even before the patch, but the patch made it a lot better, and I'm happy with that. All the tessellation, and the HD textures, the AI, and the overall colorful and interesting design, better more intersting environments, ect. ect. ect.. My personal opinion is that Crysis 2 was 10 times the game the original Crysis was. Even though I want matrix like games, I still thinks it takes more then just graphics to get there. To this day, I still didn't finish the original crysis game. You know why? Cuz I got bored with it. Boring....

 

[jasonborne]

You simply dont want to understand.. BigMack70 is right... CRYSIS 1 SET A STANDARD That is STILL followed TO THIS DAY "CAN IT RUN CRYSIS THOUGH??"... Crysis 3 Is not setting that standard. The CRYSIS ONE STANDARD WAS GREAT BECAUSE IT MADE HARDWARE Companys and GAMERS SET TO WANT BETTER HARDWARE .. THATS WHAT KEEPS THE PC MOVING FORWARD... ALso your wrong about CRYSIS 3 being delvop on the PC FIRST.. THATS completely wrong, this new CRYSIS 3 is using the SAME Cryengine that WAS DEVELOP FOR THE CONSOLES.. The Engine running Crysis 2 and 3 and weaker engines than The one that was built for Crysis 1.. Toms Hardware wrote a peace on that years ago.. SO BASICALLY CRYSIS 3 is a CONSOLE GAME PORTED TO THE PC With added HD textures and Direct x 11 PATCH on DAY ONE.. As Long as devlopers create for the purpose of Consoles , PC's Will never GET TITLES LIKE THE ORGINAL CRYSIS... The next Generation of Consoles Will put PC gamers in the same Hole as now, NOT PUSHING THE PC Forward..