Am I the only person who finds Crysis to be overhyped, in particular with regards to its graphical capabilities under DX10? I mean, seeing what I've seen, it certainly looks nice. But it's not some great leap forward in the graphical capabilities, just some slightly more polished graphics than, say, Oblivion. And considering how much coin is needed to get the graphics like that at 60 FPS is over-the-top. That, and the game in and of itself doesn't really intrigue me, especially since a lot of the stuff I've seen in trailers seems to have been done before (except maybe weather effects...I dunno). And every press outlet I've looked at lately seems more interested in the graphical benchmark/showcase it represents than the fact that it's a game. Is it just me, or does it seem that way?
Crysis=Overhyped?
- Thread starter onigami
- Start date
I think Crysis is kinda stupid for the reason that: yea... the game LOOKS great, and they made it to look amazing ON PURPOSE in a way that requires a badass PC that 8/10ths (If that) of the gamers out there don't have.
If you really look at Crysis its just another game. BUT with gfx on highest settings Crytek thinks its not the same runaround anymore, its a closer to real life... except the super speed, strength, armor and Invisability and alien crap thats been added.
If you really look at Crysis its just another game. BUT with gfx on highest settings Crytek thinks its not the same runaround anymore, its a closer to real life... except the super speed, strength, armor and Invisability and alien crap thats been added.
ghostwalker
Distinguished
- Apr 21, 2006
- 173
- 0
- 18,680
I can see where you are coming from and there may be big steps being taken to improve the graphics but at the end of the day, it's still a FPS like all the rest. It would be nice to see an evolution of the FPS genre a bit as when you boil down to it, except for better and better graphics, there hasn't really been anything that new for years. Apart from perhaps physics and AI.
stemnin
Distinguished
- Dec 28, 2006
- 1,450
- 0
- 19,280
dx10 is overhyped by you! (points wildly into the air to people that think that a change in directx versions really means a greater quality image, instead of mediocre improvements (well there was a few good improvements I guess).
I did find the AI somewhat stupid, but I was using the cloak and silencers/sleepers alot, i'll try going at it no cloak and no silencers tonight, someone said on another forum it made it alot harder.
Graphics are great, nothing like those closed-corridor shooters like cod4, as some say... I played crysis on low just for the hell of it, it looks like total crap, so for people that can run cod4 on high and crysis only on low, I understand your viewpoint.
I believe, like farcry before it, crysis is a tech demo of a game (or game of a tech demo - whatever), i'm sure licensing the engine brings in the big bucks.
Anyways, can't wait for this game.
I did find the AI somewhat stupid, but I was using the cloak and silencers/sleepers alot, i'll try going at it no cloak and no silencers tonight, someone said on another forum it made it alot harder.
Graphics are great, nothing like those closed-corridor shooters like cod4, as some say... I played crysis on low just for the hell of it, it looks like total crap, so for people that can run cod4 on high and crysis only on low, I understand your viewpoint.
I believe, like farcry before it, crysis is a tech demo of a game (or game of a tech demo - whatever), i'm sure licensing the engine brings in the big bucks.
Anyways, can't wait for this game.
I do think crysis is overhyped with dx10 and Vista and all that cos in this forum all the people that had problems was with crysis demos was using Vista, at the end of the day the game still works better on dx9 and XP. It should be hyped cos the beautifil scenario and amazin AI that was brought by Far Cry, thet kind of smart oponents was only find on games like F.E.A.R. or Far Cry, but in fact probably because is the demo version, the AI in crysis demo is umbelivable stuip, i hope this is only in the demo, cos i really want to buy this game when is out, Some nice crysis screenshots.
CPU: Intel Core Duo E8650 @ 3Ghz
Graphic Card: GeForce 7950GT
Motherboard: EVGA 680i SLI
HDD: Wester Digital Raptor 74Gb 10.000Rpm
Ram: 2Gb Corsair TwinX XMS2 DDR2 PC2-6400 (800)
Cooler: Zalman CNPS9700-LED Super Aero Flower
Sound: Creative Xfi Elite Pro
PSU: Enermax 600w
Case: Thermaltake Kandalf
Monitor: 22" Asus Widescreen
Have a look at my blog about games, hardware and computing
CPU: Intel Core Duo E8650 @ 3Ghz
Graphic Card: GeForce 7950GT
Motherboard: EVGA 680i SLI
HDD: Wester Digital Raptor 74Gb 10.000Rpm
Ram: 2Gb Corsair TwinX XMS2 DDR2 PC2-6400 (800)
Cooler: Zalman CNPS9700-LED Super Aero Flower
Sound: Creative Xfi Elite Pro
PSU: Enermax 600w
Case: Thermaltake Kandalf
Monitor: 22" Asus Widescreen
Have a look at my blog about games, hardware and computing
stemnin
Distinguished
- Dec 28, 2006
- 1,450
- 0
- 19,280
check out these screenshots
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/page-245693_33_240.html#t1756005
http://img130.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=75046_EditorLighting1_122_104lo.jpg
http://img139.imagevenue.com/view.php?image=75047_EditorLighting2_122_539lo.jpg
I think this guy made a video too.
Extreme lighting lol.
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/page-245693_33_240.html#t1756005
http://img130.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=75046_EditorLighting1_122_104lo.jpg
http://img139.imagevenue.com/view.php?image=75047_EditorLighting2_122_539lo.jpg
I think this guy made a video too.
Extreme lighting lol.
Alex The PC Gamer
Distinguished
- Oct 24, 2007
- 981
- 0
- 19,060
Here's what I make of all this...
COD4 = better frame rate, lots of fun and a good gameplay, innovative to a certain extent.
Crysis = new engine under which greater graphics can be found...a new lighting system and shadows, skin shaders, etc that makes the environment all that more realistic BUT at a great cost. You need PC that is non-existant today to run the game at 60FPS with everything enabled in this game. However, Gameplay feels alright and the storyline seems awesome!
So is Crysis over-hyped? Perhaps for most people playing games such as COD4, Jericho, Blacksite and similar games where they get great FPS and still get a pretty good gameplay. The "who needs the most advanced graphics?" gamers will find Crysis "too expensive" because they will most likely have to upgrade their PCs. Crysis is for the gamer that likes to jump into the next generation gaming at whatever cost.
As much as I like COD4 and the latest similar games...not to mention the awesome framerates I'm getting, I ended up purchasing Crysis. Why? Well I am an eye-candie person I guess. I get a kick at checking the skin shaders and all that beautiful lighting in Crysis...something you don't get in COD4. I just wish my frames per second were higher but that's the price to pay for such graphics.
Keep in mind that medium-high settings are the equivalent to very high settings in other games. So if you have a PC that can run these settings then Crysis is probably a good investment.
Alex
COD4 = better frame rate, lots of fun and a good gameplay, innovative to a certain extent.
Crysis = new engine under which greater graphics can be found...a new lighting system and shadows, skin shaders, etc that makes the environment all that more realistic BUT at a great cost. You need PC that is non-existant today to run the game at 60FPS with everything enabled in this game. However, Gameplay feels alright and the storyline seems awesome!
So is Crysis over-hyped? Perhaps for most people playing games such as COD4, Jericho, Blacksite and similar games where they get great FPS and still get a pretty good gameplay. The "who needs the most advanced graphics?" gamers will find Crysis "too expensive" because they will most likely have to upgrade their PCs. Crysis is for the gamer that likes to jump into the next generation gaming at whatever cost.
As much as I like COD4 and the latest similar games...not to mention the awesome framerates I'm getting, I ended up purchasing Crysis. Why? Well I am an eye-candie person I guess. I get a kick at checking the skin shaders and all that beautiful lighting in Crysis...something you don't get in COD4. I just wish my frames per second were higher but that's the price to pay for such graphics.
Keep in mind that medium-high settings are the equivalent to very high settings in other games. So if you have a PC that can run these settings then Crysis is probably a good investment.
Alex
No rule that says you can't buy Crysis AND COD4.
Everything, from the forum interest, to pageviews, to the video views, to people I don't know grabbing me on the street and asking what laptop they should get to run it, says that you guys want to see lots of Crysis.
I'm more worried that with all the Crysis stuff we're doing here, that we may miss worthy but lesser known games.
We certainly aren't going to miss COD4, but if you guys see a truly great game that's going to be lost in the shuffle, let us know.
And, while "hype" may get my attention, if the game is a pile of crap, or does something that makes me angry, I've got no problem going "hammertime" on it.
Everything, from the forum interest, to pageviews, to the video views, to people I don't know grabbing me on the street and asking what laptop they should get to run it, says that you guys want to see lots of Crysis.
I'm more worried that with all the Crysis stuff we're doing here, that we may miss worthy but lesser known games.
We certainly aren't going to miss COD4, but if you guys see a truly great game that's going to be lost in the shuffle, let us know.
And, while "hype" may get my attention, if the game is a pile of crap, or does something that makes me angry, I've got no problem going "hammertime" on it.
Greetings to all, and a word of gratitude for starting this thread. Ive never posted anything on (any)forums before so this is my first, and i must say that I AGREE, Crysis is over hyped. Namely for what it was reputed to be (advertisement) crysis was supposed to be the next generation in (gfx) gaming, but what it really turned out to be is the same old seen so far, just SO MUCH MORE of it! Graphics look phenomenal but they're not revolutionary. Shader effects, there really aren't a lot if any DX10 effects in it, the terrain shader may look a bit more precise under DX10 but from what i can see no a lot of gain from DX9.0c. Another advantage that was speculated for DX10 advantages was better performance (those with DX10 platforms will get much better performance that previous versions of DX), once again we see it is not the case.
Pretty graphics??? Did any one ever try HL2 with a Cinematic Mod, with textures 2Kx2K, and it looks wonderfull and eats performance (though not as much as crysis) and lacks additional shaders and maps on the faces. Crysis uses (from what i know) 4Kx4K and all types of shader of effects and different maps on virtually all vegetation and models. The only new shader im curious about is the skin melanin shader of faces, if it really is a new shader code and not just transparency or translucency related effect. Millions of polygons and tons of objects in a scene, on a HIGHER than before resolution, and you have Crysis. It does look phenomenal but it is not revolutionary. Geometry shaders !? I went with a new rig when i bought it and got Vista Ultimate for geometry shaders, i had pixel and vertex with my 7800GT.
Destructible environment. Well it so turned out that the fully destructible environment isn't very destructible, and even most of the already destructible objects are pre-scripted to behave the way the do when struck or shot at, and don't really destroy based on realtime GPU or SPU calculations like DX10 physics were supposed to do. Destructable palm trees, they only brake at certain places, and if you try to slice the palm trunk you'll notice that it only cuts if shot at certain parts, at a certain distance from each part, and not everywhere you shoot it. Smaller vegetation that moves upon collision is other than mobile on touch INDESTRUCTABLE . Thicker trees, they don't even move, other than their canopies which sway in the wind, you can't do anything to them, i tried shooting a small branch of the tree with a mounted machine gun and it doesn't even scratch it much less brake it. So not a very "realistic" destructible environment, looks to me Crytek made a lot of objects pre destructable and it works well, and looks amazing i must admit but still it is not a revolution in physics. Even the buildings, those you can brake are actually small shacks with metal of wood blocks stacked against each other. I haven't seen a brick wall go down on my demo on Physics set on very high (or everything else on very high), no matter what i throw at it.
Dying enemies. I hope it's just the demo, but once you shoot the enemy dead, it sort of becomes part of the environment texture with no volume of material properties at all. I blew up a jeep, and after it burned to crisp and kept bouncing up and down for a while for no apparent reason, the body of the Korean on the mounted gun was still there untouched and rich with colors, plus when i shoot dead enemies on the ground i hear and see the same effect i get when shooting directly in the dirt. So that is negative when paired with everything else in crysis.
So to not prolong this much further, i probably overdid the post already but it's my first and wanted to share my thoughts with the rest of you. Im not to be miss understood I AM A CRYSIS FAN waiting eagerly for the title to come out. I hand it to crytek for making an extraordinary title with visuals not yet achieved. But it is not a revolution, and not a next generation in gaming. The difference that FarCry, Doom3 and HL2 made in gaming when they came out bringing SM 2.0 in their fullest, compared do DX 8.1 before them was much greater that what crysis brings to SM 4.0 if it has any of it at all that is, compared to what can already be done with SM 3.0 is negligent to say the most.
My rig>
Athlon X2 4200+, 2GB DDR2 667, Asus 8800GTS 640, Audigy2, MSI K9Platinum nF 570 ultra. Vista Ultimate.
Pretty graphics??? Did any one ever try HL2 with a Cinematic Mod, with textures 2Kx2K, and it looks wonderfull and eats performance (though not as much as crysis) and lacks additional shaders and maps on the faces. Crysis uses (from what i know) 4Kx4K and all types of shader of effects and different maps on virtually all vegetation and models. The only new shader im curious about is the skin melanin shader of faces, if it really is a new shader code and not just transparency or translucency related effect. Millions of polygons and tons of objects in a scene, on a HIGHER than before resolution, and you have Crysis. It does look phenomenal but it is not revolutionary. Geometry shaders !? I went with a new rig when i bought it and got Vista Ultimate for geometry shaders, i had pixel and vertex with my 7800GT.
Destructible environment. Well it so turned out that the fully destructible environment isn't very destructible, and even most of the already destructible objects are pre-scripted to behave the way the do when struck or shot at, and don't really destroy based on realtime GPU or SPU calculations like DX10 physics were supposed to do. Destructable palm trees, they only brake at certain places, and if you try to slice the palm trunk you'll notice that it only cuts if shot at certain parts, at a certain distance from each part, and not everywhere you shoot it. Smaller vegetation that moves upon collision is other than mobile on touch INDESTRUCTABLE . Thicker trees, they don't even move, other than their canopies which sway in the wind, you can't do anything to them, i tried shooting a small branch of the tree with a mounted machine gun and it doesn't even scratch it much less brake it. So not a very "realistic" destructible environment, looks to me Crytek made a lot of objects pre destructable and it works well, and looks amazing i must admit but still it is not a revolution in physics. Even the buildings, those you can brake are actually small shacks with metal of wood blocks stacked against each other. I haven't seen a brick wall go down on my demo on Physics set on very high (or everything else on very high), no matter what i throw at it.
Dying enemies. I hope it's just the demo, but once you shoot the enemy dead, it sort of becomes part of the environment texture with no volume of material properties at all. I blew up a jeep, and after it burned to crisp and kept bouncing up and down for a while for no apparent reason, the body of the Korean on the mounted gun was still there untouched and rich with colors, plus when i shoot dead enemies on the ground i hear and see the same effect i get when shooting directly in the dirt. So that is negative when paired with everything else in crysis.
So to not prolong this much further, i probably overdid the post already but it's my first and wanted to share my thoughts with the rest of you. Im not to be miss understood I AM A CRYSIS FAN waiting eagerly for the title to come out. I hand it to crytek for making an extraordinary title with visuals not yet achieved. But it is not a revolution, and not a next generation in gaming. The difference that FarCry, Doom3 and HL2 made in gaming when they came out bringing SM 2.0 in their fullest, compared do DX 8.1 before them was much greater that what crysis brings to SM 4.0 if it has any of it at all that is, compared to what can already be done with SM 3.0 is negligent to say the most.
My rig>
Athlon X2 4200+, 2GB DDR2 667, Asus 8800GTS 640, Audigy2, MSI K9Platinum nF 570 ultra. Vista Ultimate.
djcoolmasterx
Distinguished
- Mar 15, 2007
- 1,269
- 0
- 19,310
The graphics are brilliant, the gameplay has the right ingrediants, I just hope the story is much better than the pathetic excuse for a plot in FarCry.
Good to see some agreement. I mean, the whole argument is plausible in terms of the gameplay. Honestly, I'd rather see Multiwinia, in all it's simplistic graphic form, more than this game. It's not even like BioShock, where at least the gameplay validated the graphics issue.
I'll be picking up the demo, but I don't think it will impress me that much. Besides, I'm running a P4 3.2 and ATI X800XT unit. Not bad, but it's showing age...
I'll be picking up the demo, but I don't think it will impress me that much. Besides, I'm running a P4 3.2 and ATI X800XT unit. Not bad, but it's showing age...
Ironnads
Distinguished
- Sep 5, 2007
- 278
- 0
- 18,780
I hope its a more "overall difficult game.." Farcry was piss easy all through and then nearly impossible right at the end scene.. Should get my new rig by the end of the year - plus want to wait on Penryn prices plus actual Amd cpu and ati gpu benchies next week. Still got no feedback bout byin stuff here in europe. Newegg - no go out of America.. )-; Back to crysis - hope it's really choice orientated too.. Not that Farcry was. (take road 1 or two to the same destination isn't an open plot, not that it ever really claimed to be nothing but linear.
Rubber rocks..
Rubber rocks..
crom
Distinguished
- Aug 20, 2007
- 378
- 0
- 18,780
Putting graphics of the game aside for a moment, I think the suit functions bring an interesting dynamic to the game in Crysis. That, and like Far Cry, you can approach situations from different angles. It's a bit more open eneded in that approach.
Half Life 2 is more of a rail shooter. You have your path determined for you in any particular part of the game. Sure you can choose different ways to accomplish an objective within a scene, but you're forced on certain routes. Crysis opens this up a bit, at least the demo.
Half Life 2 is more of a rail shooter. You have your path determined for you in any particular part of the game. Sure you can choose different ways to accomplish an objective within a scene, but you're forced on certain routes. Crysis opens this up a bit, at least the demo.
itotallybelieveyou
Distinguished
- Jul 6, 2007
- 1,688
- 0
- 19,790
So I just played the demo for 30 minutes. Or tried. For some reason, the game does not work on my rig. All I can see is the skybox, the land textures, and ghosts of the objects (models, etc.). I can only make out enemies because somehow their eyeballs, tho translucent, are visible. The rest of each model is transparent, only visible when they refract against the skybox. Once I reach the satellite dish thingie in the opening level, the fact that I can barely see the eyeballs made it impossible to play. And I had set it to all possible settings (low, medium, high).
Balls to that.
Balls to that.
jimmysmitty
Champion
- Oct 5, 2007
- 21,605
- 599
- 59,140
The AI was stupid to me. If I was standing still, not clocked and the enemy was right behind a tree he would see me and shoot straight. At the tree.
They did have a few straife movements but HL2's AI seemed better to me. Especially on Hard. They would not stand there and get shot at while they reloaded.
Other than that, yea the game is not all that amazing. Its the graphics that get everyone. Just like HL@ and Doom 3 when they came out.
They did have a few straife movements but HL2's AI seemed better to me. Especially on Hard. They would not stand there and get shot at while they reloaded.
Other than that, yea the game is not all that amazing. Its the graphics that get everyone. Just like HL@ and Doom 3 when they came out.
systemlord
Distinguished
- Jun 13, 2006
- 2,737
- 0
- 20,780
Must I remind you guys," the game isn't even out yet" and already some of you guys are down playing the hole game. For a game engine thats just in its infantcy you guys don't give Crytek any credit where its do. The graphics are awesome, the physics are very good and the waves/water is at a all time high. Some of you say playing at 60 fps isn't going to happen unless you have a killer rig, thats simply not true.
I don't know about you but Crysis looks very good on medium setting with a little high settings, I can play Crysis at minumum 45fps all the way upto past my refresh rate of 75Hz using all high setting except for shaders on medium. Either people believe that if they can't play a game a maximum settings then its no good, bad game engine. I have never enjoyed a demo quite like this one before, thers just so many ways to tackle you enemys. When I play on the hardest difficult setting the enemy charges at you throwing nades at you coming up behind you, if thats not good enough for some then you shouln't be playing PC games or you don't have a clue how games a supposed to be played.
You can attack from the water, or from within the tree line even head on. The first levels are always easy, but I am sure it will get difficult after that. Theres the story to go along with it that we know nothing about. I guess the photo realistic graphics aren't good enough for some and many ways to take out your enemy isn't worth some peoples money.
I don't know about you but Crysis looks very good on medium setting with a little high settings, I can play Crysis at minumum 45fps all the way upto past my refresh rate of 75Hz using all high setting except for shaders on medium. Either people believe that if they can't play a game a maximum settings then its no good, bad game engine. I have never enjoyed a demo quite like this one before, thers just so many ways to tackle you enemys. When I play on the hardest difficult setting the enemy charges at you throwing nades at you coming up behind you, if thats not good enough for some then you shouln't be playing PC games or you don't have a clue how games a supposed to be played.
You can attack from the water, or from within the tree line even head on. The first levels are always easy, but I am sure it will get difficult after that. Theres the story to go along with it that we know nothing about. I guess the photo realistic graphics aren't good enough for some and many ways to take out your enemy isn't worth some peoples money.
justinmcg67
Distinguished
- Sep 24, 2007
- 565
- 0
- 18,980
personally after playing Half-Life 2: Episode 2 and comparing it to the demo graphics wise....HL2: EP2 wins hands down. It has MUCH better graphics than the Crysis demo had. And I know some peopel say, "Well it's a demo" well yeah that's true but demos are "samples"; as in, a one level preview, not a pre-mature, unoptimized version of the game. It's the game, but with ONE level. That's it. That's what a demo is.
I'm still getting the game regardless; and I have a more than capable rig to play it on decent settings, but after playing other games and comparing graphics, mainly HL2: EP2, it's not "wtfomgbbqsauce" good. Not to what i was led to believe anyways.
I'm still getting the game regardless; and I have a more than capable rig to play it on decent settings, but after playing other games and comparing graphics, mainly HL2: EP2, it's not "wtfomgbbqsauce" good. Not to what i was led to believe anyways.
systemlord
Distinguished
- Jun 13, 2006
- 2,737
- 0
- 20,780
I can't wait for other Dev's the use this Crytek engine for their games. Crysis reminds me of when Oblivion first came out, it was hard on most graphics cards and only the best hardcore PC's could handle Oblivion. Have you even seen what Crysis looks like with everything on very high in XP? If not then you haven't seen how good Crysis really looks, photo realistic graphics.
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
News US sanctions transform China into legacy chip production juggernaut — production jumped 40% in Q1 2024- Started by Admin
- Replies: 33
-
-
-
Question New pc build r9 7900x3d rtx 4080 super no post only ram rgb turns on- Started by Harvey Durward
- Replies: 5
-
RTX 4070 vs RX 7900 GRE faceoff: Which mainstream graphics card is better?
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 71
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram