Is crysis really a realistic benchmark?

[ScoobyJooby-Jew]

Ok explain me this why some levels with better graphics runs better than some levels at night with zero lighting and average action.

And as for the multiplayer just becoz you guys get high speed internet doesnot mean that everyone on Earth also gets the same level of internet speed. In our country high speed internet is very expensive.
I would say only 40 percent gamers play mutiplayer and remaing still play single player campaign.Thats the reason why game companies still spends huge amount of money for implementing advanced A.I in games.No dought crysis has excellent graphics but its gameplay is equally bad.

Yeah, I agree with subpar gameplay. You play a super soldier with a sweet combat suit. Your allies get vaporized if they die because the tech cant fall into enemy hands. Yet the Koreans have some sort of shield tech because you can unload alot of bullets into them and they glow red

 

[nativeson8803]

I played through it and was not impressed with the repetitiveness of it. Just look at a game like Half Life 2- there's no comparison, Crysis is the same situation over and over again with moments here and there that shine. With HL2 you are constantly doing something different, and for Crysis when you do something different, it becomes even more tedious! The levels with aliens were terrible and especially the floating level, that had me ready to give up but with over ten hours in I wasn't about to. Furthermore, there's really only two kinds of enemies in the whole game- Korean soldiers and the not very different Korean captains.- okay one level with Koreans in the suit but that hardly counts.

Anyway, that's a half ass comparison, and I know HL2 is one of the best games of all time, but I'd replay it anytime and wouldn't play Crysis again.

AND THOSE KOREANS CAN EAT LIKE 5 BULLETS STRAIGHT TO THE FACE WTF!

Just my 2 cents. However, for 10 bucks you can't really go wrong.

 

[notty22]

nice, thanks for that. I wonder if it will work with Crysis Warhead since that's the game I have. I'll give it a try. I wish they would make a tool with real gameplay for bc2 because that's difficult to achieve the same results every time.

http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=71988

 

[OvrClkr]

Not everyone can overclock a gpu to 1000mhz.Trying playing at stock and you will also notice lag.Anyway i play warhead which is much better than crysis.And also less taxing.

You should be able to at least get 850/1200 at stock voltage, and with your CPU at 3.4ghz you should get a decent boost.

A 5850 gets around 31/32FPS at stock clocks (1080p), when you overclock the GPU you can get up to a 5/10FPS boost quite easily.. Of course if you want more frames you will need to add a second 5850, the game is fairly taxing just like you pointed out.

 

[bystander]

I played through it and was not impressed with the repetitiveness of it. Just look at a game like Half Life 2- there's no comparison, Crysis is the same situation over and over again with moments here and there that shine. With HL2 you are constantly doing something different, and for Crysis when you do something different, it becomes even more tedious! The levels with aliens were terrible and especially the floating level, that had me ready to give up but with over ten hours in I wasn't about to. Furthermore, there's really only two kinds of enemies in the whole game- Korean soldiers and the not very different Korean captains.- okay one level with Koreans in the suit but that hardly counts.

Anyway, that's a half ass comparison, and I know HL2 is one of the best games of all time, but I'd replay it anytime and wouldn't play Crysis again.

AND THOSE KOREANS CAN EAT LIKE 5 BULLETS STRAIGHT TO THE FACE WTF!

Just my 2 cents. However, for 10 bucks you can't really go wrong.

I didn't like Half Life 2 that much. The whole game felt like I was running through a 20 foot wide maze. You always had to face everything head on and had no freedom of movement. Crysis has much more freedom and let you attack things from many different angles. The AI felt a lot better too. HF2's advantage was the characters and story, not the actual game play.

However, I found Farcry to be have been better than either. Not that I felt there was anything wrong with the enemy in Crysis, but I felt the super suit made Crysis a little too easy. Farcry was a lot more challenging combat. You had to attack while using terrain to your advantage, and had no suit to fix your mistakes.

 

[OvrClkr]

Screen shot of Warhead with Texture-Mod/Gamer settings/No AA/1080p

http://i683.photobucket.com/albums/vv199/OvrClkr/Crysis2010-10-0701-09-42-02.jpg

Looks better than default Gamer settings, more crisp..

 

[nativeson8803]

I didn't like Half Life 2 that much. The whole game felt like I was running through a 20 foot wide maze. You always had to face everything head on and had no freedom of movement. Crysis has much more freedom and let you attack things from many different angles. The AI felt a lot better too. HF2's advantage was the characters and story, not the actual game play.

However, I found Farcry to be have been better than either. Not that I felt there was anything wrong with the enemy in Crysis, but I felt the super suit made Crysis a little too easy. Farcry was a lot more challenging combat. You had to attack while using terrain to your advantage, and had no suit to fix your mistakes.

Your point about Far Cry is well taken- I had forgotten how great that game was, it was fun as hell and you had to think- good story too. What's funny about that game is there was this one part I just couldn't get passed and since there was no goddamned quicksave system I just eventually gave up. It was an area where you had to go through an enemy camp and like as soon as you alerted the soldiers it was like they wouldn't stop hunting you. At first I picked off some guys shooting through tents silently but always blew my cover. Hard ass game!

Remember, though, Half Life 2 was made three and a half years before Crysis and in that respect it was revolutionary. But yeah, Gordon Freeman is probably my favorite hero of all games. I don't think I gave a *** one way or the other about the characters in Crysis.

 

[wh3resmycar]

omg, another "CRYSIS UNOPTIMIZED" thread from folks who can't really define "how to optimize a game".

try the "Optimal Settings Button", it's there, use it if you're actually interested in playing the game, but if it's the e-peen thats getting hurt (benchmark-raping), now we can't do anything about that.

the thing is, there are game engines that're demanding, there are those that aren't, and just because it is "demanding", it doesn't mean its "unoptimized".

way back 2007, crysis @ medium beats any other game "visual-quality-wise".

 

[mactronix]

omg, another "CRYSIS UNOPTIMIZED" thread from folks who can't really define "how to optimize a game".

try the "Optimal Settings Button", it's there, use it if you're actually interested in playing the game, but if it's the e-peen thats getting hurt (benchmark-raping), now we can't do anything about that.

the thing is, there are game engines that're demanding, there are those that aren't, and just because it is "demanding", it doesn't mean its "unoptimized".

way back 2007, crysis @ medium beats any other game "visual-quality-wise".

Crysis is unoptimised, Crytec have admitted so in an interview which i posted not too long ago. There is a huge difference between un optimised and how well a game scale's between different systems and settings.
In this regard i actually think they did a great job with Crysis. I was able to play the game through on some very low level hardware when the game first came out. The pretty wasn't what it could be but wasn't that bad at all really.
I played the game through again on higher spec hardware and it was a very different looking game.

Now Assasins creed there was a pile of totally unoptimised rubish which ever way you look at it. Great game if you had a system that could run it but no chance of running it at all if your rig wasnt quite high spec. The hardware i used for Crysis the first time around locked up and died trying to run it :lol:

Mactronix

 

[MMclachlan]

3. Yes, it is not optimized, but it's not too bad. GTA4 and Metro2033 has FAR worse coding.

Errr, bollox! I can barely get Crysis to run 30fps in VHQ @ 1080p (noAA) with a 3.83Ghz Q9550 and a GTX295.
I played Metro in Very High with AAA on and got 50-60 fps the whole way through!
Give you GTAIV though - that is about as bad!

 

[mactronix]

Thus proving that most games can be"optimised" to run well on any system by the individual who owns it, as long as they are prepared to turn off/down a few options here and there

Mactronix

 

[Anks2014]

I played it at max setting 2xaa with 5850 and q9550.Some levels run great while some run like a crap which shows how badly it is optimised.

And people who say it has great gameplay should stop calling themself gamers.For some real FPS gameplay, play cod and BF series games.

Hey dipankar.........whatever just because you dont like the gameplay of crysis doesn't mean that you can speak *** about it.It's atmosphere is completely than that of cod or battlefield and its gameplay is pretty darn good.So stop being so negative.

 

[deweycd]

So overall, using crysis or any other game as a benchmark is only good for determining how that particular game will run on the system. If you want to run a different game your going to have different results.

 

[Tamz_msc]

Again I have to go and explain people the same thing.
I admit that Crysis was not properly optimized.Its NOT UN-Optimized, unlike GTA 4.But it can run on a variety of different configurations.Just check youtube and you'll find it running on integrated graphics, macs and even linux!.But I'm yet to come across a more beautiful game than Crysis warhead.

And Dip, the reason why the performance of Crysis is different in different levels, especially the snow level is because in them there are lots and lots of particles and polygons to render.FYI Crysis uses more than 85000 shaders, one million lines of code and upto 1GB of texture data on the highest settings.

 

[Tamz_msc]

^I know that mate.But i get good performance in those level as compared to level taking place at night.

At night, there is nothing to render except the foliage and terrain.There are no special lighting like god rays and stuff like that.Also, shadows are not that difficult to render at night because of the dark ground.Its not that easy to render shadows on ground that is illuminated by sunlight.

 

[bystander]

Crysis is unoptimised, Crytec have admitted so in an interview which i posted not too long ago. There is a huge difference between un optimised and how well a game scale's between different systems and settings.
In this regard i actually think they did a great job with Crysis. I was able to play the game through on some very low level hardware when the game first came out. The pretty wasn't what it could be but wasn't that bad at all really.
I played the game through again on higher spec hardware and it was a very different looking game.

Now Assasins creed there was a pile of totally unoptimised rubish which ever way you look at it. Great game if you had a system that could run it but no chance of running it at all if your rig wasnt quite high spec. The hardware i used for Crysis the first time around locked up and died trying to run it :lol:

Mactronix

Crysis was unoptimised for two main reasons:
1) It was designed to include all the new tech features of the new video cards of the time.
2) It was not expected that anyone could play it fully maxed out when it was released. You can't design the game around hardware not yet released.

The term optimise often means to compromise. Most games compromise some visuals for better performance. Crytek doesn't do this. They include all visuals, and let's you compromise the image quality yourself through the options menu.

 

[Tamz_msc]

@tamz You are not getting my point.I get good performance in demanding levels and slightly worse performance in levels taking place at night.Overall the performance is great.

That seems strange, the reverse is more likely to happen.I played Warhead and Crytek seems to have fixed this issue in it.

 

[gamerk316]

Guys: A benchmark is nothing more then a piece of software operating at some settings that different PC setups can compare against.

So yes, Crysis is a valid benchmark.
So is 3dMark.
So is DOOM, and CS:S, and Quake.

As long as you test with the same settings, its a valid benchmark.

 

[bystander]

Your point about Far Cry is well taken- I had forgotten how great that game was, it was fun as hell and you had to think- good story too. What's funny about that game is there was this one part I just couldn't get passed and since there was no goddamned quicksave system I just eventually gave up. It was an area where you had to go through an enemy camp and like as soon as you alerted the soldiers it was like they wouldn't stop hunting you. At first I picked off some guys shooting through tents silently but always blew my cover. Hard ass game!

Remember, though, Half Life 2 was made three and a half years before Crysis and in that respect it was revolutionary. But yeah, Gordon Freeman is probably my favorite hero of all games. I don't think I gave a *** one way or the other about the characters in Crysis.

Farcry remains the most fun FPS single player game I've ever played. Not only did you have to plan out your attacks, and a ton of freedom, and used cover unlike any game before it, the landscape was awe inspiringly beautiful.

You may try playing Farcry again, there were always multiple ways to make it past most maps. You might even turn down the difficulty level. Farcry's easy level was as difficult as most games medium or hard. There is no shame in playing it at easy.

There is also a quicksave option with a mod that you should be able to find. I personally liked the waypoint system myself, but it's worth using over quitting.

And without giving away any story, the game gets a LOT harder than it was there based on the type of enemy it sounds like.

 

[wh3resmycar]

Crysis is unoptimised, Crytec have admitted so in an interview which i posted not too long ago. There is a huge difference between un optimised and how well a game scale's between different systems and settings.

we've had this conversation before, what they admitted was the lack of focus in gameplay. you can read it again if you want. so will you admit that if they made the visual half-arsed you'd call it "optimized"?

and when they said "optimized for console", i do hope you actually understand what that means. (hint: visual quality aspect).

here's the thing, when a pc game gets ported to a console and a game dev says "console optimized", it just means the visuals will be crappier, there's no magic in it. or do you actually fool yourself into believing that games like metro2033/bfbc2 on the 360 is directly comparable, visual quality wise, to the pc. i will lol @ you if you do.

 

[bystander]

^They also said crysis 2 will have the best visual ever.What do you have to say about that?

Everyone knows that cryengine 2 was unoptimised thats the reason why crytex is using brand new engine for crysis2.

The reason they are making a new engine this go around is two fold, to allow it to scale low enough for a concole, and to add in DX11 for the PC.

You probably will be shocked, but I bet only the concole version will be "optimised" (i.e. watered down).

They usually like to allow the PC engines to scale well beyond what current systems can handle at max. Unless people complaints about not being able to play at "maxed" settings from the past games they have made have gotten them to change.

 

[mactronix]

we've had this conversation before, what they admitted was the lack of focus in gameplay. you can read it again if you want. so will you admit that if they made the visual half-arsed you'd call it "optimized"?

and when they said "optimized for console", i do hope you actually understand what that means. (hint: visual quality aspect).

here's the thing, when a pc game gets ported to a console and a game dev says "console optimized", it just means the visuals will be crappier, there's no magic in it. or do you actually fool yourself into believing that games like metro2033/bfbc2 on the 360 is directly comparable, visual quality wise, to the pc. i will lol @ you if you do.

Yes we had this conversation before and im quite happy not to drag it all up again, which is why (hint: i didnt post the quote again) But as you have seen fit to miss quote it i will post this extract.
"With Crysis 1 on PC only, you can kind of brute force it. "Well, just throw more hardware at it." That was the solution to making a better game. So, in some ways, in places, it was a little unfocused and not as tight as it could have been"

Its got nothing to do with visuals,which you seem to think is the only optimisable part of game code or any other aspect of optimisation. Some say the game if poor optimisation wise and you say it isnt. I dont really care one way or the other but Crytec themselves admit it isnt that well optimised.
Console optimised means just that, and only someone desperatly trying to prove a point would try and sugest that its in anyway linked to how it performs on a PC.
Consoles dont even come into the equation as Crysis wasnt made for console so your just clouding things dragging it into the conversation.
We can have this conversation every time Crysis an doptimisation gets mentioned if you like. the quote is valid as far as im concerned and i will continue to use it to show that the game isnt as optimised as some would like to think.

Mactronix

 

[deweycd]

So in summary to all this bickering, Crysis 1 is not a optimized code as compared to Crysis 2. Your system will be heavily taxed and thus well benchtested.