Most Demanding Game

[bystander]

Funny you say that I don't program.

I am working on my bachelor's of science in software engineering as I right this. I program everyday.

And yes, Crysis was badly coded.

For a game that is as visually appealing as it is, with insane amounts of objects and view distance to render, I find it insulting to consider it "badly coded". You can say it wasn't the most optimized, but optimized is another word for compromise. Rather than finding a balance of the best visuals and performance, Crysis tends to not make the compromises. I find it hard to consider that "badly coded". At least say poorly optimized instead.

 

[PCgamer81]

I don't want to be insulting, but in essence, program optimization and coding are two sides of the same coin.

In other words, building something and then making it better - more efficient.

In any case, optimization can only ever make it better, as it merely improves upon the source material.

Therefore, Crysis could only be poorly optimized if it was badly coded to begin with - which it was.

Sorry.

 

[Stringjam]

I'm not convinced that CryEngine2 is coded badly.....at all.

This is what I was talking about earlier.......this is even a recreation of a COD4 map. Maxed graphical settings with 4xAA and my now antiquated 5850 pulls down 50 FPS.

How about the typical "corridor shooter?" Same thing, only with better textures and lighting than most of those games.

This either means that CryEngine2 does just fine producing environments typical of most other FPS's, or those other engines are coded badly as well. I'm not going to say it is coded better than anything else, because I don't know enough about programming, etc, or know the engine well enough to make those claims......but I do know it can't possibly be as bad as a lot of people make it out to be, and still look great and get good FPS in a typical game environment.

 

[bystander]

I don't want to be insulting, but in essence, program optimization and coding are two sides of the same coin.

In other words, building something and then making it better - more efficient.

In any case, optimization can only ever make it better, as it merely improves upon the source material.

Therefore, Crysis could only be poorly optimized if it was badly coded to begin with - which it was.

Sorry.

Optimizations, in many cases, does not always improve. It may improve performance, but usually at the cost of visuals. Crysis takes a different approach, they let the user optimize the game by adjusting their many settings. Unfortunately, a lot of people who play these games, expect their system to automatically play at max settings, otherwise it's a bad game.

If the pride was taken out of the equation, it's easy for everyone to fiddle with the settings to find their own optimizations.

 

[Stringjam]

Optimizations, in many cases, does not always improve. It may improve performance, but usually at the cost of visuals. Crysis takes a different approach, they let the user optimize the game by adjusting their many settings. Unfortunately, a lot of people who play these games, expect their system to automatically play at max settings, otherwise it's a bad game.

If the pride was taken out of the equation, it's easy for everyone to fiddle with the settings to find their own optimizations.

I think Crysis was probably the last of its kind in that regard. A pure PC development that wasn't afraid to push hardware and try to look as amazing as possible.

And because they actually included the editor with the game...and not just a "mod" editor, but THE editor they actually used, assets and all - - your options for tweaking the game, or even making your own, were pretty much only limited to the skill of the user.

It still amazes me how far guys are pushing it, and how amazing the environments it can produce look.

This is one of my favorite user-made maps. The pine trees are some of the best I've seen in any game.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIXag9D6A38&feature=related

I know I've posted this "Autumn Forest" link before, but this guy's maps just floor me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONBzuQdNEVw&feature=related

I have the "Golden Fields" map from the same guy, and I can only imagine how incredible a "FarCry2" style of game could be made using his art direction / mapping techniques.



And then there's Xigmatek and his particle effects.....creating the finest explosions I've ever seen in a video game. And how about the physics engine? Check out the Hummer blast at 2:04 - - - where do you see that in any other FPS? I don't see any of this going on in BF3....heck, I don't even see it in Crysis 2. The whole video is incredible:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhIaylrOEiM&feature=player_embedded#

I know I sound like a fanboi here....but watching videos like the one above just makes me sit back with my jaw open. This is technology from 2006, and it still amazes.

 

[PCgamer81]

I agree with Bystander and Stringjam, for the most part.

However, I still think that Crysis is badly coded, and I will give you an example of what I mean.

If you look at CryEngine 3, you see that they were able to get Crysis to run on inferior consoles. This would have never been possible with CryEngine 2. Not even on the medium settings.

Yet, Crysis on consoles (I've seen it) looks about like Crysis on High with medium shaders, and running at about 25-30fps. The reason this was possible was CE3 is coded more efficiently.

So in determining whether CE2 is coded worse that CE3, you must ask yourself, "Does the difference in visual quality between the PC version of Crysis and the console version of Crysis encompass the full distinction between the two hardware setups? And the answer is no.

The reason being, CE2 is not coded nearly as well.

Look at Valve. I remember when HL2 launched, it would run on just about any PC of the last couple of years. Hell, mid-range PCs were running it at high visual settings. I remember a couple of years ago, I was maxing the game out in 1366x768 on my father's Lenovo laptop with integrated graphics. The reason, Valve is the king of PC optimization. That is what I call good coding.

CE2 is not. Sorry, but it's not.

 

[bystander]

Crysis 2 also has an extreme small view and is in a city with lots of obstacles to block the view. Crysis 1 probably had multiple times more polygons to render. I'm sure that had a lot to do with their decision to cater to consoles, but it might have also been related to the setting of the game.

You really can't compare them that way.

 

[PCgamer81]

Crysis 2 also has an extreme small view and is in a city with lots of obstacles to block the view. Crysis 1 probably had multiple times more polygons to render. I'm sure that had a lot to do with their decision to cater to consoles, but it might have also been related to the setting of the game.

You really can't compare them that way.

True enough, but I am not comparing Crysis with Crysis 2. I am comparing Crysis-CryEngine 2 vs Crysis-CryEngine 3. I really don't think anyone could argue that Crysis CryEngine 2 would have been able to run on consoles, while at the same time looking as good as it does and maintaining a solid frame rate, as does Crysis CryEngine 3.

I've seen it. Crysis on consoles looks about like Crysis on high settings with medium shaders. This would not have been possible with CryEngine 2. The reason it is possible is because CE3 is coded much more efficiently.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOMUHkqR6QY - no way would this have been possible before.

 

[bystander]

True enough, but I am not comparing Crysis with Crysis 2. I am comparing Crysis-CryEngine 2 vs Crysis-CryEngine 3. I really don't think anyone could argue that Crysis CryEngine 2 would have been able to run on consoles, while at the same time looking as good as it does and maintaining a solid frame rate, as does Crysis CryEngine 3.

I've seen it. Crysis on consoles looks about like Crysis on high settings with medium shaders. This would not have been possible with CryEngine 2. The reason it is possible is because CE3 is coded much more efficiently.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOMUHkqR6QY - no way would this have been possible before.

How do you come to that conclusion? You are assuming they couldn't get the previous engine to run on a console in the same environment of Crysis 2. You can't make that assumption.

 

[PCgamer81]

How do you come to that conclusion? You are assuming they couldn't get the previous engine to run on a console in the same environment of Crysis 2. You can't make that assumption.

Assumption?

No.

When Crysis was released in 2007, it laughed at every piece of hardware thrown at it. A mid-range PC didn't stand a chance at running it in DX10 at high visual settings. It wasn't even until 2009 that hardware was available to max Crysis at an acceptable frame rate. There was no way it was going to fit on consoles. No way, whatsoever.

Consider the hardware attributes of current gen consoles, they aren't even in the same universe as the recommended requirements of Crysis-CE2.

Answer me this:

How is it an assumption to deduce that Crysis-CE2 would not run on consoles with the same efficiency as Crysis-CE3, considering that Crysis-CE2 brought (and brings) all but the strongest of PC's to their knees?

I wouldn't label that assumption, but rather intelligent deduction.

 

[bystander]

Assumption?

No.

When Crysis was released in 2007, it laughed at every piece of hardware thrown at it. A mid-range PC didn't stand a chance at running it in DX10 at high visual settings. It wasn't even until 2009 that hardware was available to max Crysis at an acceptable frame rate. There was no way it was going to fit on consoles. No way, whatsoever.

Consider the hardware attributes of current gen consoles, they aren't even in the same universe as the recommended requirements of Crysis-CE2.

Answer me this:

How is it an assumption to deduce that Crysis-CE2 would not run on consoles with the same efficiency as Crysis-CE3, considering that Crysis-CE2 brought (and brings) all but the strongest of PC's to their knees?

I wouldn't label that assumption, but rather intelligent deduction.

Again, you looking at the engine in a Crysis 1 scenario, an environment which has multiple times more objects to render than in a Crysis 2 setting. The Crysis 2 engine would not likely work in the same environment that Crysis 1 was set in. There was just too many objects on the screen and too long of a clipping plane.

That said, as time has gone on, programming techniques have improved, and as a result, we get better and better games. Does that mean any game built 5 years ago is badly coded, because the whole industry was not as advanced as today? I think not.

 

[Stringjam]

I like the lighting in CryEngine3. I think interiors look far better / more natural for some reason in CE3, and I think lighting has a lot to do with it.

However, the game seems so handicapped compared to Crysis. They had so much time to come up with something amazing, and I really think they dropped the ball.

I opened up both the CE2 and CE3 editors this afternoon to blow some stuff up, and look at the difference:

CE2.....always fun:
http://www.youtube.com/user/Stringjam#p/a/u/0/r8fgfhPlpfA

CE3.....no matter what I do, the car just hops up a little bit and switches to the "destructed" version of the car:
http://www.youtube.com/user/Stringjam#p/a/u/1/NBO6RyxMJZ4

 

[PCgamer81]

Again, you looking at the engine in a Crysis 1 scenario, an environment which has multiple times more objects to render than in a Crysis 2 setting. The Crysis 2 engine would not likely work in the same environment that Crysis 1 was set in. There was just too many objects on the screen and too long of a clipping plane.

That said, as time has gone on, programming techniques have improved, and as a result, we get better and better games. Does that mean any game built 5 years ago is badly coded, because the whole industry was not as advanced as today? I think not.

Okay, I think I get where you are mixed up...

You do realize that Crysis 1 was ported to consoles last month as a download exclusive, don't you? Not Crysis 2, but Crysis 1. On consoles.

And you do realize that the console version of Crysis 1 looks great, don't you?

And you do realize that the hardware attributes of consoles fall far behind the recommended requirements for Crysis on PC, don't you?

And you do realilize that CryEngine 3 is the engine upon which Crysis for the console is built, don't you?

So what would not have been possible before is possible now, thanks to the evolution in superior coding and optimization that is CryEngine 3.

You with me?

I'm not holding my breath...

 

[bystander]

Okay, I think I get where you are mixed up...

You do realize that Crysis 1 was ported to consoles last month as a download exclusive, don't you? Not Crysis 2, but Crysis 1. On consoles.

And you do realize that the console version of Crysis 1 looks great, don't you?

And you do realize that the hardware attributes of consoles fall far behind the recommended requirements for Crysis on PC, don't you?

And you do realilize that CryEngine 3 is the engine upon which Crysis for the console is built, don't you?

So what would not have been possible before is possible now, thanks to the evolution in superior coding and optimization that is CryEngine 3.

You with me?

I'm not holding my breath...

I did not know, but that doesn't mean they couldn't have done it with the previous game engine. You are making an assumption. You also have to realize that almost all console games are at 720p, which was quite easy to run maxed out on PC's when released and until I can see a comparison side by side, I'm going to bet that the clipping plane is not nearly as far as in the PC version.

Then again, it's possible you are right, but there are too many unknowns.

You also don't know how much was dumbed down.

I find it hard to make the assumptions you are. I also find it hard to consider ground breaking graphics, "badly coded", even if today it could have been achieved with more performance. Everything is evolving, and to call state of the art coding of the past, "bad" just because it "might" be done better today is a bit unfair.

EDIT: I am not saying that the new engine isn't better. I never have said otherwise. What I'm saying is you are both assuming that it couldn't have been done with the old engine, and are unfairly judging the older engine as "badly coded" just because it's older.

 

[PCgamer81]

I did not know, but that doesn't mean they couldn't have done it with the previous game engine. You are making an assumption. You also have to realize that almost all console games are at 720p, which was quite easy to run maxed out on PC's when released and until I can see a comparison side by side, I'm going to bet that the clipping plane is not nearly as far as in the PC version.

Then again, it's possible you are right, but there are too many unknowns.

You also don't know how much was dumbed down.

I find it hard to make the assumptions you are. I also find it hard to consider ground breaking graphics, "badly coded", even if today it could have been achieved with more performance. Everything is evolving, and to call state of the art coding of the past, "bad" just because it "might" be done better today is a bit unfair.

EDIT: I am not saying that the new engine isn't better. I never have said otherwise. What I'm saying is you are both assuming that it couldn't have been done with the old engine, and are unfairly judging the older engine as "badly coded" just because it's older.

I concede that you have a point.

I also apologize, I didn't know that you weren't aware of the console port. Hey, I don't exactly follow console gaming, either. The only reason I know about it is because I am such a Crysis fan and I was disgusted at the port.

But you know, after looking at it a while, I am really impressed. Crysis 1 on Xbox 360/PS3 looks amazing. I don't know how they ever pulled it off. Some say it looks better than the PC version. That it does not, however. I would say it is about like Crysis on high with medium shaders - which still looks fantastic.

And for me, that is what is so impressive about CryEngine 3. The console port of the original Crysis was entirely rebuilt in CryEngine 3 - just so it would run on consoles. Now, the reason it would not run on consoles before is because CryEngine 2 was so bulky and convoluted that a console port just would not have been feasible. Now, how you perceive that "bulkiness" and "convolutedness" is a matter of opinion.

I see it as poor optimization.

 

[PCgamer81]

I like the lighting in CryEngine3. I think interiors look far better / more natural for some reason in CE3, and I think lighting has a lot to do with it.

However, the game seems so handicapped compared to Crysis. They had so much time to come up with something amazing, and I really think they dropped the ball.

I opened up both the CE2 and CE3 editors this afternoon to blow some stuff up, and look at the difference:

CE2.....always fun:
http://www.youtube.com/user/Stringjam#p/a/u/0/r8fgfhPlpfA

CE3.....no matter what I do, the car just hops up a little bit and switches to the "destructed" version of the car:
http://www.youtube.com/user/Stringjam#p/a/u/1/NBO6RyxMJZ4

Cool videos.

But I have sort of an off topic question...

How can you tinker around in the sandbox without getting a serious jones for Garry's Mod?

That is, assuming you don't. (I didn't see any GM videos on your channel)

 

[Stringjam]

How can you tinker around in the sandbox without getting a serious jones for Garry's Mod?

Well.....that would be kind of like splashing around in a puddle when I could be swimming in the ocean. 😉 (Don't hate me, Source fans... )

I'm not very good at it, anyway.....if I had time I could spend days and days playing in the CE sandboxes, without even getting involved with the whole modelling / asset creation / animation side of it. I'm jealous of the guys that are good at it though.....makes me want to dig in there and develop some mod skills.

 

[PCgamer81]

Well.....that would be kind of like splashing around in a puddle when I could be swimming in the ocean. 😉 (Don't hate me, Source fans... )

I'm not very good at it, anyway.....if I had time I could spend days and days playing in the CE sandboxes, without even getting involved with the whole modelling / asset creation / animation side of it. I'm jealous of the guys that are good at it though.....makes me want to dig in there and develop some mod skills.

Ah, man. Garry's Mod is fun. You have to try it before you knock it. True, it is a mod itself and not really a creation tool - but you can create, and have so much fun doing it.

And the source engine is a blast in every game it's featured.

 

[ZakX11]

I don't want to be insulting, but in essence, program optimization and coding are two sides of the same coin.

In other words, building something and then making it better - more efficient.

In any case, optimization can only ever make it better, as it merely improves upon the source material.

Therefore, Crysis could only be poorly optimized if it was badly coded to begin with - which it was.

Sorry.

Wait GTA 4 was badly coded cuz my rig can easily run game of those graphics at 60 fps at high graphics but that game dished out my PC.
Crysis has amazing textures and graphics oberall.
I couldn't imagine how a game of that calibur wouldn't require a very up-to-date computer...
P.S I'm not into the programming thing so this question is just out of curiosity.

 

[bystander]

I concede that you have a point.

I also apologize, I didn't know that you weren't aware of the console port. Hey, I don't exactly follow console gaming, either. The only reason I know about it is because I am such a Crysis fan and I was disgusted at the port.

But you know, after looking at it a while, I am really impressed. Crysis 1 on Xbox 360/PS3 looks amazing. I don't know how they ever pulled it off. Some say it looks better than the PC version. That it does not, however. I would say it is about like Crysis on high with medium shaders - which still looks fantastic.

And for me, that is what is so impressive about CryEngine 3. The console port of the original Crysis was entirely rebuilt in CryEngine 3 - just so it would run on consoles. Now, the reason it would not run on consoles before is because CryEngine 2 was so bulky and convoluted that a console port just would not have been feasible. Now, how you perceive that "bulkiness" and "convolutedness" is a matter of opinion.

I see it as poor optimization.

I'd like to see the comparisons. A lot of times people are a little overly optimistic about the quality of console games due to the distance you are from what usually is a big HD TV. However, I have no doubt they did make it look good. It is also likely it is only displayed at 720p.

Thinking about it, I realize our argument probably was moot, as I don't believe the Cryengine 2 was even made to work on consoles.

When playing Crysis and Crysis 2, even with Dx11, there are some things which Crysis looks better at and others look better on Crysis 2.

Anyways, it's all good.

 

[PCgamer81]

I'd like to see the comparisons. A lot of times people are a little overly optimistic about the quality of console games due to the distance you are from what usually is a big HD TV. However, I have no doubt they did make it look good. It is also likely it is only displayed at 720p.

Thinking about it, I realize our argument probably was moot, as I don't believe the Cryengine 2 was even made to work on consoles.

When playing Crysis and Crysis 2, even with Dx11, there are some things which Crysis looks better at and others look better on Crysis 2.

Anyways, it's all good.

I haven't got into Crysis 2, yet.

I tried the single player and liked the ballistics. I feel the gunplay is more realistic in Crysis 2.

Overall, I obviously like Crysis 1 a lot better.

 

[bystander]

I definitely prefer the environment of Crysis 1 and when playing both normally, I'd choose 1. However, Crysis 2 looks amazing in 3D vision.

 

[PCgamer81]

Wait GTA 4 was badly coded cuz my rig can easily run game of those graphics at 60 fps at high graphics but that game dished out my PC.
Crysis has amazing textures and graphics oberall.
I couldn't imagine how a game of that calibur wouldn't require a very up-to-date computer...
P.S I'm not into the programming thing so this question is just out of curiosity.

GTA 4 was just a disaster.

I would not call it the most demanding, however. Maybe the most demanding for a CPU.

Also, GTA 4 doesn't really fall into the "most demanding game" category, but rather the "a game that should have never been as demanding as it was" category.

 

[PCgamer81]

I definitely prefer the environment of Crysis 1 and when playing both normally, I'd choose 1. However, Crysis 2 looks amazing in 3D vision.

About the closest I have got to 3D vision is my 3DS I take on road trips...

 

[HEXiT]

Funny you say that I don't program.

I am working on my bachelor's of science in software engineering as I write this. I program everyday.

And yes, Crysis was badly coded.

i didnt say you dont program i said " i GUESS" theres a bit of a difference.
if crysis is badly coded then i dont know what good coding is... yes its not much of a game but as a program its pretty innovating.
it works on a huge range of systems from a lowly 68gt to the latest dx 11 monsters and does it on any cpu thats got more grunt than a pentium d 2.6... i would say that was a pretty good effort... you cant really blame a game for not being coded to the latest/future api's. so you cant compare todays coding with yesterdays as it should in theory always be better. but that doesnt make yesterdays bad, its just the best they had at the time.
it may be badly coded by todays standard or what ever you think that is. but for a game thats what 4 years old and pretty much set the standard for all that followed. i say crysis is as well coded as any game i have played on release day...

oh and it wasnt half as buggy on xp or windows 7. a fair amount of crysis's bugs only showed on vista...
i found 1 bug in xp, where i couldnt enter the cave. but in win7 the game was near flawless.