Doesnt crysis seem a bit rediculous?

R

ryane24

Member
For example, with my computer i can run crysis half very high and half high settings and get about 25 FPS. If you consider that i can run UT3 everything on high and it gets like 4 to 5 times the FPS, doesnt crysis seem a little bit rediculous? the graphics arent THAT much better that UT3, same goes for games like Call Of Duty 4. Im just hoping that we can see graphics like crysis in the future and not have to have a nuclear reactor to get above 40 FPS.
 
I know where you're coming from. It's lazy programming in a lot of cases. Go back 10 or 15 years and programmers had very little power to work with, so they got around it with clever but simply ideas. Now it seems to be case of 'it'll do' and if a bit of code slows things down a bit it doesn't matter, the computer's got enough power.

They could've probably got Crysis running at huge fps at highish details on their minimum required system if they could be bothered...
 
crysis is a technological showcase and nothing more. The gameplay is completely run of the mill and the ai is unimpressive as well. There are much better looking games out there that don't require anywhere near the power crysis does.
 
DirtyD86 said:
crysis is a technological showcase and nothing more. The gameplay is completely run of the mill and the ai is unimpressive as well. There are much better looking games out there that don't require anywhere near the power crysis does.
Click to expand...

You have to love the voice acting of the koreans lol. I noticed the same thing in farcry, the voice acting is pretty bad.
 
ryane24 said:
You have to love the voice acting of the koreans lol. I noticed the same thing in farcry, the voice acting is pretty bad.
Click to expand...

not to mention the entire army seems to have three different faces and they have a shared vocabulary of about fifty words. I laughed at pcgamer when they gave it game of the year especially since it was released the same year as cod4 and bioshock. Crysis isn't half the game those are
 
still, I found Crysis to have a much better replay value than both, bioshock and CoD4.
(CoD4 lost its 'heroic' feeling like 1 and 2 did, iks kinda a pity)

either way, yea, I think they could have optimized Crysis a bit better. still I think its physics surpass everything I've seen in any other game so far, and like said, I really enjoy playing it. everyone their own I suppose
 
ryane24 said:
Im just hoping that we can see graphics like crysis in the future and not have to have a nuclear reactor to get above 40 FPS.
Click to expand...

HAHAHA i like that. But you make a good point Crysis is so demanding. But they may have done that for those extreme gamers who WILL update there computers and get those nuclear reactors just to make there gameplay at the best it can be.
 
It obviously wasn't a mistake, they made it so demanding on purpose to get you to blow 400USD+ on a new graphics card (or two, or three).

No joke.
 
id rather not make a new thread with this... what setting should i turn up to be able to see objects from a distance?

im running all low with 2x AA but i have how everything just magically pops up infront of me...
 
i didnt realy like crysis,I could put the settings on max,Not ultra maxed as you need like 3 cards in sli to max that damn thing out but i think that its not much better than Far cry tbh.

the graphics are great but thats about it...nothing diffrent from far cry exept he has some stupid powers to be able to go invisible and jumt high.
 
I thought it was amazingly better than far cry. As someone else posted though, I can see why it would get game of the year, you have to remember that not only is it a graphics, but also a physics engine!

MASS PHYSICS
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top