Crysis IGN AU Review

I hesitated a long time before giving my opinion on this title, but since some opened the way...

What's the point of releasing a game that not playable even on high-end hardware ?
Recommended Settings on my system : High, obviously unplayable around 10fps
Medium : 20fps average, peaks @ 30
Low : 30fps average, peaks @ 40, but it looks worst than Far Cry...

Maybe next year it will be playable, but for now, it's a crawling tech demo more than anything else.

EDIT :
C2D E6600, 4GB DDR2-800, ASUS P5K (P35), GF8800GTS 640MB, Windows Vista x64 Ultimate, drivers 169.09
Viewsonic VP2030b 1600*1200
no AA

 

It is highly playable. I get adequate performance with my E6300@2.46 GHz and GF8800 GTX @ stock. I'm playing at high but I scaled the res down to 1680x1050 from 1920x1200.

 

No you don't need to look at minimum framerate, not exclusively anyway. if you did that than 80% + of console games would be unplayable by your standards becatse most games dip occasionally to well below the average. The odd dip isn't much of a problem as long as its not sustained.

In Crysis, as long as your fps stays over 30fps most of hte time then its extramely playable, moreso than virtually any other game I have played which is something being stated by many, inlcusing reviewers across the net. Perhaps its down to motion blur or control inputs, I don't know, all I know is that its real.

Even a framerate of 25fps most of the time is playable in Crysis, albeit barely IMO but I think I could live with it given the visual tradeoff. It all comes down to personal opinion in the end though.

I'm actually playing the demo myself with an average of about 27fps on high/800p with few issues. Console games have certainly been released with framerates like that in the past. Generally they will be picked up in reviews as having performance problems but not crippling ones.

 

Maybe you should read the whole post instead of selective reading?

Take into account Vista perfomance vs WinXP with v.high settings -> Upwards ~25% perfomance difference in favor of WinXP.

I clearly say 30fps +/-, which must be obvious for anyone that it means with higher and lower fps depending on situation. Second look at the average framerate, and remember that there are small parts where the framerate can dip low. One point would be HDD loading during firefight for whatever reason. Second due to a lot of objects colliding with each other + particle effects created.

You should know that many games have framrate dips in some places. it goes for both Pc and console games although console games suffer more from that. Lair dips down to below 15fps in many parts when I test played it, Mass Effect shows fairly low fps to in videos and so on.

What is ridicolous is to focus on the lowest fps only when that could account for only a second (it all depends on the test session length, scripted or by human play). The average clearly shows it is doing ~30fps the majority of the time.

But what really is funny is that you ignore the average framerate vs min/max fps (mathematics my friend) and instead settle that the lowest acheived fps during the test session is how it runs all the time! This shows you are giving out false impressions based on the benchmark or just dont understand how the scoring is done at all!

 

Indeed!

 

Check in the Crysis full game thread or in my sig for my new ss. They are at 1280*1024 (but by Photobucket scaled to 960*768 jaggies are still there) at HIGH settings, no very high settigns at all.
Also I list my small changes to the system.cfg and the r_HDRLevel setting to really bring out the lighting and detail, and it is almost completly perfomance free (that is the r_HDRLevel setting)!

Edit: ops! I saw you already tested the settings, cheers!

 

The ass kissing continues... You guys want a room?

Anyone seen any concrete reviews / summaries of how Crysis retail fares on a 2900xt Crossfire setup? I ask because I got an absolute bloody steal on a new Crossfire board and 2900xt ($330 AU... That's at least $200 less than what they retail for in this poor country, and it's practically brand new).

I'm thinking 1280x1024, 2xAA, High settings with perhaps a slight tweak here or there for lighting intensity's sake.

 

i'll just say it here, the true crysis experience for me is running the game @1980x1200 res 8xaf dx10 all very high and 40-30fps constant. yeah i know, not maybe till 10800gtx. but there's no way im running it less than my 24" native display res otherwise it would look Sh it. right now running crysis @ 1024 or 1280 res very high at those framrate is just pushing too much and by far not the true crysis experience.

 

That is fine Ultragpu but have in mind that the game is playable at 720p with 2xAA on a 8800GTX at 30fps +/-. Have also in mind that this is the common res for other games and on other systems when talking about what is rendered and what fps. If you hook your PC to a TV it wont look any worse than a 720p 2xAA game on console regarding jaggies.

But hey have you seen my new settings and that is with HIGH grahics meaning no v.high setting at all. Looks sick and I can run it very good at 1280*1024 even with 6xparticle effects and 8xAF, I posted my settings.

 

What kind of settings do 8800GT users need to use to get 60fps? At 1024x768 how much needs to be disabled?

Is it even "playable" on a 6800GT? How bad does it look

 

Talking about Crysis reviews, I found this funny: http://ve3d.ign.com/articles/news/35480/GFW-Magazine-to-Voodoo-Extreme-Eat-a-Dick

 

they look very impressive indeed and if you feel thats playable then thats great. im still holding on till the next round of gpus though, i know from my farcry experience is that some of the game's level tend to be alot more demanding than others especially the volcano level. so i wanna go the safe side this time just so i can enjoy everylevel with smooth framerate. i actually never tried to hook my pc to the tv yet but i will definetly try it with crysis one day.

 

Smooth as silk since I use high setting and not v.high at all anymore. Also the r_HDRLevel has less than 0.2fps perfomance impact, in other words minimal. Cheers!

 

It's quite playable on my old X800XL on medium at 1024x768. It doesn't look quite right though. I think SM2 support is limited.

 

I am actually about to try Crysis on a relatively last gen notebook ((low end desktop)) with an AMD turion X2 @ 1.6 Ghz. 2 gigs of Memory, Windows Vista and a basic Geforce 7600 Go with 256 megs of memory. Just to see my mileage.

 

What other shooters out there, which are apparently AAA games, are even remotely comparable to Crysis? SoF3? Halo 3?

I must have missed their debuts..... Surely spalshes of their magnitude would have made noise.

 

Well said!

 

Well for those who were curious how it'd run on a lower end system this is what I have been getting on my laptop. Which is an AMD Turion X2 @ 1.60 Ghz, 2 Gigs DDR2, Geforce 7600 Go ((Close to 6800NU)) with 256 megs of memory.

It's pretty bad. I couldnt run the native resolution of 1280x800 comfortably. I had to drop down to 1024x640 to get it decent. Mostly low settings with medium textures and medium water settings. It really looks alot like Far Cry at these settings. I was averaging 20-30 FPS at these settings. Occasionally cutting into the 18 range in the heavy jungle. While this resolution is semi ok for a 15 inch monitor on a laptop. I cant imagine any desktop user running at such an obsurdly low resolution on any cheap 17 inch LCD screen.

I do like how Crysis Scales up and is hard to run on modern systems. But I wouldnt say it scales down well. This barely looks any better than Far Cry at such low details and Far Cry would run alot better on the system. This laptop is hardly "high End" but most games scale down better than this. I'll do some more testing later but I may actually try to enjoy the game on either my 8800GT or 8800GTX SLI system first.

 

I am a little embarrassed. But I forgot to upgrade my notebook drivers to the 169.09 drivers. They do offer a pretty significant improvement over these ones. While I wouldnt say they brought the game to a whole new level of playability. They did increase performance at these settings by about 30% making the game far more playable.

 

Yeah it looks pretty bad on low. I would argue its quite a bit worse that Farcry (which IMO looks ok still by current standards).

Its the shader and water effects which really make it look bad on Low, bump both up to Medium and your running at > Facry levels again. Unfortunatly these are also probably the two biggest performance killers.