New Cevat Interview

[Redeemed]

Many times we were lead to believe a Quad and GTX would run it fine at high settings.
Never by anything spoken by Crytek or Cevat... only were we lead to believe that from rumors.

[crainger]

My Quad and GTX runs the game at High settings...

[mythy]

My quad and GT does as well :)

[JohnDio]

Actually Crysis runs fine @high settings at 1024x768 + 16xCSAA so Cevat had a point there :p . And apart from some specific trailers, all the gameplay videos have similar framerate with what we get ;)

[conroejoe]

My Quad and GTX runs the game at High settings...



First, I don't consider anything under 40 or 50 FPS "running". 60+ is running, under that its chugging along and to me unplayable really.

Second, my quad and GTX run every other game out there 60+ with AA on (I use 1280x1024 on NEC GX2 90 because my 20" WS gives me a headache @ 60hz). Crysis is the only game I'm not happy with and to be honest doesn't look good enough to justify that it's not able to. COD4 looks more realistic and runs so much better.

Third, here is the video with Cevat talking about the game. Notice how fast it's running - I call BS. Also, them talking about how fast on the quad core. The game is so GPU bound the CPU doesn't amount to crap, also calling BS.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=-CD-mJMB7Lw

So the video shows the game just smoking right. Specs at the end of the video are Penryn Quad @ 3.2Ghz, 2GB ram, 8800GTX and Windows XP.

How are my expectations set too hight Redeemed? We've just been shown a video of Crysis smoking with said system. Now the game is out and performance sucks? So I was supposed to know I was being lied to? Its my fault they tricked us?? Seriously dude you can go on and on about how your expectations were exceeded. Mine were set by what I SAW about the game and clearly those were timedemos that were taking through a video program and sped up to make 20 FPS look like 80 or it was run on medium settings - to which they never state. Lies and BS from Cevat.

[grey_1]

My Quad and GTX runs the game at High settings...
Opty 175 @ 2.5 and an 8800 SSC GTS 1680x1050, all high = pretty consistent 20-23+ fps.

What amazes me is how smooth those framerates are in this title. Any other game at those fps would have a quick trip through add/remove programs. This is not only playable, but very smooth.

No AA though - even 2xAA kills it.

[Loreman]

Who are these gamers that are giving feedback that they enjoyed the linear, scripted levels during the endgame more than the free form?

Did they interview a bunch of call of duty die hards or XBOX 360 gamers shortly after release?

Also, who gave feedback that the new aliens where much better/more fun than the trigens in Far Cry? I thought the Trigens were heaps cooler and scarier and just generally felt better shooting them and hiding from them.

The new aliens suck ass!

[conroejoe]

The new aliens suck ass!

QFT

[Redeemed]

First, I don't consider anything under 40 or 50 FPS "running". 60+ is running, under that its chugging along and to me unplayable really.

Second, my quad and GTX run every other game out there 60+ with AA on (I use 1280x1024 on NEC GX2 90 because my 20" WS gives me a headache @ 60hz). Crysis is the only game I'm not happy with and to be honest doesn't look good enough to justify that it's not able to. COD4 looks more realistic and runs so much better.

Third, here is the video with Cevat talking about the game. Notice how fast it's running - I call BS. Also, them talking about how fast on the quad core. The game is so GPU bound the CPU doesn't amount to crap, also calling BS.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=-CD-mJMB7Lw

So the video shows the game just smoking right. Specs at the end of the video are Penryn Quad @ 3.2Ghz, 2GB ram, 8800GTX and Windows XP.

How are my expectations set too hight Redeemed? We've just been shown a video of Crysis smoking with said system. Now the game is out and performance sucks? So I was supposed to know I was being lied to? Its my fault they tricked us?? Seriously dude you can go on and on about how your expectations were exceeded. Mine were set by what I SAW about the game and clearly those were timedemos that were taking through a video program and sped up to make 20 FPS look like 80 or it was run on medium settings - to which they never state. Lies and BS from Cevat.

Joe, no where in that interview was the settings in-game nor the fps mentioned. You're purely going off of assumptions based on how it appears. To me, I'd imagine it to be running at 1920x1080, medium settings "in-game", and I have no idea what the AA settings would be. Regardless, that's about how smooth the gameplay is for me at 1680x1050, medium settings, no AA. I don't know how you see that video as being at the highest in game settings... you really cannot tell. At best you can only assume- which would be your fault as they never once put a gun to your head forcing you to come to that assumption.

[agentkay]

I'm totally happy with how my GTX and lousy dual-core CPU handle Crysis at 1080p with almost all veryhigh settings. Sucks when some need 60fps to enjoy the game. :lol:

[balex99]

What amazes me is how smooth those framerates are in this title. Any other game at those fps would have a quick trip through add/remove programs. This is not only playable, but very smooth.




I agree completely

[crainger]

First, I don't consider anything under 40 or 50 FPS "running". 60+ is running, under that its chugging along and to me unplayable really.

I consider 30+ fine. But I also play console games which on the whole are 30FPS, so I'm used to it.

[Ayepecks]

IMO, as long as I'm getting a consistent 30FPS or so I'm fine. I get that with Half-Life 2 maxed on my laptop. Crysis on my desktop, however, at medium, can have some consistency errors on levels. Nothing too bad, but as soon as there's a card that can play it really smooth (60FPS, to sync with my monitor) comes out I'll upgrade to it.

[K007]

40FPS is good for me. But Crysis seems to be..actually pretty smooth even on the 25-30 area..which is very strange...any other game...and 25-30 would feel like donky...

Kinda curious as to how the next Crysis sequel will hold up to the hardware at that time...when the game is out..

60+ min to enjoy a game is just ridiculous, i am not saying its bad to have 60+..but to enjoy it..thats just garbage.

[JasonPC]

The weapon model, vehicles, shadowing, and lighting in that scene look far more realistic than anything seen in the final game.

I'm not quite sure what you're talking about. The gun model is not much different than the final version of the game, in fact I think the final version looks better. The tank looks like it's made of plastic or something, the lighting is kind of bland/dreary (could be that way on purpose), and the shadows look very low resolution in the distance. The palm trees look horrible, the texture on the ground is very plain. The trees and wire have some weird artifacts around the edges as well.

And ConroeJoe. You do not even know what setting the game is running in that video. To me it looks like it's running at medium. You also do not know that the framerate is 60+. I'm willing to bet it's not even over 40.

[Redeemed]

I'm not quite sure what you're talking about. The gun model is not much different than the final version of the game, in fact I think the final version looks better. The tank looks like it's made of plastic or something, the lighting is kind of bland/dreary (could be that way on purpose), and the shadows look very low resolution in the distance. The palm trees look horrible, the texture on the ground is very plain. The trees and wire have some weird artifacts around the edges as well.

And ConroeJoe. You do not even know what setting the game is running in that video. To me it looks like it's running at medium. You also do not know that the framerate is 60+. I'm willing to bet it's not even over 40.
QFT. On all points.