Originally Posted by Redeemed
Wow. That's all I can say really.
Honestly, most anybody that is upset with Crysis' performance either didn't follow the development of the game all that well- or had seriously unrealistic expectations for the game.
I agree 100% with JasonPC's comments, as his are the only comments in this thread to have any logic within them.
Atleast a year before Crysis' release, Cevat was warning us that playing on "High" settings would not be capable for most computer... WE WERE WARNED AHEAD OF TIME. I mean seriously, can it get any more clear than that? Very few games can match Crysis image quality at "Medium" settings, and non can perfectly match the "High" and "Very High" settings.
Honestly, anybody that complains about this game is either a pessimist, didn't follow the development of the game, or had their expectation *way* too high. Considering all the delays this game saw I'm quite sure not much more could have been done in regards to optimizations.
And Cevat's referance to FarCry is spot-on. Nobody could play it with 100% everything maxed, including AA and AF, at uber-high resolutions, at the time FarCry was released. Niether the 5950U, nor the 9800XT had that kind of power. It was not until the release of SLi were you able to pull that off, and even then it was only with the most powerful of systems (uber-oc'd GTs or Ultras in SLi). Yet nobody complained then. Well, atleast not as many did.
Yet you take Crysis, which even on Medium settings is hard to match visually with any other title (CoD4 *might* be comparable in some cases) and is light years better looking that FarCry- and have it run well (1680x1050, 4xAA, 16xAF, GCAA, MSTAA, all in-game options set to "Medium") on a rig as old as mine and have it never dip below 25fps... that's an accomplishmet as far as I'm concerned. And if I had a better CPU (Core2 at 3Ghz or so) I'm certain my FPS at these setting would never drop below 30. The only part of my current computer that is even remotely "high-end" is the GPU and RAM quantity. Everything else fits into the "mainstream" segment anymore. Yet it plays Crysis just fine. Heck, at 1280x800, no AA or AF of any sort, my rig will play Crysis on "High", never dipping below 25 fps.
If anything, Crysis is going more to the roots of PC gaming than any game recently released. PC Gaming has always been about pushing the envolope in one regard or the next. How many of you have actually dissected the code for Crysis to look for any area that'll offer optimizations? How many of you have check for even just a string of redundant or unnecessary code? I'd wager none.
And I'd also wager that most any member of this site, and any other hardware enthusiast site, can run this game at higher resolutions, with some AA, and at "medium" settings, while only seldomly dipping below 30fps.
Do you guys not realise that just a few years ago 30-45fps was the standard? The target for games? Do you realise how spoiled we've become with our 45-80fps in games? Heck, the average person can't visually notice anything above 60fps anyway.
Complain all you want, but I'm more than pleased at this game. Infact, and maybe my expectations were lower than most, but this game exceeded what I was expecting from it.
Some of you guys need to either drop the PC gaming hobby or just realise that maybe you were wrong for having such high expectations.
No where, and not one of you, can find a single quote where Cevat claims the average enthusiast's rig will be able to run the game at "High" settings, with AA, and at high resolutions. No where. Not one stinkin' quote. You'll instead find plenty where he's warning us that at higher settings it'll only be playable on the best of rigs and only barely playable then.
I agree that if they naming was more like FarCry's, most of you probably wouldn't be complaining.