Please refer to my "hey we don't really know how to code for shit so we're just going to throw in some more foliage and graphical effects to trick people into thinking there's a reason our game runs like ass. Scale it down? WE CAN'T SCALE IT DOWN. You don't deserve to live if you don't have quad SLI anyways" post.
And that's why I think it's retarded when people compare Crytek to ID, Epic, or even Valve.
I think I was the only one who compared Crytek to those companies on these forums
.
You are partially correct on the lack of scaling, but the rest of it, I disagree with. I know you were being facetious with the SLI comments, but here is what I think:
1. I am getting an average of 25 fps at a resolution of 1440x900 on high settings using a system not significantly better than
this. That PC you can build on NewEgg without the Windows CD for about $750. The system was recently tested on Maximum PC with Crysis running on high on a 19'' monitor, and earning 30+fps second. So yea, the quad SLI thing is normally something echoed by console gamers with a bone to pick.
2. a) You mention ID software, but keep in mind that similarly to Epic or Valve, they have never released a cutting edge engine that rendered anything other than closed environments.
b) When Quake III was released, fanboys were in an uproar of Crysis proportions, because the game ran like ass on even the most modern of systems at maximum settings. That was something the Quake fans weren't expecting, and it took nearly a year for technology to catch up with Q3. The problem with Crysis has been the marketing, and the fact that ATi pushed the GPU market a year behind schedule.
c) People forget that the Xbox 360 is capped at 30 fps in its shooters. So isn’t getting the same on a PC (that also has to shoulder Windows) just as acceptable? The only point where you can compare Epic or Valve to Crytek is in the internal environments, of which are many in Crysis. In the underground settings of Crysis, I found the game looked technically better than Unreal Tournament 3, and was running at over 80 frames per second.
3. On that $750 machine I pointed out, PC Gamer magazine benchmarked Crysis on medium settings and were getting an average of 58 frames per second. You might argue that Crysis on medium doesn't look nearly as good as high, but it still looks gorgeous. In fact at medium Crysis looks better than Gears of War, Half-life 2, Halo 3 and Doom 3. Of course there is little comparison to those static environments, because Crysis renders gorgeous terrains with dense foliage affected by environmental effects in real time; trees sway, leaves rustle, water ripples etc. When you compare Doom 3 or Unreal Tournament to Crysis, the only life you will see from the former two, is in the form of enemy AI, limited object destruction (read: crates), and physics.
The only games that can be compared to the open ended environments of Crysis are Operation Flashpoint, Ghost Recon, Oblivion, and S.T.A.L.K.E.R. All of those look worse than anything in Crysis, and ran each poorly at launch. The best of the bunch is Oblivion, which at max settings runs at 30fps on my system, yet pales in comparison to Crysis.
Finally, have a look at the screenies I took. Some of that looks near photorealistic, don’t you think? And it
feels even better when played through. If you look at pretty screenies from Epic or ID games, the still frames will be about as static as the actual game.
