Poll Question 069 - Full graphic settings or not at all?

I disagree, most games handle different pc’s very well and can be played on high or low and still be good.

But i also agree that crysis’s low setting is just to low to play and have fun.

I know my 8500GT vid isn’t an 8800GT and my CPU chip isn’t the fastest it could be, but I do try to push the computer as much as possible!! Since I switched to “AMD” I’ve had better luck with the games ETC. I’ve tried “Crysis” on the high setting and got too much frame rate drops! I think an upgrade is in order!

I think that is a merely technical problem…
If you don´t have a high-end graphic card You can´t play the game with the highest quality parameters; that problems is solved by two ways ( …or may be One ): pushing your hard to its limits or buy new hardware$ to do that…!!!

My PC, although new, can’t run Crysis on Max settings. It drops to about 10 fps.
Still, I lowered a few of the settings, and the game still looked fantastic compared to anything else my computer has seen, including the BioShock demo. You just need to decide which of the settings are the ones you want the most.

I would compare the situation with having a high-end DVD player with the “Return of the King” disk, and pluggin it to an old black & white TV. You’ll still see the film, but it won’t be the way you were meant to see it.

Returning to Crysis, the game is so tweakable (more than any game I’ve seen before) so having to decide between lowest and highest isn’t a real issue.
By the way, I compare running Crysis in low settings to playing Half-life in fullbright. The difference IS as big as that.

The problem with voting on this one is the idea of “full” settings; I ran Crysis on “high” and it looked incredible, but as far as what it CAN do, that’s still not even close to “full” settings, as it’s so futureproofed.

If the poll was “decent” settings, then I agree, as stuff like the physics (part of the graphics options), are part of what makes Crysis (and Crysis was a surprise hit for me, although I suppose it makes sense considering I love Farcry, and Crysis is Farcry with the sucky parts either removed or improved, and a bunch of extras on top of that), it’s definitely one of the examples of a game that can be enhanced purely by graphics quality, as it’s actually part of the gameplay.

That’s a better explanation of what I was trying to say. Graphics are usually paralel to gameplay in most games.
But in a game where you can be blinded by the outside brightness while being inside a dark shack (HDR at its best), or a game in which you see the real-time dynamic shadows of your enemies, or some plants moving before actually seeing them, graphics are essential to gameplay.
Crysis can still be a very solid and fun shooter with the lowest of settings, but it’s truly unique and relevant with the better settings.

By the time I get a PC that can run it on full settings I will have already forgotten about Crysis

CrowbarSka Said:

Let’s look at it this way: imagine Crysis was released 10 years ago and it’s ‘high’ settings were the same as its ‘low’ settings are now. Does that mean the game should not have been played back then? Should we refrain from playing the next big hit because 10 years down the line it has more of a chance of reaching its visual potential?

I think it’s a ridiculous statement to make. If the game cannot stand on its own with low settings then it is not a fun game, and no amount of bump mapping or high detail foliage rendering is going to change that. If Crysis is not worth playing on low settings then why the hell did Crytek allow that as an option?

Unfortunately not everyone has the money or enthusiasm to buy a top-end PC, it’s a fact that will always be true as long as we have PCs that can be modified. Some people would rather spend their money on other things and that is entirely up to them.

I agree with that point of view when refered to graphics: a game like Crysis is not just technologies in graphics. The game is not a Doom 3 (this game can be great, but the graphics was almost all of it).

An excellent game (like Crysis) must have a possibility to run in a PC that’s not exactly a “high-end-gaming computer”. That’s just one of various features that makes the game winner of… let’s say “4.5/5 stars” in most publications.

Yes, the game can laugh of your single core micro and 128 bit interface 3D card 2.0 P. shader, but it’s possible to run it with ugly water, no particles, shadow and 640×480 with decent FPS. Crytek wanted to achieve a great production, and a great production is strong in all it’s features, and this game has all of them: gameplay, graphics (tech and artistically), and can run in my single core PC with 40 FPS!

Do anyone think a game will catch any buyers if we needed a NASA custom processor and 18 GeForce 8800 GTS in a cryogenic-noiseless container to play it?

A game that requires TOO MUCH to work always win a lil’ demmerit for that. So, I congratulate you for trying Phillip, and to Crytek, who created their last engine capable to work without PShader 3.0 support!

btw, the difference between low and medium/high settings are BIG.

Did anyone else also notice that the snow part is a lot heavier on your system than the rest. I really had to put down my settings in that part.

@shungokusatsu: The Doom3 is already old and a 8600 GT runs it with perfection, just as it does with Source-based games, Far Cry or anything else from the past. I see the Cryengine as a thing of the future, but I’m glad I didn’t have to wait a year to play it, regardless of the specs. (BTW, I also have a 8600 GT and played the game on high settings, tweaking down the ones I didn’t care for).
The engine is one of the best optimized out there (look for a youtube video named Crysis Editor, there’s a part where they show you in wireframe how the geometry hides other geometry, it’s incredible). As a matter of fact, I think there’s no other 3d game engine that would run the huge jungles with better framerate as of today. Not the Unreal Engine, not the Doom3 engine, not Source…

But yes, Crysis is indeed a bit like a Formula 1 car. If you live in a city with bumpy streets, you won’t get the best of it.

I kinda agree. Many games I hadn’t the higner of the graphics nor resolution and it turned to be kind of boring. Like Crysis. The hardware I have now is old already but if I could have a mid end, it could’ve been better (Bioshock I could just run on 640 at high settings or 1024 on low settings). I prefer atleast mid quality so I dont think the high is the all better stuff.

i think this is one of those questions where simply is not one answer for. everyone will have his own opinion. Mine is, that i do think( in comparison to most other comments above) that Crysis needs to be played on a very powerful pc. But i guess i started to think like this after i bought myself a year ago a very, very powerful pc. What makes that i can play all games on there highest settings and still have fps of around 100, (sometimes i even have fps of around 3 to 450, i know, silly but true). This makes that you experience the game as how it was intended by the makers. And specialty games like Crysis, Cod4, CM’s Dirt, and other heavy games do look so much more better that even after a year i still am VERY surprised how good things can look in games these days!
But, like i said, is this opinion personal of mine. Don’t think this was always the case, i have had my share of slow pc’s, to give a example; i still mapped on a 160 Mhz pc when every body else had already for a year or more a pc of 1 ghz or more! so i know all to well what it is to game on slow pc’s, and that is still fun. although the frustrations where numerous when some games couldn’t be played well because of super sliding show effects, (nothing is so frustrating as not being able to aim well, simply because you aim on the person, just to see that you aim left of him, and then with slide show effect you suddenly aim 5 meters to the right of him!) guess we all have had this one time in our life. it;’s like with everything else, how much money do you have, and if you have it, do you want to spent all those thousands of euro’s dollars on hardware.
but, once you do you simply can’t ignore that the play fun has at least doubled by the beautiful side of all those great games, specially the last year or 1,5.
I guess ones you played Crysis on High and or ULtra you never want to step down again to normal or even Low.

but, its all personal.

leon

Agree with Tetzlaff.
Personaly i think Crysis is a weak game. Under
the hood of multilayered shaders this game has very little to offer that is not very,very old. Im not saying its pure boredom,but its close.