How was Crysis made so that hardware that came out in the future couldn't max it

How was it that Crysis came out 2 years ago (correct me if I am wrong) but people are still having trouble fully maxing it out at high resolutions even with the best commercial hardware? How was a game made so that it is more intensive than hardware that was available at the time?How was Crysis made so that hardware that came out in the future couldn't max it
The code wasn't optimized and still isn't.It's slightly better in Crysis Warhead, but not by much.How was Crysis made so that hardware that came out in the future couldn't max it
Isn't it kind of silly that you can go out and buy the most expensive commercial consumer video card, CPU and RAM and still not be able to max games that came out fairly recently at a high resolution? Doesn't that kind of tick people off? I know is was EXTREMELY ticked off when I got the World in Conflict demo (after I had been playing Crysis at 1280x1024 with med/high DX10 with acceptable FPS) and I couldn't run it above 30FPS unless I dropped all the settings to low. This was a brand new card too, the second best at the time (8800GT 512MB). Actually, I haven't played a new PC game since then so I have completely forgotten the frustration of not being able to play a new game acceptably. Day of Defeat: Source is pretty forgiving on hardware :) . I need to start playing PC games more though. I can often times buy the PC version for $20-30 where as a xbox 360 rental will cost $8 or so and I will have to kind of rush to finish it. Well, I could use gamefly but when I used to use it it took forever to get games back.I was planning on getting a new 24'' 1920x1080 monitor but after seeing that even an i7 quad w/ 6GB RAM and an nvidia 280 or radeon 4890 can't play Crysis at 1920x1080 above ~37 frames I am dissuaded from doing so. Really, a game (it is a good looking game) has been out for probably over 2 years and it still can't be maxed with brand new hardware? Ridiculous. They need to get some developers together and optimize that code. At least optimize the engine and some other major stuff before releasing the next big game that runs on Cryengine 2.
Sloppy code.



You should make that game run great on Nvida 8000 series if it was optimized correctly.
Good ol' lazy developers....I mean it's a beautiful game but the way you sell as much as you can is make it run on as many machines as you can (aka WoW) but not sacrifice graphics...it's a fine line and they weren't close to it.It sure is pretty though
Hi. Looks like that game is junk. I think it is actually unfinishedand the game sold on hype and not on its own merits. I havean HD 4870 which runs the game pretty well and some ofthe scenery looks good,impressive even. But I see in my gamehummer jeeps with no back tires and sticks and rocks that popup 15 feet in front of you as you walk down the beach. If you backup, they disappear. Some games from the late 90s did that sort ofthing. We shouldn't be seeing that sort of thing in games today.
[QUOTE=''SinfulPotato'']Sloppy code. You should make that game run great on Nvida 8000 series if it was optimized correctly.[/QUOTE]correction 8800 seriesand 8400gs would have super issues trying to run it :P
Lazy developers, yes blame the developers. Everytime someone can't run a game you people throw around ''Lazy, unoptimized, poorly coded...'' Are you even qualified to make that kind of judgement? Have you ever made a Direct3D engine of that sophistication? Have you looked at the source code? Always quick to point fingers with no evidence to suggest that it's poorly coded. Don't tell me the fact that it doesn't run on todays hardware is enough evidence because that's assuming they scaled the engine to run well on todays hardware and you have no way of telling what they aimed for. If they say they aimed for future generations, take their word for it.
I play Crysis on an ATI HD 4850. I play @ 1024x768 on XP w/ the very high tweak with 2x AA and ive yet to see my frame rate drop below 35, even in multiplayer.But then again I overclocked my CPU to 4GHz so im sure that helps because at lower resolutions games are more CPU bound.
[QUOTE=''Marfoo'']Lazy developers, yes blame the developers. Everytime someone can't run a game you people throw around ''Lazy, unoptimized, poorly coded...'' Are you even qualified to make that kind of judgement? Have you ever made a Direct3D engine of that sophistication? Have you looked at the source code? Always quick to point fingers with no evidence to suggest that it's poorly coded. Don't tell me the fact that it doesn't run on todays hardware is enough evidence because that's assuming they scaled the engine to run well on todays hardware and you have no way of telling what they aimed for. If they say they aimed for future generations, take their word for it.[/QUOTE]I'm sorry, but it IS poorly coded. Guess what, they said that it would run at 60 FPS on DX10 on SLI'd 8800GTX. Guess what, it doesn't.It takes a $800+ video card to run this game at any where CLOSE to 60 FPS at 1920x1200 with only 2xAA and NO AF.http://www.guru3d.com/article/asus-mars-review-test/11And the card isn't even released yet. Takes a $500 video card to run it at 60 FPS at 1600x1200.Crysis IS and always WILL be poorly coded. Crytek dropped the ball because I remember them saying that it would run just fine at MAX settings DX10 on the, at the time, current generation video cards, IE 8800 series.
I don't know, PC gaming will, at least should, remain at the cutting edge of technology. If companies like Crytek don't push the boundaries we get console crud like ut3. Is that what you people want?
[QUOTE=''SinfulPotato'']Sloppy code.



You should make that game run great on Nvida 8000 series if it was optimized correctly.[/QUOTE]



The game does run great on 8800GTs and other 8800 cards. Looks great too. Game is greatly optimized.
[QUOTE=''DarthIntel'']I play Crysis on an ATI HD 4850. I play @ 1024x768 on XP w/ the very high tweak with 2x AA and ive yet to see my frame rate drop below 35, even in multiplayer.But then again I overclocked my CPU to 4GHz so im sure that helps because at lower resolutions games are more CPU bound.[/QUOTE]You've got to be getting better than that in-game.
[QUOTE=''kilerchese''][QUOTE=''Marfoo'']Lazy developers, yes blame the developers. Everytime someone can't run a game you people throw around ''Lazy, unoptimized, poorly coded...'' Are you even qualified to make that kind of judgement? Have you ever made a Direct3D engine of that sophistication? Have you looked at the source code? Always quick to point fingers with no evidence to suggest that it's poorly coded. Don't tell me the fact that it doesn't run on todays hardware is enough evidence because that's assuming they scaled the engine to run well on todays hardware and you have no way of telling what they aimed for. If they say they aimed for future generations, take their word for it.[/QUOTE]I'm sorry, but it IS poorly coded. Guess what, they said that it would run at 60 FPS on DX10 on SLI'd 8800GTX. Guess what, it doesn't.It takes a $800+ video card to run this game at any where CLOSE to 60 FPS at 1920x1200 with only 2xAA and NO AF.http://www.guru3d.com/article/asus-mars-review-test/11And the card isn't even released yet. Takes a $500 video card to run it at 60 FPS at 1600x1200.Crysis IS and always WILL be poorly coded. Crytek dropped the ball because I remember them saying that it would run just fine at MAX settings DX10 on the, at the time, current generation video cards, IE 8800 series.[/QUOTE]That's true. A 8800 could run it on High at a max resolution. The Very High Serttings and Ultra High were added since then,Also, lol @ the PC nubs in this topic. It almost annoys me.
That game's sloppy coding has sold more GPUs, and consequently made PC hardware development more lucrative, than any other PC title I can think of. Whether that's been healthy or destructive for PC gaming, I wouldn't hazard a guess.
it simply is more advanced , and has better graphics than even todays games , and maybe even for the future.Good graphics come at a cost.If you don't agree , please tell me which game looks better than crysis right now.
[QUOTE=''sihunt'']Hi. Looks like that game is junk. I think it is actually unfinished

and the game sold on hype and not on its own merits. I have

an HD 4870 which runs the game pretty well and some of

the scenery looks good,impressive even. But I see in my game

hummer jeeps with no back tires and sticks and rocks that pop

up 15 feet in front of you as you walk down the beach. If you back

up, they disappear. Some games from the late 90s did that sort of

thing. We shouldn't be seeing that sort of thing in games today.[/QUOTE]



I get the same problem with the tires when I play the game with AA, what is that a card thing or a glitch?
like everybody else said, poor coding. They initially had problems with sandbox 2 because it wouldn't run in 32bit and then they started developing on pre alpha dx10. They just started developing at the wrong time. I bet we will still benchmark with crysis until crysis 2 comes out.
[QUOTE=''Marfoo'']Lazy developers, yes blame the developers. Everytime someone can't run a game you people throw around ''Lazy, unoptimized, poorly coded...'' Are you even qualified to make that kind of judgement? Have you ever made a Direct3D engine of that sophistication? Have you looked at the source code? Always quick to point fingers with no evidence to suggest that it's poorly coded. Don't tell me the fact that it doesn't run on todays hardware is enough evidence because that's assuming they scaled the engine to run well on todays hardware and you have no way of telling what they aimed for. If they say they aimed for future generations, take their word for it.[/QUOTE]Totally agree... you people crack me up. You think just cuz you get 60 fps in a cooridor shooter in a room with only a trash can and a desk in it that you should be getting 60 fps in crysis with a billion tree's and INSANE draw distance. You people make me laugh! :roll:
[QUOTE=''d-rtyboy'']I don't know, PC gaming will, at least should, remain at the cutting edge of technology. If companies like Crytek don't push the boundaries we get console crud like ut3. Is that what you people want?[/QUOTE]I actually enjoy UT3. Maybe it wasn't a step in the right direction for the series but at least it still is playable. I mean it is pretty hard to follow up on Ut2k4.But anyway yeah the game can't be maxed out yet but it's still very playable, isn't that what really matters?