Crysis Single Player Demo Released!

[Sethos]

I really hate people don't realize, this is one of these games way ahead of It's time, which i love! So It's even able to push the hardware being released in the next few months, why do we always get these "Optimized" and "Downscaled" games just for it to run just perfect, but is looking a bit bland after a few months. Crysis looks great now, when you upgrade next time, you'll be able to jack up the settings even high and it looks awesome again!

[Ayepecks]

Again, I haven't played it on my desktop yet, but just because a game is ahead of its time doesn't mean it has to have poor optimization.

Look at Unreal Tournament... all of them. They all looked amazing when they were released (or will), and all ran on less-than-standard hardware. To not run on top-of-the-line components is a joke.

That said... again, haven't played it on my desktop yet... some people are running at insane resolutions, with insane settings, with dated hardware, complaining about performance. Well duh.

[rajputwarrior]

Again, I haven't played it on my desktop yet, but just because a game is ahead of its time doesn't mean it has to have poor optimization.

Look at Unreal Tournament... all of them. They all looked amazing when they were released (or will), and all ran on less-than-standard hardware. To not run on top-of-the-line components is a joke.

That said... again, haven't played it on my desktop yet... some people are running at insane resolutions, with insane settings, with dated hardware, complaining about performance. Well duh.

i agree, with epic can do it, why can't crytek? game runs like **** on my system

[Sethos]

Because Crysis looks freakin' miles better than what the UT engine could ever do, stop that bull.

[Elliot B.]

Because Crysis looks freakin' miles better than what the UT engine could ever do, stop that bull.

You can't really compare the two engines like that.

[NienorGT]

Because Crysis looks freakin' miles better than what the UT engine could ever do, stop that bull.

And so?

How mush games will run on Cry Engine 2.0? :p

[Sethos]

You can't really compare the two engines like that.

Mainly did it because the post above me started the to compare it.

It really seems people are so daft, they think you can keep improving graphics and reach some of the most amazing looking graphics we've seen, but the games just NEED to run on their old AMD crap computers, 'else It's just "Bad optimization", it's pure bull.

[mrt2]

Because they aren't the same engine and the engines are not designed to do the same thing. If you created an Island with the U3 engine and levels with the same design and open out door environments (I know UT3 has outdoor environments but they are still closed environments) not only would it tax your system it wouldn't look half as good. What the Crytek 2.0 engine is going for is photo-realism which is not the same goal as UT3 and doesn't require the same amount of textures or shaders. Fantasy/scifi graphics are NO WHERE near as demanding as photo realism... I'm not a fanboy as I love UT3 I think it looks amazing... but it does not look the same as Crytek 2.0 Engine and they were created for two entirely different purposes. If you're going to compare things at least compare apples to different kinds of apples instead of apples and oranges.

[rajputwarrior]

Because Crysis looks freakin' miles better than what the UT engine could ever do, stop that bull.

not really, i would say they are pretty close. the people in unreal look WAYYYYYYYYYYY better, and even some of the architecture, but obviously, epic can't touch the outdoor environments. But in terms of optimization, you got people with dual 8800s playing the game and it runs like crap, that's inexcusable. i fell sorry for them because a lot of them spent 500+ dollars for this game and it doesn't evne run well

[mail]

I don't. If someone spent all that money for one game, before official specs, before the benchmarks, heck even before release, that is damn stupid on their part.

[mrt2]

i agree, with epic can do it, why can't crytek? game runs like **** on my system

Everyone here does understand that this is a pre-release demo and it doesn't evens support SLI cards yet right? So everyone who is talking about how much of a shame it is that SLI machines get bad performance... the SLI optimizing isn't in this demo... so the game doesn't even understand how to use SLI in the demo... I'm sure you'll see a much bigger boost in performance in the final.

[Ayepecks]

Mainly did it because the post above me started the to compare it.

It really seems people are so daft, they think you can keep improving graphics and reach some of the most amazing looking graphics we've seen, but the games just NEED to run on their old AMD crap computers, 'else It's just "Bad optimization", it's pure bull.

Michael, are you serious?

When new Intel, AMD and nVidia, ATI/AMD systems can't run the game even decently, there's a problem. If this were all old hardware I wouldn't disagree one bit... but it's not. Furthermore, Crytek already proclaimed how great the game was going to run on older systems, and that hasn't been the case based off everything I've said. To imply that it's not a problem is complete hogwash.

When F.E.A.R., Oblivion, Far Cry, Unreal Tournament 2003, etc. all came out, they at least ran decently on older systems when the settings were notched down. The game has gone gold, as well. To expect any drastic performance increases is probably foolhardy.

And it's your opinion that the Crysis engine looks a lot better than Unreal Engine 3. It's a fact that Unreal Engine 3 supports a much wider variety of systems.

Listen, I already pre-ordered Crysis a year ago. I've been anticipating this game ever since it was announced... but to blindly say it does everything right just because I like it (I have played the demo, just not on my system at home) is silly.

[Danrarbc]

When F.E.A.R., Oblivion, Far Cry, Unreal Tournament 2003, etc. all came out, they at least ran decently on older systems when the settings were notched down.

Crysis also runs decently on lower settings. 60 fps on a 2.5-3 year old card in my 7800GT is nothing to sneeze at.

[jbrunt1990]

But surely it is better to have a game which is ahead of its time so that it makes other game makers improve there graphics then it is to have a game which is plain old graphics. There has got to be a big leap somewhere otherwise your just end up with the same graphics for years on end

[Si Veteran]

I just tried the 64-bit version, it halves my performance!

Think I might reinstall Vista 32 and wait until all the patches are out before I try 64 (no point wasting some ticks on the WOW emulator after all). That'll give me a reason to replay it (Y)

[Sethos]

But surely it is better to have a game which is ahead of its time so that it makes other game makers improve there graphics then it is to have a game which is plain old graphics. There has got to be a big leap somewhere otherwise your just end up with the same graphics for years on end

Exactly, there's a reason why most of the above games were running "Fine" on older Computers, because when they were released they looked "Okay" and nothing else! Because they were a step ahead of their time, but Crysis is like 3 or 4 steps ahead, huge gorgeous environments, stunning effects, beautiful textures etc. I could go on all day - Most of those "Decent" games released that run well on older rigs are always indoor games, with "Okay" graphics and nice effects making good use of motion blur to create something there's not! Crysis uses raw power to render everything.

The game runs at a High / Very High on my "Top-End" Computer, at around 40FPS, which is more than enough for a game that looks so good.

I may agree, It's odd some of those High End computers are struggling to run the game, specially when we've seen Demo videos from the game running at maximum graphics at a steady frame rate ... Makes you wonder if they left out something?

"Good looking" isn't = Runs great on a wide variety of systems.

Crysis is the first game I've ever played, where i genuinely though "Oh my god" instead of just "Another UT Engine based shooter with shiny graphics".

But as said, will meet you half-way about super high end rigs struggling a bit, that's very odd! But anything below that, and it doesn't bother me ... This game is a new graphical benchmark which WILL set a new standard we've needed for some time!

[rajputwarrior]

Crysis also runs decently on lower settings. 60 fps on a 2.5-3 year old card in my 7800GT is nothing to sneeze at.

k, honestly, a 7800gt is an awesome card still... if you said like a 7300 or 7600 then maybe what you said would mean more

[xendrome]

k, honestly, a 7800gt is an awesome card still... if you said like a 7300 or 7600 then maybe what you said would mean more

I would hardly call a 7800 GT awesome...

[Elliot B.]

I would hardly call a 7800 GT awesome...

I would. It's better than 95% cards out in the market at the moment.

[Shasoosh]

i don't want to go through the all thread but i wonder, have you discussed that on vista you get half the FPS then on xp?

Im getting like 15 FPS in places that i get 34-40 on xp with my 8800Gts. latest beta... .04 something.

[IceBrewedBeer]

Why is performance even being debated here, it's PRE-RELEASE!

Which means it's most likely Beta code from the Multi, in fact I don't doubt that it is the code from the multi used in this PRE-release. AFAIK, Crysis just went gold a few days ago, which means the demo thats out now isn't final code. So you cry babies out there need to calm down and wait till the final product is released and EA releases a demo.

[shattered]

I have got the game to work (occasionally), but still have major issues with the game not starting up at all sometimes. My computer is pretty stable (passed memtest 86+ 10 times, prime95 v25.5 passed 12 hours).

64-bit does not work at all, but viewing the possible performance decrease I don't much care.

I ran the GPU benchmark twice for 4 loops.

The first time I used the factory 8800gtx settings (576mhz core bus and 900mhz memory). See Image #1.

The second time I used 8800 Ultra settings (612 and 1000 respectively). See Image #2.

[jking_84]

Why is performance even being debated here, it's PRE-RELEASE!

Which means it's most likely Beta code from the Multi, in fact I don't doubt that it is the code from the multi used in this PRE-release. AFAIK, Crysis just went gold a few days ago, which means the demo thats out now isn't final code. So you cry babies out there need to calm down and wait till the final product is released and EA releases a demo.

+1.

Guys just calm down. Take a cold shower like I did when I realised it runs like a DOG on my new system.

Im running 1920x1200.

It auto-detected at all "very high" settings, but I got 7fps in the game.

Switched to High and is playable, but still very laggy (ave 18-20fps).

As stated, THIS IS JUST PRE RELEASE CODE. Even vendor has stated that it runs like crap, so yes we are all getting it.

The final product will be much better (well Crytek/EA had better be preying their asses off that it will be).

Don't forget that EA has a hand in the support model, and we all know how long it took them to get BF2 right, so it is a long road to go before we get it stable and optimised.

This was always going to happen anyway :/

Amazing the game STILL looks the hizzor at medium settings :o cant wait to get it higher.

We just need to take a step back and chill. Turn the settings down till you can play the demo... play it through... and enjoy the taste. Rate it for what it is: Pre-Release code.

[shattered]

Whoops, forgot to say what settings I was running in my post above.

All settings Very High with the exception of postprocessing which is at Low.

No AA, 1280x1024.

[ANova]

What you're asking for is for CryTek to intentionally cripple the in-game visuals just because you aren't happy with the game's performance. The video card market has sucked over the last 6 months but that shouldn't stifle game innovation.

Do you even know the meaning of optimization? I think such an idea is foreign to you.

I agree completely. And another thing: go out and find any recent video card review that includes Far Cry. Now look at the framerates; seriously look at them. Far Cry had horrendous performance when it first released, but even now, the framerates you get are less then or equal to such recent games as Half-Life 2: Episode Two, Prey, Enemy Territory: Quake Wars, and even Bioshock. What I am getting at is that the performance in Crysis should not have been unexpected. Crytek's CryENGINE, 1.0 and now 2.0, are known for their visuals; not their performance.

I played Far Cry when it came out with a decent framerate on my 9500 Pro, which at the time was not even the high end. This time, even an 8800 Ultra cannot handle this game very well. Sorry but Far Cry had low performance, this has abysmal performance. You think a game has to run like crap to look good? I say you have a very distorted way of thinking.