Crysis, designed, developed and created on Geforce 8800 ??

[EastCoasthandle]

Source

How do you interpret these key points? Also, will CF work for this game? Does this still encourage you to buy this game with an ATI/AMD video card?

[d44ve]

CF will work... Nvidia gave them lots of money

[PVTCaboose1337]

Thats scary...

[GLD]

Yes, I will get Crysis and an even better ATi to play it on.

[Davidelmo]

Well, it DOES make sense since it is a very demanding game, and the 8800 is currently the fastest graphics card out there.

It would be silly to design the game on anything less

[Ripper3]

The 8800 was the most powerful card around when they were developing it, not forgetting that workstation graphics cards based on the 8800s only came out recently, and moving to workstations based on those, is probably more hastle, after they've been using 8800s for so long already.

[cdawall]

Originally Posted by d44ve

CF will work... Nvidia gave them lots of money

not just a lot of money more money than most people on this forum will make in 10years


and CF will work fine im waiting for quad 3870 numbers on this game

[W1zzard]

ati worked with crytek as well .. its just that nvidia gave them a lot of money

[imperialreign]

I'm sure nVidia are prob making a small percentage of royalties on Crysis sales, too - considering their WIMTBP liscensing.

[Ketxxx]

Originally Posted by Davidelmo

It would be silly to design the game on anything less

Not so. Designing a game on a slightly slower card holds more advantage. It forces the programmer to use code optimisation, which results in better performance all across the board.

[Ben Clarke]

Ditto. If it was designed on lower spec, it'd run faster on lower spec.

[WhiteLotus]

the above is just a form of advertising for nvidia. it would be better if developers designed the games for lower specs but then i think the pace of technological advancement would be terriblely slow

[jaxxxon]

didnt they first show it at E3 on an X1900XT about a year ago?

[Davidelmo]

Originally Posted by Ketxxx

Not so. Designing a game on a slightly slower card holds more advantage. It forces the programmer to use code optimisation, which results in better performance all across the board.

This may be the case, but Crysis was designed to push boundaries. Now the graphics card companies will be striving to produce faster cards with better performance - that's a win:win solution for me and you!

Producing games to cater for lesser cards holds back development. Everyone who is into PC gaming knows that their top spec items will not stay that way for very long, and that's the price you pay for a fast-moving industry where there is lots of development. However, this is also why (IMO) PC gaming will always have an advantage over console gaming.

I agree that optomisation is important, but technological advancement is more important.

[das müffin mann]

i highly recomend an ati card (2900)to play this, it runs just as well if not better than a Nvidia card (8800)

[Davidelmo]

Originally Posted by das müffin mann

i highly recomend an ati card (2900)to play this, it runs just as well if not better than a Nvidia card (8800)

Not according to benchmarks.

It runs better than the GTS, but not as well as the GT, GTX or Ultra

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/10/...gt/page13.html

[imperialreign]

Not according to benchmarks.

It runs better than the GTS, but not as well as the GT, GTX or Ultra

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/10/...gt/page13.html

lord . . . let's not start up the ATI/nVidia Crysis debate again - I'm a little sick of hearing it over the last few weeks.

Summary:
`If you want to play Crysis with extremelly high frame rates - nVidia 8800GTX
`If you want to play Crysis with extremelly high image quality - ATi 2900XTX

I agree that optomisation is important, but technological advancement is more important.

In this industry, I think both are equally important. Tech advancement is going to happen regardless. The GPU manufacturers will continue to develop to outdo their competitor. But, it's the game developers that tend to cater to the lower end equipment. By doing so, the consumer will only buy the lowest equipment they can to run the game optimally. I mean, if Crysis didn't have DX10 support and it ran flawlessly on the 1950 and 7900 cards, who'd spend the money on the DX10 hardware?

But, thankfully, the game developers have had better access to newer video hardware over the last few years, and we're seeing games that are at the front of technology - especially compared to gaming say . . . 10 years ago, when the devs weren't recieving freebies from the GPU industry, you didn't need a bad-ass rig to run a game with every option enabled.

[Ketxxx]

Originally Posted by Davidelmo

This may be the case, but Crysis was designed to push boundaries. Now the graphics card companies will be striving to produce faster cards with better performance - that's a win:win solution for me and you!

Producing games to cater for lesser cards holds back development. Everyone who is into PC gaming knows that their top spec items will not stay that way for very long, and that's the price you pay for a fast-moving industry where there is lots of development. However, this is also why (IMO) PC gaming will always have an advantage over console gaming.

I agree that optomisation is important, but technological advancement is more important.

Game optimisation is critical, why pay £30 for a game that runs like crap? Take Oblivion as one example, it was a very poorly optimised game, it had nothing to do with how good a users graphics card was, it just ran like crap. Bottom line; amost all software houses and programmers are lazy, the more exceedingly poor game coding is accepted the more everybody ends up getting shot in the foot.

[cdawall]

*cough*DiRT*cough*

and crysisplays enough for me i have a pretty low end old school system and i play @1024X768 with mostly med/high settings (low on 3 or 4)

[jtleon]

Originally Posted by Ketxxx

Game optimisation is critical, why pay £30 for a game that runs like crap? Take Oblivion as one example, it was a very poorly optimised game, it had nothing to do with how good a users graphics card was, it just ran like crap. Bottom line; amost all software houses and programmers are lazy, the more exceedingly poor game coding is accepted the more everybody ends up getting shot in the foot.

Consider Half Life 2: Episodic series & Team Fortress 2, Portal etc. Valve maintained their Source engine and maintained backward compatibility with older systems - I'm running all on a Pentium III with AGP 6600GT with very acceptable performance.

If you look at the Steam user base statistics, my 6600GT box falls in the majority of users with the exception that I am running Windows 2K. Thankfully, Valve developers cater to the majority stake holders with their new game offerings. Money today is worth much, much more tomorrow, so why would a game developer offer me a game that I could not pay for and play NOW!?!?

The Crysis developers are in a closet with Nvidia and AMD, IGNORING where the REAL money is - right here with the obsolete hardware customers.

Let's be completely honest here, less than 1% of the gaming community is running the 8800 - and is that 1% going to fork over the MILLIONS spent to develop CRYSIS!?!?

CRYSIS apparently was designed to sell Nvidia video cards, the game was only a carrot!

Regards,
jtleon

[erocker]

What I don't understand is, why, when Crytek was showing off Crysis be it a E3 or other places they were using ATi cards in crossfire? I read an article today saying how ATi has been working with Crytek since early development. I think this is all coming down to the fact that Nvidia is leaps and bounds beyond ATi in terms of advertising.

[laszlo]

i've changed the exe file name and was better !

[Davidelmo]

Originally Posted by imperialreign

lord . . . let's not start up the ATI/nVidia Crysis debate again - I'm a little sick of hearing it over the last few weeks.

Summary:
`If you want to play Crysis with extremelly high frame rates - nVidia 8800GTX
`If you want to play Crysis with extremelly high image quality - ATi 2900XTX

I'm not starting a debate. He just posted a statement with nothing to back it up. Saying it "it runs just as well if not better" is just plain wrong.

Also, I would disagree with your summary. For crysis, most peoples issue is frame rate. The game look good anyway, so a small difference in image quality from the graphics card isn't making a cruicial difference. However the difference between 20 and 30 fps IS making a big difference.

In this industry, I think both are equally important. Tech advancement is going to happen regardless. The GPU manufacturers will continue to develop to outdo their competitor. But, it's the game developers that tend to cater to the lower end equipment. By doing so, the consumer will only buy the lowest equipment they can to run the game optimally. I mean, if Crysis didn't have DX10 support and it ran flawlessly on the 1950 and 7900 cards, who'd spend the money on the DX10 hardware?

But, thankfully, the game developers have had better access to newer video hardware over the last few years, and we're seeing games that are at the front of technology - especially compared to gaming say . . . 10 years ago, when the devs weren't recieving freebies from the GPU industry, you didn't need a bad-ass rig to run a game with every option enabled.

But like I said earlier, this is the price you knowingly pay for wanting to play the latest PC games at the best settings. This isn't meant as a personal attack, but people who don't want to have to upgrade or change would probably be better off gaming on consoles. Besides, no-one FORCES you to upgrade. It's a free market, and if someone disagrees with crysis not running on their PC, simply don't buy it. If enough people feel the same, the game will fail and the developers will get the message.

However, as our reward we get (IMO) better games, which are better looking. At the end of the day, this is a market driven by consumers. Yes, the graphics card companies give money to developers, but it makes no difference if consumers aren't buying the end product!
Clearly there IS enough demand, or they wouldn't keep pushing boundaries to make new games and hardware.

Competition is great, and the more there is, the better for you or me. However, the possible negative side is that the industry moves very quickly, forcing you to upgrade etc to keep up.. however, like I said, that's the price you willingly, knowingly pay.

[Davidelmo]

Originally Posted by Ketxxx

Game optimisation is critical, why pay £30 for a game that runs like crap? Take Oblivion as one example, it was a very poorly optimised game, it had nothing to do with how good a users graphics card was, it just ran like crap. Bottom line; amost all software houses and programmers are lazy, the more exceedingly poor game coding is accepted the more everybody ends up getting shot in the foot.

And Oblivion is a MASSIVELY popular game. Even though it is old, it is still widely played and is still used by hardware sites to benchmark systems.

[Widjaja]

Originally Posted by Ketxxx

Game optimisation is critical, why pay £30 for a game that runs like crap? Take Oblivion as one example, it was a very poorly optimised game, it had nothing to do with how good a users graphics card was, it just ran like crap. Bottom line; amost all software houses and programmers are lazy, the more exceedingly poor game coding is accepted the more everybody ends up getting shot in the foot.

Yes there are alot of game devs guilty of this.
My bro bought a high-end PC to run FSX and it still runs absolutley awful.

The only thing which Oblivion has going for it is the custom content.
Oblivion pauses on PS3 when walking around outside too.

A poorly coded game is one which will have high fps then all of a sudden pause. . . .then carry on at the same fps again.

Not linked to GPU/CPU etc, it's software coding.