...i never understood why people always called crysis poorly coded. Hello it still imo has the best looking visuals ever, the only game that i would say compares and maybe outdoes it is Stalker:CS or the newer one with some dx11 features. I mean duh the best looking game is going to tax even the best of hardware out. This is one thing i've argued for a long time n why i've always thought that it was coded perfectly fine is that when i was running 24fps in crysis, it felt like 60fps in CSS, or roughly 35fps in FC2. The fact that Crysis always felt extremely smooth for how low the FPS were is why i've always thought it was coded perfectly fine. Who are we to state it was coded poorly? have any knowledgeable programmers seen the actual code and stated it was? i believe it was all speculation and assumptions just bc it wouldn't run maxed on the best hardware that was out at the time.
GTA4 however i agree was quickly ported to PC, hence poorer performance with much better hardware compared to whats on the 360.
The game is great looking, but when it first came out there were only 7 series nvidia cards/old Ati? which performed badly on the game, reports about the game and demo were that of like "WTF I got a 7800 series card, and I cant even play the game on medium!". Then 8 series came out I belive, but the cards were expensive as hell sense nvidia overpriced them on basic terms of performance. Some people baught 8600gts's and could barly play the game on a 19inch monitor on medium/high settings. Alot of people had single-dual cores, but Intels duals were expensive, in upwards of 200+ bucks right? Also if you notice in many cases the games performance in dx10 is terrable but im not blaming them, its all vista. resources and backround shit affecting that. Then after that, people like me and other modders of the game starting making autoexec.cfg files which basicly alter up to 1,000+ command lines of code in the file that tweaked very complex settings to make the game look better and run faster. Now there are a bunch of easy .cfg files you can download, that make the game look like its on Very high(prooven with screenshots) yet runs on Med/high FPS.
Basicly the game came out ahead of its time. Then Nvidia's 8000 series was Overpriced making hope seem lost, then All this other tech like Intels Dual cores were cash out of are wallets, but People were just spending cash on there rigs just to run crysis and only crysis. Because most the hardware they had ran every other game well maxed out.
**NOTE** They Also Realeased 2 and a half patches, for better Utilazation of SLI and Crossfirex performance and bugs, Memory leaks, and so on so forth(Added Increase In performance by sometimes huge numbers). They Decided to put dx10 into crysis but from my first hand sight, its litteraly a bull shit 10+fps cut from the game. DX9 runs fast and there are configs to make the game look better while running even smoother.
The game is great, looks awsome, but alot of patches, tweaks, and wrong realease timing came into play to say the game was poorly coded. Also do you realize that Crysis Warhead Looked better, and alot of reports were the game ran better and was more optimized then Crysis on the v1.2 patch. There was poor code, that they better optimized while there was faster computers arrising from the market.
And they got so good, that when I saw Crysis 2 looking awsome on a ps3 that can barly play crysis on low for its life, then i new that Crysis 2 is ganna be better optimized and coded ready for battle.
-3volvedcombat
. Now i can just imagine from now, hearing how they should have saved there money and not gone dual core*for some wierd reason* and how the new 800 chipsets are doing wonders with quads and overclocking, and how many games will be using quads.
