Crysis beta is out!

Dude a 8600 GT will work very nice. I have a 7600 GT and I can run medium settings.

Oh... Phew!
Wait... I'm wondering how large the game would be. My C drive only has 27.4 GB out of 58.something. Plus, I have an AMD Athalon64 Processor... To me, I think I sound like I'm blowing smoke out my ass... I hardly understand what... never mind! I forgot what I was going to say about halfway into that sentence...
 
Uh, I'm pretty sure the beta has an FPS limiter on it.

Why would it? Any particular reason? I don't know much about these kinds of things, but a FPS limiter sounds quite stupid, unless there is a good reason.
 
I don't know why either. I was following a thread on another forum where some guys were poking around the beta, but all the posts got taken down. I guess it's false.
 
Yeah I hear it's limited to 30fps much like the Quake Wars beta.
 
Oh... Phew!
Wait... I'm wondering how large the game would be. My C drive only has 27.4 GB out of 58.something. Plus, I have an AMD Athalon64 Processor... To me, I think I sound like I'm blowing smoke out my ass... I hardly understand what... never mind! I forgot what I was going to say about halfway into that sentence...

Dude, are you like retarded or something?
 
Could that have been a more unnecessary statement to make ?
 
Why would it? Any particular reason? I don't know much about these kinds of things, but a FPS limiter sounds quite stupid, unless there is a good reason.

Because running it at a constant 30 FPS is better then running it at 60 FPS with it dipping to 30 fps all the time. It's down to if you'd rather have it be just slightly less "fluid", then to have it noticeably lag everytime something happens.
 
Right, it's a good reason. I see it now. Thanks for explaining.
 
Bah it's bullshit, developers need to wake up a realize 30fps is not good enough.
 
So how much do you think it's enough?
60 constant on medium hardware, 100 on top of the line hardware.
PC gamers are being ****ed over by devs taking a more console approach.
 
Please explain.

Be forewarned, any factual statements made in this response may have originated from my anus
.

Some developers developing games for the previous console generation only optimised their games to the point where they kept a consistent frame-rate of 30 FPS, and have occasionally said so in interviews. God knows why 30 FPS, but I think it has something to do with the kind of image-blur on older TVs or something, not quite sure. When a game is only optimised to such a low standard for a console (keeping in mind that consoles are easier to optimise for than PCs) it is a simple matter to imagine the poor performance you can expect from a PC port.

However, Crysis is a PC game, which makes the 30FPS thing even more confusing. The only thing I can think of is that the devs are using the current beta for core optimisations. That is, they are trying to achieve a stable frame-rate of 30 for as wide a group of systems as possible. Once they have achieved this, they will narrow down that range of systems and try and reach a higher FPS. Something like that, or they're testing server stability. That's my guess.
 
30 fps is unacceptable on modern hardware in some respects. More so if they were to actually implement a 30 fps cap in the full game. It's just not smooth enough, fine for an RTS, but not for an FPS. However, you could justify the performance on top end hardware with the fact that this game could well be a graphical benchmark for years to come, but then again, will anybody care when their mid-high end rig is struggling to summon a smooth frame rate ?
 
but then again, will anybody care when their mid-high end rig is struggling to summon a smooth frame rate ?

Agreed. This is the current state of pc gaming and one of the reasons it's been on such a decline in recent years. You can spend 1000's on a gaming rig and have it struggle with newer releases on day one!. Future proofing my ass - it's ridiculous. Sure, you can reduce detail levels, but games are designed to look good at their highest settings and run smoothly with cutting edge components. More often than not they look rubbish when you start making compromises. Crysis and ET:QW both being good examples - each game looks lovely with everything maxed, drop details to medium and low and they look utter shite compared to a 2 year old source source based game (which also happens to be running smoother). ET:QW is just silly - I have to reduce the game to a state that looks worse than the original rtcw (!!) to get it at a playable 60fps, yet TF2 looks and runs awesome with everything maxed. Don't start me on Crysis - it represents everything that I find roten about pc gaming today.

Thank **** for source.

With consoles I know they'll run every game thrown at them well for at least 3 years and provide a crap load more quality games to play. It's a no brainer.

//end rant
 
<snip>
//end rant

Blame increased draw distances. New games may look like shit on low but you are seeing more than games of years past hence the problem. Sure you could implement a fog system back but then you're at quite a disadvantage to those who can play without the fog.
 
That is very true. MP wise, you could be picked off by someone a few km away in the crysis environment and you wouldn't have been able to see them.
 
Yeah I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned how to in this thread, but there are certainly other forums where you can find out how.

Found this after a quick search:
You can turn down the gun inertia (motion blurr) in the game options menu. Either all the way down or just however much you want to use.
 
Back
Top