Mr.orange wrote: I don't see the point in making a game where you NEED a ridiculously high powered graphics card, that's what kept me away from this game and I assume a lot of other people.
and for some reason they were boasting about that? "yea! if your computer is 5 weeks old it CANNOT run crysis on high, med(and even low). GLHF buy this game"
I'm sure a lot of comps can play it, buy I'm too fixated on playing with high setting graphics from all the source games that going lower kind of bugs me
If you like PC gaming you should change your opinion, and here is why... There are pretty much 2 big players in PC first, and console second methods, Valve and Epic (UT engine), and tons of small players. Then there are the EAs and activisions out there that make games for consoles, then port them to PC, with no graphical improvements except higher resolution. The problem with that, is it does not press technology for any advances, so windows 7 has directx11 and everyone would still be playing DX9 games. So you end up with games made for PS3 and XB360 which have 7800gt and x1800 respectively, which are now 5yr old video cards. Valve has even been milking the source engine for a while and its time for a core overhaul in the next few years (its 6yrs old), but its a great modular engine that can run on a 5yr old gaming pc (just turn down the detail), or current pc very well, you can turn L4D2 down to original CS:S levels of graphics, or tack on the HDR, and all the other stuff, eventually the bloat will get to them though, and they will need to integrate all that into the core.
The real innovator on games is currently PC, we get hardware refreshes every year, not every 5, this way there is always new tech, but if games don't take advantage of that tech, then whats the point of even innovating, just keep rehashing the old code, and never have any improvement. High end games press the high end hardware, then the tech trickles down the the mid/low end after a few months. Without (2005) Source, (2007) CryEngine 2/Crysis, (2010) 4A Engine/metro 2033, we would all be still playing on CZ or early source level graphics, then the hardware companies would not be pressed to make faster video cards, it would cause a huge crash of the industry. Where there is a demand for tech, they will supply it. So if PC gaming fell out of favor and all we had was console ports, then instead of a doubling of PC graphics power every 2 years, it would be more like every 5.
Valve does it right (IMO), make high end games, then cut them back for console, while EA makes high end console games, then ports them to PC with little/no engine improvements, and poor coding. Crysis was made to push the high end computers of mid 2007, so people with ridiculous computers could actually have a game that uses their tech, yeah, it took twin 8800Ultras (about $500 each) back then but now $900 gaming computer with a 5770 ($150 card) can play crysis fine, which is about right. Hardware to push the new games, new games to push the hardware, its a nice balance. This is awesome for me, since I picked up crysis on a steam sale for $5, and don't have to spend 3k on a computer to play it, my sub 2k computer 2 years ago can play it great.
|
