I also think that Crysis 3 is an extreme example, I'm fairly sure Star Citizen, being such an open game set in space, won't have as strenuous requirements -- except for perhaps boarding/marine combat
I think SC will be WAY heavier than Crysis 3. They are promoting the game with extremely detailed humans, ships, stations, cockpits and everything that rendered in full time + they are saying that every ship is made of tons of stuff which can be broken in real time I mean if you shoot some ship and some crap will break off, then combine all that with full scale battles of 100 ships and your rig will be a dead rig.
This game is something wonderful but its way ahead of its time.
I am pretty sure they can remove lots of these details in low-medium settings.
I don't really care if I can see every little freckle as long as I can see the eyes, mouth, nose and ears. I just want perfect gameplay than perfect graphics and I don't think SC can achieve both.
I am pretty sure they can remove lots of these details in low-medium settings.
I don't really care if I can see every little freckle as long as I can see the eyes, mouth, nose and ears. I just want perfect gameplay than perfect graphics and I don't think SC can achieve both.
It would be extremly depressing if the developers thought along those lines...
"Well we can't deliver great graphics and great gameplay, so lets not try guys".
I want developers to go for it, aim for excellence.
AMD Ryzen 9 5900X | Noctua NH-D15 chromax.black | ASUS Crosshair VIII Dark Hero | 32 GB Trident Z 3600Mhz | Gigabyte Aorus PCIe4 1TB SSD | Corsair MP510 1TB SSD |ASUS RTX 3080 Ti TUF | Fractal Design Define 7 | Seasonic 850W Platinum
And when your GTX680 isn't enough for that, what then? Run out and buy a 690? Or, by then, the 780/790? A Titan? Two of them? Progression for progression's sake isn't a good thing IMO. I want greatness as much as the next man, but what I don't want is greatness to come at the expense of everything else --- greatness includes gameplay experience don't forget, not just visuals.
I think SC will be WAY heavier than Crysis 3. They are promoting the game with extremely detailed humans, ships, stations, cockpits and everything that rendered in full time + they are saying that every ship is made of tons of stuff which can be broken in real time I mean if you shoot some ship and some crap will break off, then combine all that with full scale battles of 100 ships and your rig will be a dead rig.
This game is something wonderful but its way ahead of its time.
#1: not all parts of the ship have to be rendered 100% of the time. In fact, most of it doesn't.
#2: there's no environment to render, at least not like in Crysis.
#3: while heavy, CryEngine is also quite scalable when used properly. And even then, on low/medium settings, it will still look better than most games.
They should release some kind of test map though, just to give people an idea of what to expect. Just some static carrier you can walk around in. I don't think it'll be anywhere near as bad as some people think, but to think you can max out an engine and game this advanced on 3-4 year old hardware is also quite naive.
I think SC will be WAY heavier than Crysis 3. They are promoting the game with extremely detailed humans, ships, stations, cockpits and everything that rendered in full time + they are saying that every ship is made of tons of stuff which can be broken in real time I mean if you shoot some ship and some crap will break off, then combine all that with full scale battles of 100 ships and your rig will be a dead rig.
This game is something wonderful but its way ahead of its time.
#1: not all parts of the ship have to be rendered 100% of the time. In fact, most of it doesn't.
#2: there's no environment to render, at least not like in Crysis.
#3: while heavy, CryEngine is also quite scalable when used properly. And even then, on low/medium settings, it will still look better than most games.
They should release some kind of test map though, just to give people an idea of what to expect. Just some static carrier you can walk around in. I don't think it'll be anywhere near as bad as some people think, but to think you can max out an engine and game this advanced on 3-4 year old hardware is also quite naive.
Did they say SC will have tessellation, realistic water physic and lighting, etc? I mean it is a space game. The lighting is a lot simpler to do, there is no need to have insane AAs, AFs, and many other post processing stuff Crysis 3 has. With most of those stripped out, the power freed can then be used for rendering the high poly models, and well that pretty much is what SC have while other graphics intensive games don't. It will still require a beast PC to run at max with good framerate, but the requirements should be around Crysis 3's level. At least I think that is how much power they are aiming to use.
It would be extremly depressing if the developers thought along those lines...
"Well we can't deliver great graphics and great gameplay, so lets not try guys".
I want developers to go for it, aim for excellence.
I am sure they want excellence. Who doesn't when making his dream project? Just not sure if the budget and the way they spend it will allow it. I am scared looking at this: http://www.gamechup.com/crysis-3-cost-66-million-to-make-can-next-gen-sustain-such-budgets/
And SC is aiming to be much bigger, fancier and with more freedom. Also 2 games fo single- and multi. I know the money still flow in and they wil soon reach 10 million $ but will this be enough to fulfill all they want?
Like I said; since I was the only person concerned about performance, it stands to reason that it was my comment that draws "to think you can max out an engine and game this advanced on 3-4 year old hardware is also quite naive." If I'm wrong, then I apologise, but it certainly seems that way.
Well I for one am tired of games that require hardware that doesn't exist. When Crysis 1 came out no piece of hardware on the market could run it the way they showed off in their videos .. even today, six years later, it can't be run at 60 with highest settings without excessively expensive hardware. All I ask/want from Star Citizen is a little less "progression, har har har" and a little more playability. I also distinctly remember saying that C3 looks amazing at Normal/Medium, so I'll be fine with that as long as I can get fluid 60.
Last edited by sabin1981 on Sun, 19th May 2013 14:56; edited 1 time in total
I think SC will be WAY heavier than Crysis 3. They are promoting the game with extremely detailed humans, ships, stations, cockpits and everything that rendered in full time + they are saying that every ship is made of tons of stuff which can be broken in real time I mean if you shoot some ship and some crap will break off, then combine all that with full scale battles of 100 ships and your rig will be a dead rig.
This game is something wonderful but its way ahead of its time.
#1: not all parts of the ship have to be rendered 100% of the time. In fact, most of it doesn't.
#2: there's no environment to render, at least not like in Crysis.
#3: while heavy, CryEngine is also quite scalable when used properly. And even then, on low/medium settings, it will still look better than most games.
They should release some kind of test map though, just to give people an idea of what to expect. Just some static carrier you can walk around in. I don't think it'll be anywhere near as bad as some people think, but to think you can max out an engine and game this advanced on 3-4 year old hardware is also quite naive.
Did they say SC will have tessellation, realistic water physic and lighting, etc? I mean it is a space game. The lighting is a lot simpler to do, there is no need to have insane AAs, AFs, and many other post processing stuff Crysis 3 has. With most of those stripped out, the power freed can then be used for rendering the high poly models, and well that pretty much is what SC have while other graphics intensive games don't. It will still require a beast PC to run at max with good framerate, but the requirements should be around Crysis 3's level. At least I think that is how much power they are aiming to use.
big difference is Crysis 3 is a multi-platform game while SC is PC exclusive, it could end up like Crysis and eat up every modern gaming rig out there
Crysis' performance problem wasn't the game itself though, but the engine. CryEngine 3 is an optimized engine, so not really, medium/high settings shouldn't require super demanding hardware. Very high/ultra is another story, but if you ask me, it's unlikely (possible though).
Then again we've seen people fucking up good engines (Red Orchestra 2 anyone?) so who knows
TWIN PEAKS is "something of a miracle."
"...like nothing else on television."
"a phenomenon."
"A tangled tale of sex, violence, power, junk food..."
"Like Nothing On Earth"
Since I'm the only one that mentioned performance, sadly I think he's referring to me >_>
I thought I am the one because he quoted my post
I guess it's neither, so yay
consolitis wrote:
Crysis' performance problem wasn't the game itself though, but the engine. CryEngine 3 is an optimized engine, so not really, medium/high settings shouldn't require super demanding hardware. Very high/ultra is another story, but if you ask me, it's unlikely (possible though).
I sometimes wonder how much more "enjoyable" my gaming would be if I could stop myself from being a 60 snob I wish I could *stop* seeing the enormous gulf of smoothness between 30 and 60 and just accept it, everything would be a whole lot prettier and a great deal less stressful then. For instance, I had no trouble getting 30 on V.high in Crysis 3 :\
I'm in the same situation as Sabin here. Playing on less than 60 is just asking too much of me, tbh. With less than 60, not only is it noticeable, you also get lag between your action with the mouse and action on screen, and that infuriates me, tbh. This is the reason I never bought consoles of my own.
It really depends on the genre for me; I find strategy games, RPGs and games that generally don't require quick reflexes very playable even if the framerate is around the 40s. In fast paced shooters or multiplayer games on the other hand I'm more demanding, and 60fps are almost a necessity.
Signature/Avatar nuking: none (can be changed in your profile)
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
I wish I could *stop* seeing the enormous gulf of smoothness between 30 and 60 and just accept it, everything would be a whole lot prettier and a great deal less stressful then. For instance, I had no trouble getting 30 on V.high in Crysis 3 :\
