This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

If Crisis is so hard to run

#21FlyinTonitePosted 3/26/2014 10:47:50 PM
Lemur_H posted...
FlyinTonite posted...
crysis was optimized just fine, but like crysis 3 (and 2) it needs top of the line machines to max out at 60fps


Except for the sections of Crysis that would drop you from 60, no matter what. I doubt it has gotten any better with our 2013, or later, hardware. No matter how much money you spent, you would inevitably hit that CPU bottleneck in Crysis.

Good thing they were much more common in the sucky half of the game. xD


maybe, never really got into the series, seemed more style over substance. After I found out I could stealth past like every battle the game became a joke.
---
Sony fanboys are the most annoying, Nintendo fanboys are the most ignorant and Microsoft fanboys are adorable because they think they're people.
#22DarkZV2BetaPosted 3/26/2014 11:02:47 PM
Lemur_H posted...
FlyinTonite posted...
crysis was optimized just fine, but like crysis 3 (and 2) it needs top of the line machines to max out at 60fps


Except for the sections of Crysis that would drop you from 60, no matter what. I doubt it has gotten any better with our 2013, or later, hardware. No matter how much money you spent, you would inevitably hit that CPU bottleneck in Crysis.

Good thing they were much more common in the sucky half of the game. xD


Not really a matter of optimization. It was just designed for single and dual core processors, largely single.
---
god invented extension cords. -elchris79
Starcraft 2 has no depth or challenge -GoreGross
#23Lemur_HPosted 3/26/2014 11:26:47 PM
DarkZV2Beta posted...
Lemur_H posted...
FlyinTonite posted...
crysis was optimized just fine, but like crysis 3 (and 2) it needs top of the line machines to max out at 60fps


Except for the sections of Crysis that would drop you from 60, no matter what. I doubt it has gotten any better with our 2013, or later, hardware. No matter how much money you spent, you would inevitably hit that CPU bottleneck in Crysis.

Good thing they were much more common in the sucky half of the game. xD


Not really a matter of optimization. It was just designed for single and dual core processors, largely single.


You are correct.
#24VeryDarkSoulPosted 3/26/2014 11:28:08 PM
the way games use video card crap is dumb sometimes. I remember the dark ages of hardware, where simply turning off complex shadows would make my FPS go from 25 to 70. And back then complex shadows were little more than a blob.
---
Ron Paul 2012
#25Lemur_HPosted 3/27/2014 1:05:00 AM
VeryDarkSoul posted...
the way games use video card crap is dumb sometimes. I remember the dark ages of hardware, where simply turning off complex shadows would make my FPS go from 25 to 70. And back then complex shadows were little more than a blob.


I wonder if those were still handled by the CPU. It sounds crazy now, a dark blob being taxing on a CPU... But we will be saying the same thing about a lot of crazy effects we have now, once enough time has gone by.
#26godplaysSNESPosted 3/27/2014 2:16:56 AM
Contrary to many others, I found Crysis 1 and Warhead fun to play and not just benchmarks.

But it's such games that give the PC its bad reputation.
---
Super Mario Kart is the single best Mario Kart ever!
#27Little_TyraniusPosted 3/27/2014 2:55:16 AM
Workstations are considerably more powerful than most gaming PCs. Also, like most PC games, it was probably terribly optimized.


How cuuuute, babby's first troll
#28Little_TyraniusPosted 3/27/2014 2:59:04 AM
Good thing they were much more common in the sucky half of the game. xD


Weird, in the beginning I had constant 60 FPS easily.
#29x ShadowPosted 3/27/2014 4:00:57 AM(edited)
Workstation PC's are made for graphics design (and no that does not mean that they play games any better than consumer chips =_=; come on really guys). They make and render everything on there, and it's not real time (with explosions and crap... ie they're not PLAYING the game. They're creating it. These are two separate and unrelated things). You use modeling programs to make the models and whatnot. You have coders working out how the engine works with handling the models, player interaction, etc. You can make a game that would run at 2 FPS on the strongest system around. And you can do it very easily. Let's just make an infinite recursion with an intensive task that represents its data visually while trying to do some intense calculations, and also taking into account your interactions with it. It can be 2D, look like crap, and baffle you with its ability to bring your system to a crawl and possibly a blue screen.

Now, as for optimization... Honestly I wouldn't be surprised to hear that everything is poorly optimized. The lower level your language is, the more real optimization you can do. You can exploit features of hardware at the base. For doing that, there's assembly. One (reasonably large) step above that is C. I remember a class where I coded something in C and then ported it to assembly. The assembly versio I could literally gut down to the very basics and have it do only what is absolutely necessary. For instance, instead of arbitrary recursion with putting the pointer on the stack, I made limited depth recursion. Do you know why AMD cards mined so much better than Nvidia cards? They were able to do something in one cycle that the Nvidia card took 3 (or something around that, I forgot the numbers). Back to the point, I wouldn't be surprised if most game designers had packages with extremely high levels of abstraction from basic code (with maybe someone to put in a hack there or there if something was bugging out). I mean really, most games are quite bloated these days. Massive amounts of DLL's and crap.

But they have a lot of possible setups to code for, and working out the logic behind an interactive software isn't easy. I designed a simple game in C once or twice, and even with some packages to draw visuals onto the screen, it's a pain. Collision detection is fun. So let's say that they knew the console versions were going to sell well, and they poured most of their funding into exploiting features of consoles that they knew for sure were going to be there, and just did very minor optimization for PC's... because PC's have a multitude of setups and you don't even know what architecture will be on the GPU (granted they probably talk through the Nvidia drivers anyway). Your only option is to either make it so it works on everything "kinda okay"... or do a lot of optimization for every setup possible; and all of this for a platform that will likely not sell as well as the easier options). Take a wild guess what most people would probably choose.

Don't take my words as truth though. I'm a programmer, but not a game programmer. Perhaps this isn't what really happens, it's just what I guess would happen.


Oh and as for designing CPU's... well chances are they just run simulations and see how long it would supposedly take for this to reach that point or something. I remember doing a VLSI class and it wasn't fun. I can't imagine how bad designing a CPU would be. It literally gives me shudders.

I must have been really bored to type this up, huh?
---
THIS TABLE... THIS TABLE!!~~! - Someone from an anime. Tables are very useful, indeed.
Almost orgasmically so.
#30KabtheMentatPosted 3/27/2014 4:23:13 AM
Little_Tyranius posted...
Workstations are considerably more powerful than most gaming PCs. Also, like most PC games, it was probably terribly optimized.


How cuuuute, babby's first troll


Ooookay?
---
Yeeaah...Somebody must've killed Darryl. Cuz that's what the guy had said.