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

If Crisis is so hard to run

  • Topic Archived
You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
  1. Boards
  2. PC
  3. If Crisis is so hard to run

User Info: Lemur_H

3 years ago#31
Little_Tyranius posted...
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.

The first half is the good half. So no surprise there.

User Info: paramite12

3 years ago#32
Crysis was poorly optimized? Are you kidding? It can run on pre-2007 hardware and still looks pretty good. Go play Metro 2033 if you want to see a poorly optimized game. Metro Last Light looks and runs better than it.
trolls, trolls everywhere

User Info: blax34dm

3 years ago#33
x Shadow posted...
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?

You mighta been bored but thanks a lot for doing so, I love when people on the board who know stuff throw some of their knowledge out.
  1. Boards
  2. PC
  3. If Crisis is so hard to run

Report Message

Terms of Use Violations:

Etiquette Issues:

Notes (optional; required for "Other"):
Add user to Ignore List after reporting

Topic Sticky

You are not allowed to request a sticky.

  • Topic Archived