Overclock.net banner

Do you feel that Cryengine 2 is poorly made?

1425 Views 32 Replies 26 Participants Last post by  SSJ5Broli
I think that Cryengine 2 although probably the best visual engine, uses your system resources VERY poorly and with very little efficiency. Compaired to other games with Crysis tunned down on similar settings Crysis is always running 20-30 fps LOWER, even with a game like Far Cry 2 turned all the way up and Crysis turned on low/medium the FPS are only slightly lower. This leads me to believe that Cryengine 2 which the game was built on is very inefficient and using all your systems resources properly to get the most juice. Comparing this to other engines like the Source engine where people can max out all games on old 128mb cards.

Anybody else notice this or agree/disagree?
1 - 20 of 33 Posts
I disagree and i hope you know that farcry 2 uses part of that engine and i get higher fps in crysis 57avg to be exact than i do in far cry 2 which i get about a solid 40 yes it dose use alot of power but to date it is still one of the best looking i think that only fallout 3 comes close

Originally Posted by Maddog7771 View Post
i think that only the Havok engine comes close

i think the unreal engine comes close too. but the unreal engine is pretty bad at making trees imo
See less See more

Originally Posted by Hayday View Post

Havok is not a graphics engine.
See less See more
Correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm almost sure I'm not), but, isn't Havok a physics engine?

I find (As a mapper) That with the system strain made by the Cryengine 2, comes the capability for more. More lighting, more physics, more AI. More, more, more. Once you get the system to handle Cryengine. The Possibility's are immense.

And yes. I can, and do. Map with Cryengine2 and Sandbox. On my sig rig.
lol as above. far cry 2 uses the Dunia engine, which has something like 1-5% of Cryengine code.

i dont think it's bad. sure, it could be better, but then again, look at the amount of foliage and other stuff it has to render in crysis. it does a pretty decent job IMHO, and in Warhead it runs even better, so

the way i see it we just need to wait. in 2/3 years, we'll all be laughing at how hard it was to max crysis. look at Far Cry 1 and Oblivion now - how difficult is it to max these games? yet back in their day they were real system killers
I like Source... And Mirrors Edge, which is UnReal... I just like the clean, clear cut lines.
The Cryengine 2 is a good engine, but it's just a bit ahead of it's time. Both maxed out, Crysis will look better than Far Cry 2. I guess since the requirement is so high, Crytek should've made it more SLI and Crossfire friendly. But at the time when the engine was created, multi-card (or dual core cards) wasn't too popular, so Crytek probably couldn't have guessed ATI and Nvidia's development direction.
I don't like unreal because it just looks bland.
The Cryengine 2 has a lot more going on than you think it does. Awful lot of calculations and attention to fine details. Could it run better? Sure it could, but you can't expect miracles from some tweaks to the engine.

IMO FC2 doesn't even come close to the graphics of Crysis, especially if you use a custom config in Crysis.
I don't feel that it was poorly made, saying so would be idiotic considering what Crysis does compared to other engines.


Originally Posted by Maddog7771
View Post

See most of the people that hat crysis just dont have the rig to throw it around

It was more of the opposite a quite few months ago.
See less See more
I think that the cryengine 2 is an excellent engine but not only that a huge learning curve for hardware and software manufacturers/end users alike. The Capabilities of the engine are extremely emmense and considering the graphical intensity of the engine the fact that it is still playable on a P4 2.8ghz with 1gb of ram and a 8600gt (personal experience) is to say its not at all poorly made, No it is just an powerfull program which to work best needs powerfull hardware to run it. Its not the writers of the programs fault that you (i speak of every gamer addicted to extreme game prettyness) are unhappy with just medium or high settings, and are even more unhappy paying for a more powerfull setup to run the engine like you want it to run. In my opinion saying that the cryengine 2 is poorly made, is like saying xp is poorly made because its really taxing on a pentium 2 with 64mb ram.

Just my opinion
See less See more
Crysis has a pretty impressive engine, way ahead of anything else that is out.
The amount of objects is immense, and so many of them are interactive and destructible. And the post processing and shader effects are completely unrivaled to date.
I love the game. So I think it's well made. You know something is good when they start getting haters. Truly though I'd be angry too if I had a ATi card. Is it really that bad for ATi's?

The fact that some people think you need something above a 8800GTX to play only means that you've gone hardware crazy. Trust me, your not seeing much more than I am with the 8800gt.

Even on medium to high settings Crysis still looks better than any other game I've played this far. Not to mention the mods you can use to improve your performance.
Its a crap engine

Originally Posted by shizdan View Post
Its a crap engine
Any reasoning behind that? Just because the engine does more, which makes it harder to run at a good framerate doesn't make it crap, IMO at least.
See less See more
Cryengine2 for video games, is like landing on the moon for the Arms Race.

Its the damn nuclear bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima.

3-4 years from now, when entire worlds will be rendered with fully destructible environments, you will have the Cryengine 2 to thank for that.
I think it's cute how original poster blames the game
on the account of his PC not being powerful enough to max it out.
1 - 20 of 33 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.