You would either need a custom build or a good Asus gamer or highly overpiced Alienware. 90% of consumer laptops are not built for running games unless of course you are playing angry birds. If this is in a laptop unfortunately it would be pricey and unwise to upgrade any graphics that are in your system. To give you a better idea where your graphics card sits, If you were to go purchase a new Radeon HD 5450 it would only set you back $30. I would also look into overclocking your core i5 as well. If you want you could always spring for a Nvidia GTX 560 Ti or a Radeon HD 7850 that will run you a little over $200. You may be able to find a program to overclock your gpu but the ods are you might get 1/10 of a frame per second increase with a max overclock on the lower end card. That graphics card is ideal for browsing the internet and watching movies, not playing games so you're going to have to sacrifice anywhere you can. It will help to close any other open programs on your computer. I hope Crytek has something up it's sleeve good enough to establish a franchise before Snowdrop, UE4 and Frostbite titles flood the next gen scene in 2014/2015.My suggestion would be to set the resolution close to minimum and all of the graphics to a minimum. Though people who played Ryse tell me that despite 3/10 reviews, it plays more like 7/10. I'm not saying Crysis 2 & 3 were terrible games, I enjoyed them but they weren't home runs either and Warface & Ryse flopped. They started off great with Far Cry, I was convinced it would be GOTY after GOTY from there. If I were prompted to point to most unused potential over the past 10 years, Crytek wins hands down, a distant second is ID tech. Other than CE games, only Witcher 2's uber mode and Metro 2033 run my FPS below playable FPS. And the difference in manpower between BF3/4 and Crysis shouldn't be forgotten either. It is a bit of an unfair comparison but I can hop into a 64 player BF4 game at 1440p ultra and 2X MSAA and rarely dip into 30's while Crysis 3 doesn't let me go above 40 however it shows me enough to "justify" the frame rate. I'm not saying the engine was perfect or even very optimized, but the 'oh its just a poorly optimized engine' isn't very accurate.Ĭryengine 3.x is probably the best looking but most wouldn't know because their frame rates tank before they can form that opinion. This is why Crysis 2 ran so much better when combined with the lower texture footprint and streamlined level design. Their efforts were put into fine-tuning the engine for future iterations. It's also important to note that Crytek didn't focus on fine-tuning the game AFTER it was released. Basically, they never should have offered the 'ultra' settings or made 'ultra' actually a mix of med/high. Cervat Yerli stated in an interview that the entire company learned that allowing the game to use advanced engine features that most computers couldn't run was actually detrimental because it made everyone disappointed they couldn't play the game in full glory. It's important to realize the game was released in 2007 when multi-core support was still making ground. I know a few select UDK games did but even then the performance was negligable. but most) only utilized 1 or 2 cores at the time of release.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |