/vr/ - Retro Games

>>8246152
Does this really count as retro? It came out in 2007 in PC, but the 7th gen versions were released the following decade. That being said, it's wild that Crysis was without a doubt the very last "AAA PC exclusive".

>>8246159
>it's wild that Crysis was without a doubt the very last "AAA PC exclusive".
It wasn't. Arma 3, Total War, Half Life: Alyx, Starcraft 2, Baldur's Gate 3, Civilization VI, Anno 1800, ect.
These are not games that would appeal to most console players, but that's beside the point.

>>8246215
Of these, I'd only call HLA and Starcraft 2 "AAA PC exclusives", the former being one that actually demands a powerful system. The others are from smaller studios and typically needed to be funded through kickstarter or other such things. They're not nearly as common as they once were, that's for sure.

Original Crysis still looks better than 99.9% of modern console games. Looks aren't everything, of course, fortunately Crysis was also a fucking pretty damn good game.
Pathetic a 14 year old PC game is still better in every single way than any console pile of shit released since.

>>8246250
>Firaxis - 180 employees
>Larian - 250+ employees
>Bohemia Interactive - 300+ employees
>Blue Byte - 700+ employees
>Creative Assembly - 800 employees
Small studios my ass. These games are also very resource intensive. Arma 3 forced a lot of people to upgrade their memory and processors back in 2013.

>>8246152
>but who was playing the game at ultra settings in 2007?
nobody, the ultra setting was grayed-out, the game was future proofed

Didn't this kind of happen with Doom 3 as well? I recall even the most powerful cards out at the time of its release could not handle it on Ultra. Even years later, people running benchmarks with it were doing so in High.

>>8246310
My bro's 2004 laptop ran it fine

>>8246310
Sane people didn't care about Resident Evil: Mars, erm, I mean "Doom" 3.

>>8246367
Sold millions and was well received

>>8246264
ARMA 3 quite literally started the whole "early access" thing I steam if I remember correctly. Or, at the very least, it was one of the first games doing it.

>>8246152
My very first own PC (Core 2 Duo + 9600GT, Win XP) could handle it on high at 1024x768. Probably ran at about 25-30FPS. Still waited until I could play it on Ultra, which was a waste of time since this game is badly optimized and I was dumb enough to buy into the multi-core hype and upgrade to an FX-8350 (Instead of saving money on a 6300 or getting good gaming performance with i5 3rd gen). Still had fun tho

Did this even run on XP?

>>8246152
It ran like shit on everything. No matter how much you gimped the graphics, the simulation would take a toll on the CPU. Even today, AI and physics can make a Ryzen struggle.

If you accept that 60 FPS isn't viable, 30 FPS is actually somewhat doable without gimping the graphics. The two best GPU's at the time were 8800 Ultra and 8800 GTS 512.

>>8249568
Yes, it famously had a "Vista exclusive" dx10 mode that locked the highest graphics settings to it, even though you could achieve them with XP with a config edit.

It used to be that "ultra" settings were designed for future PCs. In other words games were released a generation ahead in terms of graphics. Now they are released a generation behind.

Sad. Many such cases.

>>8246257
Crysis' gameplay is shit. Literally just proto-Far Cry. But of course raging PCfags try to pretend otherwise.
Also, most games coming out today that aren't from shit-tier devs look lightyears ahead of it.

>>8249726
Nah. It's still very fun.

>>8249726
Far Cry is proto-crysis zoomer brainlet

>>8246356
>>8246152
>Doom 3 (2004) runs fine on a 2004 gaming laptop
No shit. Also, don't pretend Crysis, even at medium, is less impressive or less mathematically intensive than a few dark hallways and low poly models with real time shadows. That's Xbox 1 shit. The physics, model quality, AI, foliage and how far they were rendered out dunked on Doom 3. Far Cry dunked on Doom 3 and was also far more demanding.

>>8250276
Doom 3 was more visually appealing than this

>>8250281
I said medium. A 2007 era 8800 GT could play the game at high settings, even. Also, your bro's laptop wasn't playing Doom 3 at high settings at 1024x768 comfortably. Bet almost anything it was this laptop or similar:
https://www.dell.com/community/Laptops-General-Read-Only/doom-3-benchmarks-on-9100-with-64mb-mobility-9700/td-p/635152
I had this laptop too and it topped out at playing Half Life 2 and Doom 3 okay-but-not-great.

Anyway. It was not out of the norm for some PC games to come out with knowingly out of reach settings for future hardware. Still happens on rare occasion.

Most people were playing it on an 8800GTX which was a card that was so good they re-released it for the 9 series. It could get around 40fps at 1050p on high settings

>>8250294
>Re-released
Oh no no no no.

>>8249726
>2007 game's gameplay is shit. Literally just proto-2004 game.
Are you a nigger?

>>8251307
9 bros, I don't feel so good.

>>8250281
Can't even make out any details over the insane amounts of video compression. Go take a real screenshot.

>>8246152
Thing about Crysis is that the devs had very different ideas about future CPUs than what ended up happening in reality.
The Core2Duo had released only a year before Crysis launched but unfortunately they'd already optimized the engine for the Intel Tejas which would never be released.
What was Tejas supposed to be? A Pentium IV at 7GHz!
This is why even computers released a decade after Crysis came out can struggle with it.

>>8251389
you don't need to, cry shitter. People had 8800GTs they ran the game on medium 30fps, 1024x768, forced dx9 mode.

>>8251423
So does this game have a PC setup that at least mimics the results in the developer's workstations? I'm looking for the optimal loadout in 2007.

>>8246152
Run it, yes.
Run it well, that's an other matter. But yeah, it ran on my toaster. Also I got had a playable framerate, enough to finish the game and I didn't have an high end computer.

>>8246152
Played this on my geforce 6200 256mb
10~15 FPkeks

>>8246297
>the ultra setting was grayed-out
I pretty sure it was gatekept behind dx10 but solely for (windows) marketing purposes because there were configs around to unlock everything for winXP.

>>8250281
That screenshot compression is very dishonest. Also no, doom 3 doesn't look much better.

>>8251435
>forced dx9 mode
What the relevance? You've already been told ITT that the limitation was arbitrarily artificial and could be bypassed.

The gunplay feels like floaty and mushy shit. The "open" world serves no purpose. Boring game with good graphics. Also GTA 4 is more demanding.

Ah yes, Crysis, my favorite retro game. Love how retro the graphics look, just like in the good old days.

>>8252197
GTA4 is more demanding because of how awful the port was; it's even missing graphics effects from the console versions! But compared to Saints Row 2, it was Devil May Cry 4.

>>8252269
FUUUUUUCK

>>8251862
Doom 3 looks like shit. The lighting and wall textures look great but that's it. The human models and animation look horrendous. The enemies look so so. The gore is non existent, Soldier of Fortune put it to shame.

>>8251546
>I'm looking for the optimal loadout in 2007
Quad-core Q6700 overclocked
8800 Ultra x3 Triple SLI

>>8246152
I bought this when it came out and recently upgraded my computer at the time and I ran it just fine.
I don't remember if I was using Ultra settings or not though, either Ultra or High.

And this game was very good looking and still is, it was the most advanced game graphically at the time.

>>8246152
>Crysis was without a doubt the very last "AAA PC exclusive

Visit a doctor

>>8252474
>The gore is non existent
Come on, there is more to gore than exploding bodies.
In Doom3 even the walls are made of gore. However I hate how the sekeletons vanish, obviously it was done for performance, but I wish there was an easy way to disable it.

>>8252474
>>8253678

>>8252837
>Quad core
Wasn't this game notorious for not utilizing many cores? Wouldn't you be better off with that high-end dual core with its higher frequency?

>>8254163
>PC exclusive
Doom 3 was designed to be compatible with consoles, dumbass. It released on xbox one year later.

>>8254181
>Ported a whole year later
>Meant to run on console all along

Sure thing.

>>8254168
Those Quad Core processors were light years ahead of the previous generation Core 2 Duo, even using only 2 of the cores. You could use them for a decade afterwards.

>>8254285
>a year is enough to port a PC exclusive to the vastly inferior consoles
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. If the game had been designed only with PC in mid it would have taken much more than a year. Also it didn't take a full year, it took 8 months.
You're an idiot.

>>8254403
Ah yes, it was always intended for console, yet they outsourced a port that would release around the same time as a full expansion. No way a dedicated team could port a game already targeting NV20 hardware in that time span.

Fucking retard.

>>8254845
You're so full of shit, desperately trying to save face, it's pathetic.

>>8246159
Unfortunately the new /vr/ cutoff year is 2007.

>>8254181
The gimped Xbox version that was an engineering project akin to Half-Life 2 on Xbox? Doubt it was the intention from the start desu

>>8254923
You sure showed him.

>>8246152
It ran great on a GTX 8800. I had a SLI box of GTX 7950 GX2s at the time that also ran it great. The ultra settings though were a meme marketing tie-in to promote Windows Vista which no one sane was going to touch at the time, it didn't actually need DirectX 10 for those tweaks either, it was crippled in software and modders were able to undo that.

>>8254950
Just 4 more years and GTA V will be considered a retro game on this board

>>8254923
Concession accepted.

>>8255942
2006 should have been the final cutoff year. Vista and HD consoles modernized gaming. It was the start of a transition to a phase that we are still in.
You can barely tell a 2008 game apart from a modern one if you mess with the graphical settings in the right way.

>>8256006
I say ps1 modernised gaming
I'll admit that this thread is kind of disingenuous... I made it precisely to push the board rules to its limits

>>8256008
Modern = 3D?

You probably jest, but there were many attempts at 3D even in the 80's. I can see why someone wouldn't consider PS2 retro, but PS1 is pretty much the golden era of retroism.

>>8256025
>PS1 is pretty much the golden era of retroism
Racing games set in real-life tracks, dual-analogue shooters, modern cinematic action-adventures, the only thing it is missing is Fortnite and Dark Souls

>>8256036
More like the height of 3D platforming, complex JRPG's, and the home of some of the most experimental titles ever seen.
>Dual-analogue shooters
Those weren't even that popular, and for good reason. Not helping is that analogue controllers came late, they usually had terrible control schemes that had to be compatible with first-gen controllers.
I mean, even previous consoles had shooters like Doom, if we are really getting nitpicky.

>>8256008
what a boring goal, crysis posters sure are original and retarded

>>8256090
this thread's existence makes a point about the board
A game like this is considered retro. It is the same breed as Super Mario Bros on the NES. Nevermind the minimum requirements for Crysis should logically break the board rules as the game would not even launch on a 2001 PC.

>>8256124
same flaccid "point" people have been making since the rule change, get original you idiot.

>>8246152
>Crysis is now "retro"
>And he has to ask

>>8256130
literally never seen this thread before

>>8256006
This board should have been kept with the 2000 cutoff, period. No exceptions. Anything after 2000 should be given their own board.
They would actually achieve their goal this way (more traffic on blue boards, more space for ads), rather than doing counter-productive shit (/vr/ decreasing in number of user by slightly below 10%) for no gain

>>8256136
5th and 6th gen should have their own board, /vr/ should be for 4th gen and earlier

>>8256134
been seeing it since day 1 of the rule change, use the archive. Your meta cancer is not interesting, you're a faggot.

>>8256142
i have just gone to the /vr/ archive, ctrl+f "cry", no results. Sounds like you should sniff your mother's cunt

>>8256139
The "muh generation" is the very reason for this clusterfuck. Because instead of having a concrete cut-off DATE, it's some retarded "dunno, let's have floating end gauge".

>>8256143
you are boring, stop being boring. Be interesting.

>>8256134
>Being so new, he doesn't know the generic "Crysis is now retro, lmao" threads

>>8256143
>Being so new, he doesn't even know what archive is

I was going to dismiss you as a /v/tard, but turns out you are a fucking tourist through and through.

>>8256149
>Most recent thread, October 18
>Next thread, October 18
>Next thread, February 23

>>8256153
Pseud BTFO

>>8256134
There were a bunch when the ruleset of /vr/ changed. It goes without saying that the trolls eventually tire out, especially on a slow board like this. If you really want to get under people's skin, larp as a 18 year old on /v/ talking about his favorite game from before he was born.

>>8250281
>Doom 3 was more visually appealing than this

>>8246152
The thing about Crysis is it's incredibly scalable
Ran (poorly) on 2006 poorfag hardware and the incredibly unoptimised physics code can still bring a modern CPU to its knees because the game can't use more than 4 thread lol

>>8246152
>>8246152
>>8246152

Who cares? The developers all came out years later saying the game was built on an engine with a flawed principle. They all thought shit would stay single core with higher clock speeds, but it turned out to be more core with more speeds spread across those cores a.k.a. its a shit engine and even on a 2080ti it might dip into sub 60 fps territory simply because its a CPU hog and unoptimized garbage.

>>8256270
Thing is though much like X-ray engine Crysis 1 Cryengine will never ever work on a console and that's what makes them fucking superior

>>8256254
Do I look like I know what a jpeg is? I just want a picture of a god dang hotdog.

>>8256270
>Proceeds to tune the engine to run on consoles, except that it runs like shit even there, so you end up satisfying neither enthusiasts nor casuals

Either way, who cares about how well it runs in the future. A game ought to be the most relevant when it's released, not years after. Targeting multithreading wouldn't have helped all those poor Athlon users.

>>8256124
>the game would not even launch on a 2001 PC.
Is that a bet?

>>8256136
I don't understand what you're getting at. Do you want more or less /vr/ users? Because making the rule tighter and splitting the board means less users, but this is what you're wishing for.

>>8250281
>>8256254
>This is more visually appealing than Crysis

>>8258360
soul

>>8254181
>designed to be compatible with consoles
it's literally a different game on console, an even less faithful port than half life 2 was despite being a much simpler game

>>8258360
Doom 3 unironically still looks impressive in some instances, even for today's standards. Games still struggle to replicate the detail of stencil shadows without using RTX.

Not even medium settings are safe.

>>8257613
Yeah I bet cause the drivers, hardware and versions of DirectX needed didn't exist yet

>>8258454
>1920x1200
Back then we were all playing on 1024x768, maybe even 800x600. I remember running GTA 4 with 800x600 resolution to get a nice 30-40 fps average.

>>8258435
That looks awful. Crysis is much better.

>>8256148
>Pokemon Gold = retro
>Pokemon Crystal = not retro
>Ocarina of Time = retro
>Majora's Mask = not retro
Retard

>>8258535
You never talked about software. Don't move goalposts.

>>8259732
they're not platforms?

>>8259732
>>8259743
nevermind that the software infrastructure in question doesn't even support 2001 graphics cards

>>8259752
>crysis wouldn't run on 2001 computers
>NO YOU HAVE TO USE WINDOWS 95!!!
fuck off

>>8259754
it's not even just operating systems (or the XP service pack 2 in the minimum requirements) but also directx, and your pixel shaders and shit

>>8259768
stuff that was not compatible with any graphics card from 2001

>>8258970
>Back then

>>8258971
What else are you going to tell me, that the sun is bright?

>>8256006
While we can't agree when the cutoff should be, we must first establish when it shouldn't be. Things like HD graphics, DLCs, achievements, social media interaction, focus on online over local, and so on, are way too extraneous to classic retrogaming. Said that, I argue for the total exclusion of the 7th gen and beyond. If you all want to exclude more, that's fine,it's debatable, but 7th gen as retro is way too misleading.

If you read the oldest reviews for Quake people say "But if you have ____ you can get a quite playable 20FPS"

>>8249726
Fry Cry is still fun tho

>>8249726
You are a fucking moron.

>>8261635

>>8261974
It is

>>8251870
To play on XP.

>>8263734
>>8251870
So does it even make use of DX10 at ALL? Even ignoring graphical effects, does it at least provide some speed enhancements?

>>8261560
Yeah, using software rendering, which didn't suffer from the same input latency as hardware acceleration at a given framerate.
A Pentium 2 could easily perform as well as that without using GLQuake.

>>8264262
Yes, it runs better dx10 mode.

>>8264262
DX10 version of Crysis used some basic functions of the API over DX9, yeah. DX9 struggles with large numbers of independent objects (trees, bushes, moveable objects like rocks and frying pans, NPCs, etc) and DX10 allowed Crysis to run better in areas with lots of objects.

It didn't make extensive use of the API though, no.

>>8264578
That's too bad. DX10 has a lot of things going for it on paper.
>>8264279
The benchmarks I am looking at seem to indicate the opposite. Probably just early drivers being shit, though.

>>8264268
Anon, the P2 came out a year after Crysis.

The Geforce 9800GT could get good framerates in Crysis, nobody talks about that being as it came out after Crysis.

>>8264589
Make sure they're benchmarks of Crysis 1.1 or later. 1.0 was significantly slower, which actually made people mad at the time because the demo that came out for the game actually ran better than 1.0 did.

>>8264589
Are you looking at WinXP running DX9 vs Vista running DX10?

>>8264592
>Geforce 9800GT
Pretty much just a rehash. Only when the 280 arrived was there a true successor to the whole 8800 series.

>Anon, the P2 came out a year after Crysis.
I think you meant Quake, and I was just referencing the chart. The same could be said about the 3D card.

>>8264589
I distinctly remember way too many games having issues in DX10 mode where the standard solution was just running them in DX9 mode. Even the legendarily amazing Devil May Cry 4 has issues with DX10.

>>8265219
is dx10 retro

>>8266214
No, it's the last straw. DX9 is arguably retro because it launched a year after Windows XP, but DX10 was Vista exclusive and had many changes. Even Unreal Engine 4 is compatible with it.