- Joined
- Mar 23, 2012
- Messages
- 570 (0.12/day)
Processor | Intel i9-9900KS @ 5.2 GHz |
---|---|
Motherboard | Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Master |
Cooling | Corsair H150i Elite |
Memory | 32GB Viper Steel Series DDR4-4000 |
Video Card(s) | RTX 3090 Founders Edition |
Storage | 2TB Sabrent Rocket NVMe + 2TB Intel 960p NVMe + 512GB Samsung 970 Evo NVMe + 4TB WD Black HDD |
Display(s) | 65" LG C9 OLED |
Case | Lian Li O11D-XL |
Audio Device(s) | Audeze Mobius headset, Logitech Z906 speakers |
Power Supply | Corsair AX1000 Titanium |
Just because it took insane hardware setups to run Crysis doesn't mean it had better graphics. It simply means that the code is horribly optimized.
Obviously Crysis is poorly optimized... I think that is obvious to all (especially anyone who has played the last level and experienced the joys of a memory leak that kills your framerate into the single digits regardless of your hardware...)
However, my point stands that Crysis compared to other 2007 games shows Crysis in a FAR more impressive light than BF3 compared to 2012 games. There are several games that are on the same tier graphically as BF3, even if BF3 might be a bit better (and guess what - the original Crysis is on that list).
Nothing was anywhere close to Crysis when it was released; not by a long shot. The reason we haven't had anything like that happen since is because of the console cycle - 99% of games are either developed with the consoles in mind first, or even though they are designed for PC they have to be able to be ported to console, limiting what can be done graphically on the PC.