I will activally avoid any games by this publisher & developer

[howiesfunware]

Developer: Action Forms Ltd.
Publisher: 1C Company

What a piece of lag! I have a hefty gaming pc and and play the below games at 1920 x 1200 with all options maxed out.

Ghost Busters: average fps over 50
Left4Dead: average fps over 60
Fallout 3: : average fps over 50

Here's a good example. I'm playing Left4Dead, online and my fps will drop into the 40's during a massive horde attack along with maybe a boss. People also talking over their mics, yelling for help.

In Cryostasis, I'm in a room, by my self, nothing going on and my fps is in the 30's. The 30's people! If anything does happen, I'm now in the 20's! And that usually means 1 hole enemy! One frozen dead thingy is coming after me.

What is wrong with you people!

[shaq]

Lower the physx settings in the init.cfg. They were set too high for even high-end hardware.

[steelsix]

I'm with you OP. I posted on this but they removed my post. Too edgy perhaps. I'll stick to the facts this time:

Core i7 965 overclocked to 4.00GHz x58 rig
9GB 1800Mhz DDR3
OCZ Vertex 60GB Raid 0
GTX 285 Tri-SLi

scores:

120+fps in FarCry 2 @ 1920 x 1080 2xAA and max detail settings
75+fps in Crysis @ 1920 x 1080 2XAA and high detail settings
60+fps in Crysis @ 1920 x 1080 2XAA and VH detail settings

What happens in this game? It chokes! Barely playable, even on medium settings with PhysX turned off. I've tried the patch, but will not (nor should I need to) mess with .cfg settings or the like. I expect smooth framerates not a slideshow. I have current drivers on a fresh OS install. Everything else FLIES!

Single card owners looking for a solution, I'm sorry but one doesn't exist. If my rig can't run this game well, no patch or tweak is going to help you. I've never spent so much time doing what I'm doing here but this game was so bad that someone has to tell the truth. A complete FAIL for 1C Company.

[Xiaopang]

LOL steelsix, i laugh at you...i ran the game fluently on a 4 year old radeon x1600. no overpriced hardware in the world will give you the intelligence to setup a game properly... the fact that you even think that disabling hardware support for physics would result in a performance boost speaks for itself...

go and educate yourself. the game runs with single cards. there's also no need to meddle with cfg-files...just setting it up properly would be enough... as i said in the last thread. i run it on a single gtx260 and everything maxed out @ 1680x1050... seems like i got more out the few bucks i spent than you out of your months payment lol

i said it once and i'll say it once more: read my article on the game's specifics before ridiculing yourself even more...i mean, tripple sli and not being able to play the game? lol

[steelsix]

LOL steelsix, i laugh at you...i ran the game fluently on a 4 year old radeon x1600. no overpriced hardware in the world will give you the intelligence to setup a game properly... the fact that you even think that disabling hardware support for physics would result in a performance boost speaks for itself...

go and educate yourself. the game runs with single cards. there's also no need to meddle with cfg-files...just setting it up properly would be enough... as i said in the last thread. i run it on a single gtx260 and everything maxed out @ 1680x1050... seems like i got more out the few bucks i spent than you out of your months payment lol

i said it once and i'll say it once more: read my article on the game's specifics before ridiculing yourself even more...i mean, tripple sli and not being able to play the game? lol

I read your article and praise your efforts. But I ask you, if this game isn't a pooly optimized piece of garbage, why is it necessary to work with the .cfg or spend time "setting it up properly?"

Please provide hardware specs that will run this game out of the box, patched, 1920 x 1080, AA, AF, max detail settings and get 40+fps minimum? And don't say your GTX 260 will because that's straight BS. "The game runs with single cards" but to what level [of enjoyment]? Lemme turn everything down so I can run this stellar game at 20fps!

The last question, for someone with a mid to hi end system, should it be necessary to do anything other than install the game, patch it, make minor detail adjustments and start playing? Anyone who fails to consult your guide is an idoit? What, you complain about this game you installed but you haven't spent hours finding my thread and screwing with my mod? Should it be necessary sir? Out of the box, it's a poorly optimized piece of trash.

You've spent a lot of time working with the game.. I can understand how you'd attack a guy like me slamming it. Maybe if I'd not insulted the developers you'd not insult me, who knows. Trust me though, I have a good understanding of mods, tweaks, hacks, and the gaming world. I've been modding hardware and gaming likely before you ever touched a keyboard.

The simplicity here is, this game chokes visually and mechanically right from the start. There's so little to compell me to spend time with this game. It's a write off, plain and simple. I needed only twenty minutes of play to make that determination. I've spent more time writing this crap which I'm billing you for by the way.

In Crysis, when I first saw the beach, the trees, the tortise walking, the flashlight's beam, etc., I knew it was a game worth some effort and coin to make run well. It was a visual feast and that mattered. Bioshock, not such the visual feast but good looking with a great storyline and a killer AI.

Nice job on your work here but the game sucks. No amount of insulting me will change that fact..

[Xiaopang]

I read your article and praise your efforts. But I ask you, if this game isn't a pooly optimized piece of garbage, why is it necessary to work with the .cfg or spend time "setting it up properly?"

apparently you choose to ignore what contradicts your opinion. in my last post i made it clear that you explicitly don't need to meddle with the cfg file to run the game...this is only meant for those who want to maximize their performance, or those, who want to experiment with the game

if you want enjoyable fun without knowing about graphics settings, then either play console games, or set everything to low...else, just don't complain. setting up a graphics card is infinitely more complex than popping a game into a console. you have driver specific settings, hardware specific limitations, bad choice of hardware components might restrict you, unoptimized operating systems might interfere, or background processes or apps...the list goes on and on. you need to know your way around computers if you want to get rid of all obstacles, or else you will run into problems.... btw, i find your performance rather bad. while i can't run games in 1080p, my gtx260 was benchmarked with that res by several sites with everything set to max, including 8xAA and it scored a stable 60fps in FC2, while you only get twice the power with 3 graphics cards... I'd rather go search for the bottleneck in your system. Just because less performance-intense games run smooth, doesn't mean that they run the best they could. Once you hit a game that needs more processing power in other areas (aka cryostasis) you hit the wall... i suppose you have screwed up driver settings. i bet you set everything to max there too...



Please provide hardware specs that will run this game out of the box, patched, 1920 x 1080, AA, AF, max detail settings and get 40+fps minimum? And don't say your GTX 260 will because that's straight BS. "The game runs with single cards" but to what level [of enjoyment]? Lemme turn everything down so I can run this stellar game at 20fps!

how would i know? in fact, if you read my article like you claim, you wouldn't even ask me that, because i actually said that this generation's graphics cards will have a hard time maxing out the game. anyway, your setup should be way enough, even for this game, but this is really hard to tell, without even knowing your components (mobo, ram, mb settings, bios versions, driver versions, operating system etc etc...). just a hint: use one card as dedicated physics card and turn off AA... no one needs that in that kind of resolution and cryostasis doesn't profit from it at this pixelcount anyway...

btw, you're showing quite nicely, that your expections are exaggerated. do you want to play it smoothly, or do you want to play it while reaching certain stats? because it sure doesn't need 40fps to show off smooth gameplay, especially not in such a slow paced game like this. half of that would be sufficient



The last question, for someone with a mid to hi end system, should it be necessary to do anything other than install the game, patch it, make minor detail adjustments and start playing?

and who says that anything else is necessary? i started playing with my highend card and had no problems. only after having beaten the game came i across all the bitching about the performance and decided to give it a go with my x1600. all i did was setting everything to low et voila... no problems getting stable and playable framerates.




Anyone who fails to consult your guide is an idoit?

of course not, but how many of those who complain do actually know about the settings? did you know that you don't need AA, or AF to improve the visuals? did you know what the advanced physics do? did you know what the difference between the several shader models is? do you even know what impact the settings have on the game and what the tradeoff is by lowering them? i'm not the one who sets everything mindlessly to max, because i actually understand what these features mean. and that's exactly my point: how intelligent is it to set the game up according to your beliefs? (e.g.: my comp can run crysis, so it is supposed to run everything else out there too)

so far i have not seen a single intelligent complaint, e.g. lack of settings to turn down several physics effects. anyway, just because a game offers you the possibility to crank up the visual quality doesn't mean that you're supposed to.



What, you complain about this game you installed but you haven't spent hours finding my thread and screwing with my mod? Should it be necessary sir? Out of the box, it's a poorly optimized piece of trash.

where do i complain about that? sorry, but exaggerations and laying words in my mouth will get you nowhere. the only thing that pisses me off is ignorance that results in unfounded claims that would require extended knowledge on the subject, yet this comes from mindless drones that think they kind of acquired that knowledge by spending a buttload of money on expensive hardware. it's like the fat sports freak who sits on his lazy ass
at home shouting at the tv to showcase his supposed superiority over the professionals, who can't seem to get anything right.



You've spent a lot of time working with the game.. I can understand how you'd attack a guy like me slamming it. Maybe if I'd not insulted the developers you'd not insult me, who knows. Trust me though, I have a good understanding of mods, tweaks, hacks, and the gaming world. I've been modding hardware and gaming likely before you ever touched a keyboard bud.

yeah, that's kids talk... i started programming when i was 10.... taught it myself... talking about optimizing a game's source code has little to do with hardware tweaking, don't you agree? also, while you claim to have an understanding of it, i actually hack, i actually tweak and i actually mod. proof of that is on this forum and plenty more on my blog. where's yours?... are we done showing our e-penisses now? this is not about who can do what, but rather about the factual validity of your claim of the game being unoptimized

have you ever written a shred of code? do you know how how it's even processed in your windows environment, or the hardware level to make such a bold claim, like this game being badly optimized and if you do, please be a little bit more specific to show that you actually do know more than the other morons, who bash the game for no good reasons.

as for defending the game, i agree it might look like that, but let me clarify that. yes, i spend a lot of time on the game and more than i wanted to. i don't care about the game more than i care about any other game that i play. i don't care about the developers and i especially don't care about the publisher. all i care about is setting the facts straight. claims like yours (and the multicore-tale) are unfounded and do nothing more but develop into urban myths. this helps no one, especially not those who actually have problems due to unoptimized systems.

anyway, i don't defend the game, because it's not my job. it's not even one of my favorites. in fact, if you check out other forums, you will find a thread where i list its shortcomings and it has plenty of them




The simplicity here is, this game chokes visually and mechanically right from the start. There's so little to compell me to spend time with this game. It's a write off, plain and simple. I needed play only twenty minutes of this game to make that determination. Hell I've spent more time on writing this crap which I'm billing you for by the way.

sorry, but this is getting stupider by the second... there is a playable demo out there...basically every game has one. why didn't you get that first? you would have seen right from the start how this game looks and plays. no one buys the game out of the blue. actually the only people who get games without caring to play demos first are those who pirate them...

also, how does the game choke visually? just because in your opinion the graphics are inferior to games like crysis? well, what high-poly graphics do you expect from your surroundings when you are running through something geometrically undemanding such as an icebreaker? the textures are mostly high res and the weather effects are unmatched and that's basically all you get to see in the game. apparently you only play games for the graphics, which is ok, but using that as an argument against a game is rather futile. a good game is made up of more than just graphics. in fact, this is the least important factor, because graphics become outdated too quickly. games like doom, quake, the ultima series, final fantasy, thief, hitman, etc are still being played by huge amounts of people and its not because of their outdated graphics, but due to their atmosphere, storyline, or gameplay. in fact, games that show nice graphics but have little else usually die quickly. it's a pity that you're so superficial. you're missing out on a lot of fun.



In Crysis, when I first saw the beach, the trees, the tortise walking, the flashlight beam, I knew it was a game worth the effort and worth some extra coin to make run well. Even if the storyline sucked, the visuals were a feast for the eyes.

yeah, you got it exactly...the storyline sucked...how many people will play it in 5 years, when the graphics are dwarfed by the 2nd next generation engines from now? also, you let yourself blind by rather shallow effects. you really lack an eye for them, or you would have seen them in cryostasis too. even more, you would have been able to judge about them. tortoise and flashlight beams? come on... polygon pushing and usage of lighting is no art... in fact all games use high poly models in development phase and are then toned down to keep the load on the hardware low... crysis just raised the demand due to the new generation of high-end cards that came out at that time. any game could have done that and in fact many others followed...it's always just a question who takes the risk of releasing a hardware heavy game first without taking damage...




Nice job on your work here but the game sucks. No amount of insulting me will change that fact..

thanks, but i'm not insulting you, so don't take it personally. i'm just attacking your argumentation, which is merely based on opinion and not on facts. you're welcome to deliver some on the technical level, where such a debate should be held. any comparison to other games that's only based on visuals just doesn't hold up to anything.