The Crysis Thread

[dangel]

Gah mine's not bloody well here yet.. it's either our polish postie being lazy or..

I could of digitally bought this in the US on the 9th.. what a suck-fest.

[kalniel]

I could of digitally bought this in the US on the 9th.. what a suck-fest.

Not if you have a UK/european card.. apparently this drove some people into quite a tiz.

[Choo Choo]

Installing my copy now I've not played the demo yet, so I don't know how well it's going to run on my machine. Hope I can turn at least turn up some of the settings.

[Nick]

Broadband was not that commonplace in the UK in 2004 when HL2 was released - it was great having unlimited 4mb connection back then.

Hehe, no, broadband was commonplace by then, just the non-gamers didn't have it. I joined BT Broadband in 2001 for £29.99 a month on a 512Mb.... by 2004 that'd been upgraded to 2Mb when I moved to Pipex.

The fact that I am annoyed about is that the Crytek CEO blatently lied in the interview.

If he had said "you need the latest hardware to run Crysis" it would have been fine.

Crytek were very clear about NOT discussing system specs until much closer to release. In fact, we reported only back in August that they were officially saying the specs would be the same as those for Vista.

I think what you're miffed about is the fact that it needs some uber-hardware to run with all the bells and whistles, yes?

I only hope that the full game will run better than the demo or there is better driver support for the game soon.

I do not also care about running the game at uber high resolutions and settings.XGA or WXGA would do me fine at even low settings if the game looked OK and ran reasonably smoothly.

I will soon find out though!

Patches and driver updates... oh, and faster GPUs and CPUs...

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Hehe, no, broadband was commonplace by then, just the non-gamers didn't have it. I joined BT Broadband in 2001 for £29.99 a month on a 512Mb.... by 2004 that'd been upgraded to 2Mb when I moved to Pipex.

Gamers make up most of the installed internet base don't they?? NOTTTTTTT! That is why people were not complaining about the large install files for STEAM at the time. I had a 4Mb connection at the time so I wasn't complaining though!!

Crytek were very clear about NOT discussing system specs until much closer to release. In fact, we reported only back in August that they were officially saying the specs would be the same as those for Vista.

Crysis Q&A - Development Updates and Open-Ended Gameplay - PC News at GameSpot


Towards the bottom of the page the Crytek CEO said the following

"Yes, we [are] progressing very well on optimization, and we will achieve our goal. Two-to-three-year-old rigs will run Crysis well, with lower visual settings still competing with the best games of two-to-three years ago."


If that is NOT the case as you say then he should have kept quiet then. A bit of an embarrassing U-turn on his part then!

I think what you're miffed about is the fact that it needs some uber-hardware to run with all the bells and whistles, yes?

I stated the following before:

I do not also care about running the game at uber high resolutions and settings.XGA or WXGA would do me fine at even low settings if the game looked OK and ran reasonably smoothly.

If bells and whistles means the lowest possible settings then yes.


Read the thread properly please! Ta!

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Anyway that is my viewpoint and I am sorry if it contradicts yours.

[Nick]

Gamers make up most of the installed internet base don't they?? NOTTTTTTT! That is why people were not complaining about the large install files for STEAM at the time



Crysis Q&A - Development Updates and Open-Ended Gameplay - PC News at GameSpot

Just to save you the trouble reading the interview the Crytek CEO said the following

"Yes, we [are] progressing very well on optimization, and we will achieve our goal. Two-to-three-year-old rigs will run Crysis well, with lower visual settings still competing with the best games of two-to-three years ago."



I stated the following:

I do not also care about running the game at uber high resolutions and settings.XGA or WXGA would do me fine at even low settings if the game looked OK and ran reasonably smoothly.

If bells and whistles means the lowest possible settings then yes. lol


Read the thread properly please! Ta!

Ooh, someone IS shirty, aren't they?

Right, if YOU read the thread properly, I quite clearly stated that GAMERS were getting broadband. I made the DISTINCTION between gamers and general net users.

My point, which obviously wasn't quite clear enough, was that broadband wsa there for gamers.. and your point that gamers do not make up the majority of internet users is absolutely right... but absolutely wrong when talking about Steam. Why on earth would a non-gamer be worried about large install files from Steam, they won't have it, they're not a gamer.

So to turn your American teen mall rat argument on you, non gamers make up the installed Steam base do they? NOTTTTTTT!

And cheers for the Gamespot link, though I'm utterly unsure of what it proves seeing as the quote itself is, at best, vague as to what performance you'll see.

And anyway... no, hang on.

You know what? I'm done arguing, really. Right then I realised the futility of it all. It's just a game and right now I've got a six million better things to do than try and be reasonable with some unknown at the other end of the 'net.

Seems today that any bugger with a keyboard suddenly feels a god given right to absolutely, irrevocably never be even in the slightest bit wrong...

You win. I'm wrong, wrong and wrong again.

And that's me done with this thread.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Ooh, someone IS shirty, aren't they?

Right, if YOU read the thread properly, I quite clearly stated that GAMERS were getting broadband. I made the DISTINCTION between gamers and general net users.

My point, which obviously wasn't quite clear enough, was that broadband wsa there for gamers.. and your point that gamers do not make up the majority of internet users is absolutely right... but absolutely wrong when talking about Steam. Why on earth would a non-gamer be worried about large install files from Steam, they won't have it, they're not a gamer.

So to turn your American teen mall rat argument on you, non gamers make up the installed Steam base do they? NOTTTTTTT!

And cheers for the Gamespot link, though I'm utterly unsure of what it proves seeing as the quote itself is, at best, vague as to what performance you'll see.

And anyway... no, hang on.

You know what? I'm done arguing, really. Right then I realised the futility of it all. It's just a game and right now I've got a six million better things to do than try and be reasonable with some unknown at the other end of the 'net.

Seems today that any bugger with a keyboard suddenly feels a god given right to absolutely, irrevocably never be even in the slightest bit wrong...

You win. I'm wrong, wrong and wrong again.

And that's me done with this thread.

Ditto to you too!! You are doing the same as me so no ones better!! Haha!

Just because I stated a totally opposite viewpoint to you there is no need to swear btw!!

[Ferral]

Ok, looked in here and thought it was all about Crysis not a dummy spitting contest. Right out the pram with that one.

Seriously, come on. Lets get this back on track.......Crysis.

Not sure on whether to actually get this one yet with all the RPG love I'm getting from The Witcher and Hellgate. Might do what I did with Farcry and wait until I see it traded in at my local store. Being a Vista user I'm a bit dubious about the coments made at the end of he review!! Also is the hype really worth it and I have heard that the ending is a bit short?! (Prepares the flame retardent suit! )

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

If you have the Crysis demo the actual script of the game is included in one of the folders!!

Hellgate seemed quite interesting.I liked the demo.

[DecomposingStar]

What annoys me is that people get pissed with crysis because it's too advanced for their hardware. For god sake, the amount of games that have come out with crappy graphics for the sake of people who can't afford new hardware is ridiculous. Why should i be limited to crappy visual quality when my hardware kicks ass?!
If you don't want to spend the money, go play far cry, go buy a console, or don't complain about how "the graphics look crap on 'low', crytek lie and just try sell nVidia and Vista". Me on the other hand- i want the best i can drag out of my system. I want a new level of immersion. I don't want a game developer to say "well we could make the game amazing, but lets not... we might not sell as many copies", especially when the game company is owned by EA... the EAter of companies, with infinite funding.
If you watched the videos of Crysis and thought "that's amazing" then you are fairly common. If you watched them and expected to be able to play that game, with that visual quality, with your crappy old desktop you bought from PC world, then you're just stupid.

Basically, if you don't have something that pushes boundaries, progression will be slow.


(note: i'm not having a dig at anyone in particular, just voicing my opinion about it.)

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Probably, but when some of the prebuilt gaming systems from late 2006 to earlier this year only had 8600GTS cards or some of the higher nvidia 7 series(7900gs or 7950gt) or ATi X1950pro cards it is not suprising people can get slightly pissed off. These systems cost around 700 to 1000 pounds and were sold by companies like Dell,Mesh and Evesham. Maybe not cutting edge but certainly not that outdated.

Bioshock may lack the ultimate impact of Crysis but it did look very good for the specs it needed to run on.

Anyway the 8800gt 256mb looks a decent deal for us stingy types unless the 8800gt 512mb reaches the 140-145 quid point again. I wonder if I can get a VF1000 to fit in my SD37P2?

[Rob_B]

The 256 will choke on Crysis my reason to get a GT would be to play at pretty high levels & feel smug my £150/£160 card gave me decent performance. To release a 256 card is (kinda) like releasing the 8600GT, it can do DX10 (yay) but the performance is so poor you might as well not! We've seen it all before (a 512mb X1600 anyone?)

Bioshock although a great looking game (I think it looks amazing) is indoors & people have commented on the textures not being so great when you really look at them. Crysis however has huge outdoor environments, trees sway in the wind, you can break them at (almost) any point etc/etc, they are two very different games in that sense.

Bioshock made very clever use of the claustrophobic atmosphere to shrink down to a fairly low level what you can actually see in one screen, Crysis went the opposite way & seemed to say "lets see how much we can stick in a level, then put some more stuff in & let you break it" !

I really don't think Crysis is a poorly optimized game, I just think they've tried to do too much & it's back-fired as people are unlocking all of these new higher graphical features they maybe weren't meant to just yet & wondering why they can't run it @ 1600*whatever with max eye candy!

A year down the line we'll likely be playing Crysis at 60fps+ what with patches/new GFX cards/drivers, just enjoy it for now people!

[yamangman]

Having played the demo.. about eight times I honestly don't care about what the reviewers think - this will be utterly stunning.

But can you trust the opinion of someone who takes the time to bold certain portions of their gaming setup in their signature?

David, .. it's over, to you.

[chuckskull]

Rob makes a good point, you really cant compare any corridor shooter to Crysis.

The only thing I can think of that comes close is STALKER and we all know how well that worked at launch

[Optical668]

Or even Armed Assualt, that was really bad at release is well and i think still is.