Crysis: An Exercise of Crytek's Stupidity

Crysis is a great game if you're one of the fortunate few to play it high without lag or even medium without lag. For 95% of the PC owning population though this is not the case.

Why the hell would EA make a game knowing no one could max it and enjoy it to it's fullest potential. No wonder it's not even seen on the xfire top 10, it's just known as a game with "oh mah gawd im gonna orgasm graphics" that no one can play.

Bloody Nasa can't even max it without crashing their computers. Am I the only one who thinks it's ridiculous EA would even do this, make a game with impossible to achieve eye candy. Sure it looks nice on lower graphics but it is still laggy as hell even on low and my computer is not bad and so are many others. I'm not the only one with this gripe.

In my opinion, Crysis is the stupidest game EA ever decided to make, just my opinion though.
Toriko42

first of all....EA did not make this game.

Second....The game scales back pretty far.

Third.....after Farcry's, BF2's...etc...success...they assumed that a game with high requirements can sell well (and indeed, crysis has been selling well)

Fourth....the reason you dont see it on Xfire's list is kinda obvious....its not an online centric game.

Crysis is a great game if you're one of the fortunate few to play it high without lag or even medium without lag. For 95% of the PC owning population though this is not the case.

Why the hell would EA make a game knowing no one could max it and enjoy it to it's fullest potential. No wonder it's not even seen on the xfire top 10, it's just known as a game with "oh mah gawd im gonna orgasm graphics" that no one can play.

Bloody Nasa can't even max it without crashing their computers. Am I the only one who thinks it's ridiculous EA would even do this, make a game with impossible to achieve eye candy. Sure it looks nice on lower graphics but it is still laggy as hell even on low and my computer is not bad and so are many others. I'm not the only one with this gripe.

In my opinion, Crysis is the stupidest game EA ever decided to make, just my opinion though.
Toriko42

I am sorry, but you got a stupid "system war" grade post, no wait I am not sorry. The nasa computer was an april fool joke. EA did not make the game. People can play it on high. This game is like doom 3, nobody could max that game when it came out.

Crysis is a great game if you're one of the fortunate few to play it high without lag or even medium without lag. For 95% of the PC owning population though this is not the case.

Why the hell would Crytek make a game knowing no one could max it and enjoy it to it's fullest potential. No wonder it's not even seen on the xfire top 10, it's just known as a game with "oh mah gawd im gonna orgasm graphics" that no one can play.

Bloody Nasa can't even max it without crashing their computers. Am I the only one who thinks it's ridiculous Crytek would even do this, make a game with impossible to achieve eye candy. Sure it looks nice on lower graphics but it is still laggy as hell even on low and my computer is not bad and so are many others. I'm not the only one with this gripe.

In my opinion, Crysis is the stupidest game Crytek ever decided to make, just my opinion though. Toriko42

Just because your computer sucks too much and you're too lazy or too poor to upgrade it, doesnt mean that Crysis is a bad game. Plus, you're completely ignoring the freeform gameplay and awesome modding potential. Graphics =/= everything in a game.

Futhermore, you lost all credibility with the whole NASA thing. Wow, you fell for that retarded rumor? I'm speechless. Yes, NASA has nothing better to do than to play computer games on their supercomputers. /sarcasm

dont diss the game because your pc sucks. The game is and will continue to be awesome. Crytek did a magnificent job in creating it albeit with small issues which patches are addressing and i applaud EA for publishing such a masterpiece.

EA and Crytek are both a little silly for releasing Crysis as it is, because for the very reason that it doesn't run well, a lot of people are staying away from it and from what I understand it hasn't sold too well. So no matter how great the game is, from a business standpoint it wasn't the smartest move they could have made.CheeChee_Macko

Its sold very well....above expectations in fact.

i have to agree with you. with my 88GT i played at 1024*768 @ high with 20-30 fps but it was soo laggy that when i shot a guy the fps dropped down at 15-10. played at medium. same thing continued to happen.

it was so poorly optimized that your fps was not stable. i don't think that someone managed to play crysis without a lag.

i even witnessed that sometimes my game stopped playing for 4-5 seconds...

Actually Crysis has already went platinum...... it's sold plentyTheDuffman26

Its sold very well....above expectations in fact.cobrax25

Really? My mistake...keep buying the game everyone so that we can have a bunch of little Crysis babies!

Designing games like this encourages hardware vendors to make better hardware to run the games. Crysis may have taken too far of a leap though....

Optimization plays a major role also. Regardless, I won't be buying.

i have to agree with you. with my 88GT i played at 1024*768 @ high with 20-30 fps but it was soo laggy that when i shot a guy the fps dropped down at 15-10. played at medium. same thing continued to happen.

it was so poorly optimized that your fps was not stable. i don't think that someone managed to play crysis without a lag.

i even witnessed that sometimes my game stopped playing for 4-5 seconds...

onuruca

Something must be up with your gpu my friend. I run the game on medium-high on my pc and i also get ~25-30 fps and it only drops to the teens when i hit the alien-ice level. You should make sure that your drivers are up to date and your card isn't overheating.

As for the topic, i don't think that it was dumb for crytek to release a game like crysis, even from a business standpoint. FPS games have traditionally pushed graphics to the next level and crysis is no different. The game is very playable and has a fairly decent amount of freedom for a FPS.

Crytek IS smart for making crysis the way they did; it's an extremely moddable game that will not age graphically at all over the next couple of years. This will ensure that not just are people still playing it a few years from now, but also that the community will likely increase due to the modding potential of the game.

Crysis is a great game if you're one of the fortunate few to play it high without lag or even medium without lag. For 95% of the PC owning population though this is not the case.

Why the hell would Crytek make a game knowing no one could max it and enjoy it to it's fullest potential. No wonder it's not even seen on the xfire top 10, it's just known as a game with "oh mah gawd im gonna orgasm graphics" that no one can play.

Bloody Nasa can't even max it without crashing their computers. Am I the only one who thinks it's ridiculous Crytek would even do this, make a game with impossible to achieve eye candy. Sure it looks nice on lower graphics but it is still laggy as hell even on low and my computer is not bad and so are many others. I'm not the only one with this gripe.

In my opinion, Crysis is the stupidest game Crytek ever decided to make, just my opinion though. Toriko42

First, with 1/10 of the time you spent playing brains killer WoW you could have built a pc that can run Crysis at high with 35 fps avg. (true math)

Second, calling Crytek (meaning all of it's employees) stupid, is one heck of a challenge. I'd like to see an IQ test face off. I think you'd loose.

Crysis is a great game if you're one of the fortunate few to play it high without lag or even medium without lag. For 95% of the PC owning population though this is not the case.

Why the hell would Crytek make a game knowing no one could max it and enjoy it to it's fullest potential. No wonder it's not even seen on the xfire top 10, it's just known as a game with "oh mah gawd im gonna orgasm graphics" that no one can play.

Bloody Nasa can't even max it without crashing their computers. Am I the only one who thinks it's ridiculous Crytek would even do this, make a game with impossible to achieve eye candy. Sure it looks nice on lower graphics but it is still laggy as hell even on low and my computer is not bad and so are many others. I'm not the only one with this gripe.

In my opinion, Crysis is the stupidest game Crytek ever decided to make, just my opinion though. Toriko42

Quite simply You're an a-hole who plays games just for the graphics... If you can't max out a game.. you start b***hing. you're one of those noobs who think Crysis is just about the graphics. No.. it isn't. I ll say.. does it really matter ? Crysis looks much much better than any other shooter on the planet even in med-high settings. I have a mid range PC and i play it in low-mid settings.. NO lag. and that's enough for me. In my opinion it's the best First person shooter ever created...& I enjoy playing it more than any other shooter i ve installed on my pc. Crytek managed to give us a glimpse of how games will/should look like in teh future... It sets an example of how First person shooters should really be made. Crysis's amazing.

i play crysis on medium at 15-20fps on my 7600GT and its still one of the best games i ever played-FAmas-

Same here :)

And of course lots of pcs cant play it, (maybe not 95%, 70-80% is more likely) as only about 35% of PC owners even play games seriously.

Yeah, as I was playing Crysis at high settings @ 1600x1200 with super playable frame rates on my PC with no item of hardware less than one year old, as I was having awesome, awesome fun playing one of the best shooters ever made and enjoying the best FPS engine ever made, all I was thinking was boy, Crytek sure is stupid!

We all ought to be thankful that there are still companies out there that want to make the game they want to make rather than appealing to the lowest common denominator, making an inferior just so they can make more money.

Crytek deals in first class, top of the line technology - and I'm glad they do.

[QUOTE="onuruca"]

i have to agree with you. with my 88GT i played at 1024*768 @ high with 20-30 fps but it was soo laggy that when i shot a guy the fps dropped down at 15-10. played at medium. same thing continued to happen.

it was so poorly optimized that your fps was not stable. i don't think that someone managed to play crysis without a lag.

i even witnessed that sometimes my game stopped playing for 4-5 seconds...

spierdalaj666

Something must be up with your gpu my friend. I run the game on medium-high on my pc and i also get ~25-30 fps and it only drops to the teens when i hit the alien-ice level. You should make sure that your drivers are up to date and your card isn't overheating.

I am wondering why in his sig Onuruca shows he is only running with a 400Watt PSU?That is probably Max load rating as well. That could've been a contributing factor in such poor performance.

MYself I didn't have really any issues running the game, I can run it on High without AA with decent framerates. When I purchased the game I walked into knowing that it was going to be a bear to run, because we were pretty much told this from the get go.

I am not mad at least this is not Frontlines, Test Drive: Unlimited, or ARMA where the afortmentioned titles are pretty much crap due to geniune lack of good development.

There is nothing stupid about Crysis or Crytek. Crysis is one of the best shooters released EVER...and that is not taking into account the visuals.

Its nothing new to say that Crysis demands a lot of power to play on high at a solid resolution but to say 95% cant play it...thats the stupid statement.

Anyone with a 7600, 2GB of memory, and a dual-core PC can play Crysis at a good framerate while also having it look as good, if not better, than a lot of other engines.

I think you better go read GameInformer again and look so you can see that NASA article was a joke.

Crysis is king. Agreed?Ps2stony

nah, I'd say its more of a prince. Still awesome and noble, but not ruler of all. Halflife is still the King of my gaming heart lol

There is nothing stupid about Crysis or Crytek. Crysis is one of the best shooters released EVER...and that is not taking into account the visuals.

Its nothing new to say that Crysis demands a lot of power to play on high at a solid resolution but to say 95% cant play it...thats the stupid statement.

Anyone with a 7600, 2GB of memory, and a dual-core PC can play Crysis at a good framerate while also having it look as good, if not better, than a lot of other engines.

I think you better go read GameInformer again and look so you can see that NASA article was a joke.

mrbojangles25

I played it on a P4 2.4 GHz CPU , 1GB RAM and a 7600 GT AGP card:P at 1024x768 res with textures and shaders on high, physics and water on medium and everything else on low and it was playable. The only time it ran very slow was at the last levels where you have to escape with Prophet from the sphere.

Ugh, another moron who thinks the only way to enjoy crysis is to run it on Max.

JUST TURN DOWN THE POST PROCESSING AND STOP *****ING!

Ugh, another moron who thinks the only way to enjoy crysis is to run it on Max.

JUST TURN DOWN THE POST PROCESSING AND STOP *****ING!

ElArab

[QUOTE="Ps2stony"]Crysis is king. Agreed?mrbojangles25

nah, I'd say its more of a prince. Still awesome and noble, but not ruler of all. Halflife is still the King of my gaming heart lol

Someone has to make the games that drive hardware sales.

Yeah, I agree. Devs should totally design games with last gen graphics so all the cheapos can play it and hardware won't advance.

All of those saying with 8800GTs they can't play it either havn't actualy played the game, or have crap hardware for the rest of their comp.

I have:

P35-DS3L
E8400 stock clocks
8800GT alpha dog stock
2x 1gb 6400 DDR2 RAM stock clocks
500 PSU

And I run it 2xAA, everything high + natural mod at a steady FPS (I.E no drops into unplayable) at 1024x768. I'm yet to bother to measure my FPS because it runs perfect to my eyes and I suffer none of the lag spikes everyone complains about.

I can zoom/turn/pan without a hitch and I'm up to the first bit with the aliens. My hardware isn't even high end and I can almost guarentee half of those moaning about how they get 10 FPS havn't actualy played the game.

And for the record, it's not all eye candy. The gameplay is good too IMO because of the weapon customisation+suit mods that make each encounter different along with the open ended gameplay.

I played through Crysis from start to finish on an AMD x2 4200, 2 gig RAM, 7800GT with 256Mb. Most of the settings were on low, except for Textures which I set to High (cos I prefer to see detail instead of blur), Water was on Medium, Shaders was on Medium and a couple of others I can't remember.

Anyway, the game was perfectly playable for me, even during instense firefights with lots of the Korean guys and explosions going off everywhere. The game looked absolutely fine as well (better than Far Cry on high settings) so I don't know what all the fuss is about.

You don't have to max it to enjoy the game, and the graphics on low/medium are perfectly acceptable.

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

[QUOTE="Ps2stony"]Crysis is king. Agreed?Ps2stony

nah, I'd say its more of a prince. Still awesome and noble, but not ruler of all. Halflife is still the King of my gaming heart lol

It's a direct port tho (and a fairly dodgey one at that) it's not like its been raped for consoles to appeal to the masses.

[QUOTE="Ps2stony"][QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

[QUOTE="Ps2stony"]Crysis is king. Agreed?pieatorium

nah, I'd say its more of a prince. Still awesome and noble, but not ruler of all. Halflife is still the King of my gaming heart lol

It's a direct port tho (and a fairly dodgey one at that) it's not like its been raped for consoles to appeal to the masses.

Alas, small penis syndrome has extended into the gaming industry.

Its an overcompensation of graphics to hide the inexorably boring gameplay.

Look at when Doom 3 came out (August 2004), 384 MB of RAM was considered outrageous system requirements...foxhound_fox

What, when Doom 3 came out? Goodness, no, not quite. 512MB was a pretty standard, mid-range amount, and quite a few people already had 1GB in their systems. 384 was already being considered pretty "behind" by then. Like 768 today, basically.