Is Crysis to graphically advanced for the average gamer?

the problem i keep hearing with this game is how you basically need a $5000 system to run this game half decent. i think this is a joke!! IMO this game is only going to satisfy a very small number of PC gamers for the first year or so after it's release. we are not all millionaires that can afford twin 8800 gtx's in sli , and we can't all justify spending the big bucks on upgrading our systems when they already run 99% of the games that are currently being released.

I have a 7950 gx2 , x6800 @ 3.2, 1000w power unit etc and i have not yet run the demo of crysis (it's still downloading) and i am going to be very disappointed if i cannot run this game half reasonably with a system that cost over $4000 just over a year ago.

Pc gaming is becoming way too expensive, this trend has got to stop. the funny thing is i'm actually yet to see a game on the pc that looks and runs better than motorstorm on my ps3 and that only cost me 900 bucks for the whole system and 2 games, less than most high end gpu's for the pc.

anyone feel the same about these issues?

I recently upgraded my pc, bought a new CPU chip ($100) Athlon X2 4200 socket 939 (dual core), and Video Card ($244) Radeon X1950 AGP 512mb version, so that totals $344, I overclocked my video card slightly and can play Crysis with everything on high at about 25-35 fps, if I put it on medium I get about 35-45 fps, I can play Bioshock maxed out at 40-50 fps, so I don't think you need to spend $5000 to upgrade your pc, just build your own and buy it in pieces, I've been gaming since I was5 (way back in '86) and have spent my fare share on Computer components, but if you do it right, you can spend less than you would on a console and get great results.

Peace!

Fact: The Xbox 360 will cost you more than the PS3. are you forgetting the continual cost of Xbox Live?

jaredrichards3

Off topic, but is this a joke? You don't have to subscribe to Xbox Live. It's only required to play online with others. Does the PS3 offer free multiplayer gaming?

[QUOTE="jaredrichards3"]

Fact: The Xbox 360 will cost you more than the PS3. are you forgetting the continual cost of Xbox Live?

Herrick

Off topic, but is this a joke? You don't have to subscribe to Xbox Live. It's only required to play online with others. Does the PS3 offer free multiplayer gaming?

yes it does

Off topic, but is this a joke? You don't have to subscribe to Xbox Live. It's only required to play online with others. Does the PS3 offer free multiplayer gaming?

yes the ps3 is free online

for the record i did put the computer together myself some of the prices roughly at the time were 1500 for the cpu (newest at the time) 1000 for the gpu, 1000 for the power unit, 600 for the monitor , 300 for the mother board etc (australian $). i had to buy a whole new system bit by bit.

everyone keeps saying 25, 35, 45 fps is fine and playable, well i don't know about this at all. i hate playing any game if i cannot get a smooth 60 fps with vertical sync on

yes, though I don't think you'll have any problem running the game yourself. The major problem is most gamers still have low end systems, and the cut-off point for Crysis seems to be dual-core, a 7600 or higher gfx card, and 1+gig of ram. If you use steam as an average demographic (don't bother aruing this if you don't have a better source) of the comunity you can see that a majority of the gaming community doesn't meet those requirements.

You could argue that Crysis min specs are much lower, but anybody that's tried to play on a low end system already knows the game skips too much, and you only get a few periods of good framerates.

Game looks better than anyhting plaued before in medium

Oh well, I have rig with:
Intel core2duo E6320
Club3d GF 8600gt 256 MB ed
And 2 gigs of 800MHZ (overclocked) ram.

And, well, what do you know, I can play at medium-high settings. Ofcourse, the most important settings, which make the game look best (shader level etc) are on medium.

As such, the rig is also overclocked as a whole, I can play around 20-30 FPS, which for a singleplayer experience is nice, doubt it'll do in multiplayer.

Anyhow, what do you guys think, would upgrading the 8600gt to a 8800 GTS or GTX be the removal of the bottleneck?
I myself imagine so. But it'll be quite an investement.

And, if there is one game that I would like to upgrade my rig for, then it is Crysis. The demo was just awesome.

the problem i keep hearing with this game is how you basically need a $5000 system to run this game half decent. i think this is a joke!! IMO this game is only going to satisfy a very small number of PC gamers for the first year or so after it's release. we are not all millionaires that can afford twin 8800 gtx's in sli , and we can't all justify spending the big bucks on upgrading our systems when they already run 99% of the games that are currently being released.

I have a 7950 gx2 , x6800 @ 3.2, 1000w power unit etc and i have not yet run the demo of crysis (it's still downloading) and i am going to be very disappointed if i cannot run this game half reasonably with a system that cost over $4000 just over a year ago.

Pc gaming is becoming way too expensive, this trend has got to stop. the funny thing is i'm actually yet to see a game on the pc that looks and runs better than motorstorm on my ps3 and that only cost me 900 bucks for the whole system and 2 games, less than most high end gpu's for the pc.

anyone feel the same about these issues?

jaredrichards3

/over-reacting

/laughs

It would cost no more than $2000 for a good PC that can play Crysis reasonably well. Does everyone who drives cars drive Supercars to enjoy driving? People don't have to get a computer that runs computer games flawlessly to enjoy them either.

/understands why console games are more popular than PC games

/flees

What the thread creator is saying is exactly what i've been saying all along in these Crysis forums! Well in general,... the power of these consoles got so much over the PC (raw theoreticle FLOPS which are vital for realistic immersive gaming) and im not talking about GFX chips but all around with more games supporting advanced physics ect. The PC industry has become some what of a boutique market which is great if you have the $$$ and pride your self with only a few games per year that are optomized for such expensive HW! But for the avg. gamer its a no brainer why console's are dominating the market in virtually ever genre of VG's except adventure, RTS, and MMO's.

Ultimately this is Cryteks problem in that they've set their own bar so high the cost to performance ratio isn't as high! In other words with such steep requirements to get the game "playable" for most PC gamers you have to spend much more on a rig then you would for say UT3 which in many ways rival the GFX of Crysis (depending on personal taste, essentially Doom engine vs. Source all over again)! With such a strategy Crytek is insuring that they'll canabolize their user base in both the amount of fans who buy Crysis as well as other developers who would've used Cryengine 2 yet instead opted for the tried and true UT engine!

It seems this time around all Crytek has done is showcase an Engine demo trying to get sells of that while paying for such dev cost by releasing a game! In fact it could be argued that as much if not more time and money went into building Cryengine 2 then Crysis itself considering the ease of use and how much Crytek has been selling the features of their engine even more so then Crysis itself. This is the 1st time in history i can recall where a dev has talked more about what their engine can do in a game then about the game itself.

This is why personaly for me i'll do most of my gaming on console and such few great exclusives i'll play on a medium/ medium high pc! When it comes to pc games all i need is just above 1024x768 and 30 fps with textures, shaders, and character models set on high, that and a good story is all i look for in pc gaming!