my anger about crysis

i like how they changed the requirements for crysis. a while ago, they recommended a 1800 to run crysis fairly well and a core 2 duo with 1.5 g of ram, now its the same but a higher ghz for cpu and a 8800 instead of a 1800. thats a huge difference. people with 1800s can max any game out right now, but not crysis. they just basically made this game a whole lot harder to run, makes me mad. when they first released media on it a year ago or so, they said they had 1900's in crossfire, now they want you to have 8800's. i have a feeling this game won't be as fun. i don't plan on ever upgrading again. who else is mad about this? crytec is so happy they finally got it down to where you can play it on a 6800 on crysis on low, which was also min for far cry. but just to run it on high you need something that costs 600 bucks. this was my most hyped game too, until that beta.ncderek

You call yourself a gamer?

Intel Core 2 Quad 6600 CPU
WD Raptor HDD
700 watt PSU
XFX 8800 GTX GPU
2 GB Crucial ballistics RAM
ASUS P5N32 E SLI MB
Audigy 2 soundblaster w/optical to reciever
Running on Vista 32-bit

Come out and play!

There is always going to be a game that tests the very limits to was aPC can do regardless of price or equipment. If you don't want to worry about specs go buy yourself a PS3 or X360. Real PC people don't bitc..cough, complain.

You call yourself a gamer?

Intel Core 2 Quad 6600 CPU
WD Raptor HDD
700 watt PSU
XFX 8800 GTX GPU
2 GB Crucial ballistics RAM
ASUS P5N32 E SLI MB
Audigy 2 soundblaster w/optical to reciever
Running on Vista 32-bit

Come out and play!

cperry005

Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 G0 @ 3.6ghz
1 x 500gb WD HDD, 1 x 160GB WD HDD
850watt PSU
2 x XFX XXX Edition 8800 GTX in SLI
4GB PC8500 OCZ-Reaper HPC
XFX 680i LT motherboard
Creative X-Fi XtremeGamer Fata1ty Pro
Vista 64-Bit OS

Come get some! :P

ok showing off aside. i cant believe some ppl. first, the ones complaining and basing their performance analysis on the beta. anyone catch the word BETA in this release? its not a demo, its a TESTING program. its gonna have tons of flaws, and use way more resources than a final, optimised release will use. the idea is to give people a TASTE note a bite. let ppl find bugs, errors, report them then the devs can iron it all out, give us a BITE aka demo, then the whole pie come Nov 16 (we hope).

second, the system requirements. you've all seen the vids. DX9 and DX10. you got a GPU thats 2+ yrs old, did you honestly think you'd be hurting next-generation technology at its best? why the hell would it be called 'next-generation' if it allowed old school generation to max it out? this game is not only aimed to set new standards for FPS-genre shooters in terms of gameplay and ingenuity, but they are also expecting it to become probably the new benchmark in gaming analysis, for more reasons than just graphics. theres physics, shading, textures, AI, lighting. every new trick in the book and them some is being thrown into this package. its being designed on next-gen hardware, using next-gen software. they want Crysis to break records, become a landmark. i've spent $1400+ on my graphics alone. im not expecting to put this game past say 50-60fps @ 1680x1050 with everything maxed. im HOPING to get that at least. gotta get with the times people. technology is advancing way too fast, with devs always putting tomrrow and next week ahead of now and yesterday.

bite the bullet, play it as best you can, and hope to hell that the gameplay is as good as the game will look. coz thats like, 10 times more important in my book. no point in releasing a stunner game if the play is **** and no one ends up playing it!

Lol I rem unreal2 system req 256 MB RAM recommended I was o ya I will rock this game

That was 4 years ago :P

you guys are missing the argument. no , i dont want crysis to look worse or have smaller levels just so people can play it. i am a graphics whore, i really am, ive always thought those mattered a lot. thats why i always bought whatever the best graphics card was at the time every time ive bought a pc, but im done with pc's, just bought a 360 a few days ago and love it. but my argument is, look at bioshock, looks amazing, and runs great on 1680 all maxed out with everything maxed out, ran great, looked great. and crysis doesnt look better or worse than bioshock, both have their goods and bads, and crysis is so much more demanding. crysis on medium settings doesnt look any better than far cry, a 4 year old game. the online population will probably be small after a month of release, just like far cry, and eventually will probably be full of hackers and glitches. and whoever said i would be able to max out dx9 settings with my rig, i wish, i thought id be able to, but that beta ran like crap for everyone, how dissapointing, such hype before that beta. why make a game that cant be maxed out yet? they say theres not even hardware out that can fully push what it is capable of. who cares. they did that to doom3, and who waited for new vid cards to replay doom3 again? not many people. i beat it 3 times with my 9800xt, did i ever try it out with my new rig to see what the makers were talking about, no. anyways, im just really disapointed, i was really looking forward to this game. ncderek

What a pathetic argument.

"i am a graphics whore, i really am, ive always thought those mattered a lot." , so why are you running a 1900gt? That card was never the best card at it's time. Back then it was the 7900gtx 512mb, then the x1900xtx took over and then the 8800gtx.

You compare bioshock to crysis? are you a moron?

Look at the sizes of the environments in Bioshock, the largest open area was probably the final boss battle. Crysis has an absolutely incredible draw distance. Not only that, but the textures and models in Crysis are much more detailed.

You somehow seem to take early speculations of system requirements seriously? Everyone SHOULD know that nothing should be taken seriously until the final press release of the system requirements, which has only just been published.

I don't understand why people are complaining a 8800gts is too much for recommended, the 8800 is almost ONE YEAR old. You think your 2 year old 7900gt should be recommended? Take a look around you people, Crysis is graphically superior than anything out on the market. Another point, nobody seemed to care when Colin Mcrae: Dirt had recommended requirements of 8800gts.

It seems CubePrime is one of the few people on these forums who have shown himself to have a clue on multiple occasions.

I was getting a pain in my head until bignice12 mentioned DX 10. Crytek are trying to make the ultimate next generation engine and from what I've seen so far they are doing a good job. When talking next Gen we have to consider DX 10 and windows Vista so general specs for upcoming games will all start to state that as a min requirement, since cryengine2 is at the front line of next gen games, they are the first to do so.

Crytek aren't "supporting" GeForce as such. if they recommend a 8800 it is simply because Geforce came out with the first DX10 compatible graphics card followed a number of months later by ATI's attempt which by most standards was inferior (not by a lot, but since they had a few months more development time than the Geforce 8800 you should think it should have out preformed it)

Microsoft and NVIDIA actually worked pretty close during the development of DX10 so NVIDIA had somewhat of a head start in terms of technological understanding on their competition.

If you want to bring UT3's engine into the argument which is impressive in itself, that is quite a bit older than CryEngine 2 and already had a large number of dx9 supported titles on it but also looks very impressive so don't worry! Most games will still run fine (as I believe Crysis will) on pre dx10 graphics cards, but surly games should request gamers to have the latest technology to take full advantage of the features they included.

[QUOTE="ncderek"]you guys are missing the argument. no , i dont want crysis to look worse or have smaller levels just so people can play it. i am a graphics whore, i really am, ive always thought those mattered a lot. thats why i always bought whatever the best graphics card was at the time every time ive bought a pc, but im done with pc's, just bought a 360 a few days ago and love it. but my argument is, look at bioshock, looks amazing, and runs great on 1680 all maxed out with everything maxed out, ran great, looked great. and crysis doesnt look better or worse than bioshock, both have their goods and bads, and crysis is so much more demanding. crysis on medium settings doesnt look any better than far cry, a 4 year old game. the online population will probably be small after a month of release, just like far cry, and eventually will probably be full of hackers and glitches. and whoever said i would be able to max out dx9 settings with my rig, i wish, i thought id be able to, but that beta ran like crap for everyone, how dissapointing, such hype before that beta. why make a game that cant be maxed out yet? they say theres not even hardware out that can fully push what it is capable of. who cares. they did that to doom3, and who waited for new vid cards to replay doom3 again? not many people. i beat it 3 times with my 9800xt, did i ever try it out with my new rig to see what the makers were talking about, no. anyways, im just really disapointed, i was really looking forward to this game. ElectricNZ

What a pathetic argument.

"i am a graphics whore, i really am, ive always thought those mattered a lot." , so why are you running a 1900gt? That card was never the best card at it's time. Back then it was the 7900gtx 512mb, then the x1900xtx took over and then the 8800gtx.

You compare bioshock to crysis? are you a moron?

Look at the sizes of the environments in Bioshock, the largest open area was probably the final boss battle. Crysis has an absolutely incredible draw distance. Not only that, but the textures and models in Crysis are much more detailed.

You somehow seem to take early speculations of system requirements seriously? Everyone SHOULD know that nothing should be taken seriously until the final press release of the system requirements, which has only just been published.

I don't understand why people are complaining a 8800gts is too much for recommended, the 8800 is almost ONE YEAR old. You think your 2 year old 7900gt should be recommended? Take a look around you people, Crysis is graphically superior than anything out on the market. Another point, nobody seemed to care when Colin Mcrae: Dirt had recommended requirements of 8800gts.

It seems CubePrime is one of the few people on these forums who have shown himself to have a clue on multiple occasions.

Thanks for the light ElectricNZ, but this time gtarmanrob deserves the spot :)

Let me get this straight. There isn't hardware around that could max out crysis? Meaning I bought a 8800GTX, C2D E6700, 3Gb RAM, Vista and all that other mumbo jumbo just that I could play Crysis at MAX settings....and now I can't? :S

Let me get this straight. There isn't hardware around that could max out crysis? Meaning I bought a 8800GTX, C2D E6700, 3Gb RAM, Vista and all that other mumbo jumbo just that I could play Crysis at MAX settings....and now I can't? :S

turaaggeli

There is hardware that can max Crysis out of the box. There are more features in the game though, but they won't be enabled until better hardware gets released. They did that so their game will look top of the line in 1.5 years too.

If you need the best hardware to max a game, isn't that a good thing? As long as it's optimized that just means that the game is using your hardware to its full potential and everyone gets more value.

Let me get this straight. There isn't hardware around that could max out crysis? Meaning I bought a 8800GTX, C2D E6700, 3Gb RAM, Vista and all that other mumbo jumbo just that I could play Crysis at MAX settings....and now I can't? :S

turaaggeli

You'll be able to max it out WITHOUT AA. EASY. I maxed out the beta with a much weaker processor and an 8800GTS. DX10 supposedly will run better than the DX9 at any settings so you're set.

[QUOTE="turaaggeli"]

Let me get this straight. There isn't hardware around that could max out crysis? Meaning I bought a 8800GTX, C2D E6700, 3Gb RAM, Vista and all that other mumbo jumbo just that I could play Crysis at MAX settings....and now I can't? :S

GodLovesDead

You'll be able to max it out WITHOUT AA. EASY. I maxed out the beta with a much weaker processor and an 8800GTS. DX10 supposedly will run better than the DX9 at any settings so you're set.

So, if I want all the eye candy that game has to offer I'll have to disable anti-aliasing?

[QUOTE="GodLovesDead"][QUOTE="turaaggeli"]

Let me get this straight. There isn't hardware around that could max out crysis? Meaning I bought a 8800GTX, C2D E6700, 3Gb RAM, Vista and all that other mumbo jumbo just that I could play Crysis at MAX settings....and now I can't? :S

turaaggeli

You'll be able to max it out WITHOUT AA. EASY. I maxed out the beta with a much weaker processor and an 8800GTS. DX10 supposedly will run better than the DX9 at any settings so you're set.

So, if I want all the eye candy that game has to offer I'll have to disable anti-aliasing?

Probably. But then again, you might get away with 2x-4x depending on what your framerate standards are.

I don't really care. This game is meant to push hardware and graphics and that is what it'll do. The environments are huge too.

If you can't run the game well you don't need to buy it. I don't think there's anything wrong in doing a game with high system requirements. There are many different nichés in which to make games. You shouldn't be upset just because you can't max it. It's not Crytec's fault, I'm sure they're doing everything humanly possible to get it to run as smooth as possible. Would it be better if they made the levels smaller and the graphics worse so that everyone could max it but it wouldn't look as good? I mean come on...

kyrieee

Making a game where 10% of gaming rigs can run well is a poor business decision.

[QUOTE="kyrieee"]

I don't really care. This game is meant to push hardware and graphics and that is what it'll do. The environments are huge too.

If you can't run the game well you don't need to buy it. I don't think there's anything wrong in doing a game with high system requirements. There are many different nichés in which to make games. You shouldn't be upset just because you can't max it. It's not Crytec's fault, I'm sure they're doing everything humanly possible to get it to run as smooth as possible. Would it be better if they made the levels smaller and the graphics worse so that everyone could max it but it wouldn't look as good? I mean come on...

weirjf

Making a game where 10% of gaming rigs can run well is a poor business decision.

Erm? Adding features that only the newest hardware can utilize can't be bad. If your rig is old then the game will still run as good as your rig will let it. Would it be better if 2 year old machines could max it but the game would have more loading times less visiual fidelity and smaller environments? That type of reasoning is silly

My God. What kind of behemoth do you need to max out Crysis? I mean really max it out, as in Full AA, Full AF and everything and I mean EVERYTHING turned on?turaaggeli

Gefore 9XXX SLI 4gigs or RAM and a good Quad Core

:D

i like how they changed the requirements for crysis. a while ago, they recommended a 1800 to run crysis fairly well and a core 2 duo with 1.5 g of ram, now its the same but a higher ghz for cpu and a 8800 instead of a 1800. thats a huge difference. people with 1800s can max any game out right now, but not crysis. they just basically made this game a whole lot harder to run, makes me mad. when they first released media on it a year ago or so, they said they had 1900's in crossfire, now they want you to have 8800's. i have a feeling this game won't be as fun. i don't plan on ever upgrading again. who else is mad about this? crytec is so happy they finally got it down to where you can play it on a 6800 on crysis on low, which was also min for far cry. but just to run it on high you need something that costs 600 bucks. this was my most hyped game too, until that beta.ncderek

Maybe you should have bought a videocard instead of wasting money on an Xbox and Halo...you made the choice to waste $600 on a crappy gaming system with sub-par games and now you complain that you can't run Crysis?

I bet that out-dated paper weight seems a lot less awesome now.

you guys are missing the argument. no , i dont want crysis to look worse or have smaller levels just so people can play it. i am a graphics whore, i really am, ive always thought those mattered a lot. thats why i always bought whatever the best graphics card was at the time every time ive bought a pc, but im done with pc's, just bought a 360 a few days ago and love it. but my argument is, look at bioshock, looks amazing, and runs great on 1680 all maxed out with everything maxed out, ran great, looked great. and crysis doesnt look better or worse than bioshock, both have their goods and bads, and crysis is so much more demanding. crysis on medium settings doesnt look any better than far cry, a 4 year old game. the online population will probably be small after a month of release, just like far cry, and eventually will probably be full of hackers and glitches. and whoever said i would be able to max out dx9 settings with my rig, i wish, i thought id be able to, but that beta ran like crap for everyone, how dissapointing, such hype before that beta. why make a game that cant be maxed out yet? they say theres not even hardware out that can fully push what it is capable of. who cares. they did that to doom3, and who waited for new vid cards to replay doom3 again? not many people. i beat it 3 times with my 9800xt, did i ever try it out with my new rig to see what the makers were talking about, no. anyways, im just really disapointed, i was really looking forward to this game. ncderek

I seriously hate you after reading this post.

Please stop breathing.

[QUOTE="ncderek"]you guys are missing the argument. no , i dont want crysis to look worse or have smaller levels just so people can play it. i am a graphics whore, i really am, ive always thought those mattered a lot. thats why i always bought whatever the best graphics card was at the time every time ive bought a pc, but im done with pc's, just bought a 360 a few days ago and love it. but my argument is, look at bioshock, looks amazing, and runs great on 1680 all maxed out with everything maxed out, ran great, looked great. and crysis doesnt look better or worse than bioshock, both have their goods and bads, and crysis is so much more demanding. crysis on medium settings doesnt look any better than far cry, a 4 year old game. the online population will probably be small after a month of release, just like far cry, and eventually will probably be full of hackers and glitches. and whoever said i would be able to max out dx9 settings with my rig, i wish, i thought id be able to, but that beta ran like crap for everyone, how dissapointing, such hype before that beta. why make a game that cant be maxed out yet? they say theres not even hardware out that can fully push what it is capable of. who cares. they did that to doom3, and who waited for new vid cards to replay doom3 again? not many people. i beat it 3 times with my 9800xt, did i ever try it out with my new rig to see what the makers were talking about, no. anyways, im just really disapointed, i was really looking forward to this game. D9-THC

I seriously hate you after reading this post.

Please stop breathing.

I second that motion.

OK, there are too many crybabies posting here.

If you haven't played the beta then please don't comment. I ran the beta on med-high graphics on my current system (which was high end a year ago) and so i imagine that with a little optimization and newer drivers, i'll be playing it mostly on high settings.

People really need to realize two things (and these have been mentioned rather eloquently by other posters above): (1) crysis is graphically superior to all other games out right now, hence why you need next gen hardware to run it well and (2) the levels in crysis are huge. The island map provided in the beta was large and so it's expected that lower end systems will not be able to run it on high settings.

I don't really care if I can't play it on the highest settings, or if the game even has to be run on the lowest settings (not really likely). I have a 7900gs, 2.0 core duo, and I'll be playing it on a laptop. I don't really care, as most of you really shouldn't. If you're a gamer, yeah, you love graphics and stuff, but any real gamer will like the game more than it's shiny graphics. If the game is good, which is what I'm banking on, then I'm in. If not, I can pass and not feel too badly about it.

My only concern is what some other people said, about it not be properly optimized, and said that UT3 will be better optimized. I believe that, but I hope it's not true. I remember when UT2004 came out, you could turn off so many settings in there and still get a good game going, and there were so many settings out of the game you could change even further. That was one well optimized game, for offline and online. I hope that crysis like that, where there's lots of settings and even someone with the minimum specs can eventually get it so there's no slowdown. That's the real concern, even if you could play it with some of your killer computers, would you want to if your framerate is going to be 20-? Even if I COULD play it on medium, I would still probably turn the settings down some to get some more fps.

If you all remember Doom3 (totally unoptimized game), even on the lowest settings, the game looked pretty good compared to what people had seen before (except far cry) so I'm not expecting the lowest in crysis to look bad at all.

BUT that doesn't matter, I'm just crossing my fingers that the game is fun. That's pretty much it.

REMEMBER: patches can change the graphics around and fix bugs, but no patch can make the game more fun overall.

sux for you guys. :roll:

ps. when's the demo coming out agin?

i like how they changed the requirements for crysis. a while ago, they recommended a 1800 to run crysis fairly well and a core 2 duo with 1.5 g of ram, now its the same but a higher ghz for cpu and a 8800 instead of a 1800. thats a huge difference. people with 1800s can max any game out right now, but not crysis. they just basically made this game a whole lot harder to run, makes me mad. when they first released media on it a year ago or so, they said they had 1900's in crossfire, now they want you to have 8800's. i have a feeling this game won't be as fun. i don't plan on ever upgrading again. who else is mad about this? crytec is so happy they finally got it down to where you can play it on a 6800 on crysis on low, which was also min for far cry. but just to run it on high you need something that costs 600 bucks. this was my most hyped game too, until that beta.ncderek

Who gives a **** about Crysis. Call of Duty 4 is where the it's really going to be at.

Here is what I read from Gamepro as far as the requirements are concerned"

According to developer Crytek and EA, your gaming rig will need at least a 2.8 GHz single core processor, 1GB RAM, 256MB NVIDIA or ATI graphics chip, and 12GB of hard drive space to even think about playing the game -- something they say computers up to 2-3 years old already have. Recommended system requirements for the game are twice those numbers.-Gamepro-

And here is the link:

http://www.gamepro.com/news.cfm?article_id=139168&lid=VideoGameNews&pos=2

I don't really care if I can't play it on the highest settings, or if the game even has to be run on the lowest settings (not really likely). I have a 7900gs, 2.0 core duo, and I'll be playing it on a laptop. I don't really care, as most of you really shouldn't. If you're a gamer, yeah, you love graphics and stuff, but any real gamer will like the game more than it's shiny graphics. If the game is good, which is what I'm banking on, then I'm in. If not, I can pass and not feel too badly about it.

My only concern is what some other people said, about it not be properly optimized, and said that UT3 will be better optimized. I believe that, but I hope it's not true. I remember when UT2004 came out, you could turn off so many settings in there and still get a good game going, and there were so many settings out of the game you could change even further. That was one well optimized game, for offline and online. I hope that crysis like that, where there's lots of settings and even someone with the minimum specs can eventually get it so there's no slowdown. That's the real concern, even if you could play it with some of your killer computers, would you want to if your framerate is going to be 20-? Even if I COULD play it on medium, I would still probably turn the settings down some to get some more fps.

If you all remember Doom3 (totally unoptimized game), even on the lowest settings, the game looked pretty good compared to what people had seen before (except far cry) so I'm not expecting the lowest in crysis to look bad at all.

BUT that doesn't matter, I'm just crossing my fingers that the game is fun. That's pretty much it.

REMEMBER: patches can change the graphics around and fix bugs, but no patch can make the game more fun overall.

tyrant2004

But the problem is, this game is built around GRAPHICS. It's strength is the graphics. Without the graphics, it's just another shooter in another day.

The graphics made it possible to have huge levels, to have the immersive details. Without the grahpics.. it's.. just another shooter game.

And since the game is so demanding, i highly doubt the business logic behind the developer. Wouldn't they eliminate LOTS and LOTS of potential players?

Who ever said this game is for the niche market, please go to B school to learn about marketing to niche market. If a product appears to a niche market, the product must be sold at a higher price to compensate for the smaller target population.

Since I can't see this game being sold at a premium, and the game would cost more to develop for the "niche" market, the business logic is just screwed up.

Why don't you actually LISTEN to their marketing. They are saying out lout that their target audience is hardcore PC gamers with the best hardware. In case you didn't know, they're also into software licensing and a game like Crysis helps them license their software like nothing else.kyrieee

Lol... dude. It's the fact that I listened to their marketing that made me to believe they made the wrong move. LOL. Bush says Iraq has nuke, well...we know who's wrong.

Their marketing says we gonna do ____ (fill blank here), does it make it right? How many wrong business moves have you seen done by different companies? oh, I forgot, you believe, BUY into marketing, so of course you never seen the wrong moves.

Max in Crysis > max in any other game, don't you get that?

If your computer can max UT3 but not Crysis you're still using your hardware to the maximum. Just because there are graphics options your comp can't use doesn't mean the game is bad, get over it

If you could max both UT3 and Crysis then what's the point of Crysis? It's supposed to be the most cutting edge. Is it so hard to get? High in Crysis > high in other games

actually all of those who are attacking me need to get your facts straight. why would i buy an 8800? i never unstand you people and the hardware you guys buy. you buy 8800's and 4 core processors the day they come out just to say you have them, when you don't play games that even need them. you buy these $3000 rigs to run one game. thats why i bought a 360, i spent 300 so i could run a number of games that have huge communities. why in the world would i spend 800 dollars or even 200 dollars just so i could run crysis? because crysis is the only game coming out that would require an upgrade. most people with a mid range computer (1-2 years old) can still max out games with a good fps for games using the unreal 3 engine or any upcoming games. take a look at cod4, bioshock, unreal tourn 3, stalker, any clancy games...with that in mind why would i spend money on upgrading just for crysis? another game as demanding or even close as demanding as crysis won't be out until alan wake in late 2008. ill keep my rig, and play all the games coming out that i can easily max out. and enjoy my xbox with the huge online community. i am really looking forward to cod4, gears of war, and unreal tourn 3 on the pc, they should be great. but crysis will have an amazing single player, and yes amazing technology, but not worth an upgrade. i have much better things to spend my money on. thats why i complain. enjoy waisting your money on one game. ncderek

my advise, wiat and see the demo. if it looks better/equal than bioshock on your system, i hope you would not feel so angry then.

[QUOTE="weirjf"][QUOTE="kyrieee"]

I don't really care. This game is meant to push hardware and graphics and that is what it'll do. The environments are huge too.

If you can't run the game well you don't need to buy it. I don't think there's anything wrong in doing a game with high system requirements. There are many different nichés in which to make games. You shouldn't be upset just because you can't max it. It's not Crytec's fault, I'm sure they're doing everything humanly possible to get it to run as smooth as possible. Would it be better if they made the levels smaller and the graphics worse so that everyone could max it but it wouldn't look as good? I mean come on...

kyrieee

Making a game where 10% of gaming rigs can run well is a poor business decision.

Erm? Adding features that only the newest hardware can utilize can't be bad. If your rig is old then the game will still run as good as your rig will let it. Would it be better if 2 year old machines could max it but the game would have more loading times less visiual fidelity and smaller environments? That type of reasoning is silly

"Why don't you actually LISTEN to their marketing. They are saying out lout that their target audience is hardcore PC gamers with the best hardware. In case you didn't know, they're also into software licensing and a game like Crysis helps them license their software like nothing else."

OK Thats stupid, yeah like they are only targeting less than 15% of people who can play the game on max. Sorry but no thats why theres low,medium, and high settings so people can buy it and play it on different specs. If they did only target the top 15% they would only make a fraction of what they could make. Its fine maxing out hardware and pushing the limits, but its not smart leaving the other 85% of your profits behind. But creating a game that is not optimized as good as it should be after relase but they said it going to be , thats bad because that hurts your image. Me personally could care if low looks as or better than farcry on max.

actually all of those who are attacking me need to get your facts straight. why would i buy an 8800? i never unstand you people and the hardware you guys buy. you buy 8800's and 4 core processors the day they come out just to say you have them, when you don't play games that even need them. you buy these $3000 rigs to run one game. thats why i bought a 360, i spent 300 so i could run a number of games that have huge communities. why in the world would i spend 800 dollars or even 200 dollars just so i could run crysis? because crysis is the only game coming out that would require an upgrade. most people with a mid range computer (1-2 years old) can still max out games with a good fps for games using the unreal 3 engine or any upcoming games. take a look at cod4, bioshock, unreal tourn 3, stalker, any clancy games...with that in mind why would i spend money on upgrading just for crysis? another game as demanding or even close as demanding as crysis won't be out until alan wake in late 2008. ill keep my rig, and play all the games coming out that i can easily max out. and enjoy my xbox with the huge online community. i am really looking forward to cod4, gears of war, and unreal tourn 3 on the pc, they should be great. but crysis will have an amazing single player, and yes amazing technology, but not worth an upgrade. i have much better things to spend my money on. thats why i complain. enjoy waisting your money on one game. ncderek

Dude, you are the smart one.

I have; Core 2 Duo E6850, Asus P5K Deluxe, 2GB Mushkin DDR800 4-5-4-11 2x1GB dual channle, BFG 8800GTX OC

And the beta runs at 20-24 FPS in the outdoor enviorment on High settings and thats just sad.... i know its a beta but they are so near realese they are never gonna make this game run 40-60 FPS like it should on my kind of system.

I have; Core 2 Duo E6850, Asus P5K Deluxe, 2GB Mushkin DDR800 4-5-4-11 2x1GB dual channle, BFG 8800GTX OC

And the beta runs at 20-24 FPS in the outdoor enviorment on High settings and thats just sad.... i know its a beta but they are so near realese they are never gonna make this game run 40-60 FPS like it should on my kind of system.

ackr1TE

I run it on a E6420, 2x1gb and a 320mb 8800gts @ 35ish highest settings and 2xAA @ 16x10. I think its everyone is experiencing different frames. Cause I hae never had a slow down, besides when the starts to see through the wallsor turns into the texture mapping. But Im rare I think, cause I see more people with problems.

My sig is getting built today, cause the 2x2gb came in and my 2600xt for my moms new PC I am building her. Shes getting my parts I listed above, but she needed a GPU. She plays Sims2 and Sim City. She just got a 24" BenQ LCD too.

[QUOTE="ackr1TE"]

I have; Core 2 Duo E6850, Asus P5K Deluxe, 2GB Mushkin DDR800 4-5-4-11 2x1GB dual channle, BFG 8800GTX OC

And the beta runs at 20-24 FPS in the outdoor enviorment on High settings and thats just sad.... i know its a beta but they are so near realese they are never gonna make this game run 40-60 FPS like it should on my kind of system.

9mmSpliff

I run it on a E6420, 2x1gb and a 320mb 8800gts @ 35ish highest settings and 2xAA @ 16x10. I think its everyone is experiencing different frames. Cause I hae never had a slow down, besides when the starts to see through the wallsor turns into the texture mapping. But Im rare I think, cause I see more people with problems.

My sig is getting built today, cause the 2x2gb came in and my 2600xt for my moms new PC I am building her. Shes getting my parts I listed above, but she needed a GPU. She plays Sims2 and Sim City. She just got a 24" BenQ LCD too.

Ya your running SLI, so it should run better...

I got another 1gb comming 2x512 see if that helps any... doubt it though.

actually all of those who are attacking me need to get your facts straight. why would i buy an 8800? i never unstand you people and the hardware you guys buy. you buy 8800's and 4 core processors the day they come out just to say you have them, when you don't play games that even need them. you buy these $3000 rigs to run one game. thats why i bought a 360, i spent 300 so i could run a number of games that have huge communities. why in the world would i spend 800 dollars or even 200 dollars just so i could run crysis? because crysis is the only game coming out that would require an upgrade. most people with a mid range computer (1-2 years old) can still max out games with a good fps for games using the unreal 3 engine or any upcoming games. take a look at cod4, bioshock, unreal tourn 3, stalker, any clancy games...with that in mind why would i spend money on upgrading just for crysis? another game as demanding or even close as demanding as crysis won't be out until alan wake in late 2008. ill keep my rig, and play all the games coming out that i can easily max out. and enjoy my xbox with the huge online community. i am really looking forward to cod4, gears of war, and unreal tourn 3 on the pc, they should be great. but crysis will have an amazing single player, and yes amazing technology, but not worth an upgrade. i have much better things to spend my money on. thats why i complain. enjoy waisting your money on one game. ncderek

Write in paragraphs lol. Upgrading for 1 game? I'm sure basically everybody that is upgrading there rig for games is not only doing so for Crysis. There are many other games that will be fun to play and utilize a newly built PC. Saying a lot of people are upgrading their rigs to play Crysis is like saying somebody bought an xbox360 just to Halo 3 and nothing else. You say you bought an xbox to run a number of games, so did the people upgrading/building new rigs, also only an idiot would buy a $3000 PC

If you want quality graphics and great performance on your PC, you have to spend a little bit of cash. Also, lol "ill enjoy my xbox with the huge online community". Clearly PC has a much bigger and better community opposed to xbox live filled with racist and annoying 12 year olds.