my anger about crysis

Stop crying...

Low DX9

Medium DX9

High DX9

Very High DX10

NOTE: Click the image to see the full resolution. I downscaled them

LOW DX9

MEDIUM DX10

HIGH DX9

VERY HIGH DX10

Agree, moderation on these forums are about as Nazi as they come. Well I guess it can't be helped considering the amount of dimwitted posts flying around.ElectricNZ

Lol agreed, I was suspended for a day recently for a pretty harmless post.

[QUOTE="ncderek"]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. bignice12

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.

there are no games coming out within 12 months thatll be as demanding as crysis, with alan wake being that game. and after alan wake how long will it be for a game to come out that needs a computer like that of crysis? so 2 games, maybe a few in a year? by then, the same type of people who blow their money on hardware the day it comes out even though they can already max out whatever games are out and play, will buy whatever the best card is next year just to say they have it. ive seen so many people who just play css or bf2 or wow upgrade from a 1800 to a 8800 or a 8600 just to do it, they dont need it for any upcoming games, except crysis, and they dont need it for any current games they play. i think its retarded what some people do with their money, but thats just me. i am confident my 1900gt will be able to run all games coming out this year, and next year on high with a decent resolution and look and play just as good as any screenshots, except crysis. thats why im not upgrading for this crap. and if i did upgrade for crysis, like many people are, it would be just for that game, bc by the time something else demadning comes out, that card i bought for crysis probably wouldnt be good enough.

here's another example, how many people post in the hardware forum about their new quad core processor? most games don't even use dual cores. most games those people play, before getting that quad core, they could max out with there amd 3800 or e6300 or whatever they had just fine. so they go from 40-60 fps to 80 fps, why? i have no idea. was it worth a few hundred bucks to do that upgrade? not to me. they just upgrade to upgrade. why don't they wait until crysis comes out to ugprade, when that quad core will most likely be a lot cheaper? people bought the quad core a year ago for games like css or quake or fear or whatever they play for 500 bucks, when now they can actually get something out of it with crysis and its cheap as hell.

i think you're all still forgetting that graphics, gameplay and communities aside, Crysis will ultimately become one of the many new benchmarks, something I believe Crytek have been aiming at from the get-go.Thats another reason why they jam pack it full of high end and nearly un-usable features. I said it early on in this thread, Crysis is in Crytek's eyes a landmark achievement and therefore CryEngine 2 will become their flagship. they did it with FarCry and they plan on doing it again.

their marketing hype is quite smart actually, and they are marketing/targetting a very broad audience. as someone said earlier, Crysis can scale down quality/settings to suit a lot of gamers. Gamers happy to settle with their 2-yr-old rigs and play the game at their hardware's max, for the main aspect of good gameplay. and guaranteed there are a LOT of you out there more than happy to do that.

i LOL in the face of those 2-yr-old system owners who are actually depressed or feel neglected that their systems wont max Crysis, its common sense that they wont. i cant believe ppl are still getting so up tight about it all. read my earlier post, along with the many others on this thread identifying and outlying the obvious, Crysis is a high-end gaming system, quite possibly the new benchmark for gamers, for all its aspects, but still retains the core value of being an FPS game for the fans. The graphics arnt going to affect the game, sure you get more bells and whistles with top end hardware, but no ****, you get what you pay for. they recommend an 8800 series card why? coz its the lead-in card that supports DX10 at a playable framerate and performance level. Reccommended settings are usually an indication of the games settings being set to high/very high, very high being only achievable in DX10 mode. it would be silly to have on the box "recommended: X1x00 series ATI or nvidia 7x00 series card. OH, by the way, you still cant run in DX10 mode though and turn on very high. Please come and complain in the forums to discover these requirements."

seriosuly guys, this is getting so old! i know its good to have these discussion threads, gives ppl a chance to interact, b*tch it out and find some answers, but at least put a little logic and reasoning into your responses. Crytek havnt ****ed anything up, they have done it all right and i applaud what they have achieved. i think its time we all see Crysis for what it is, not what WE want it to be. end of the day you dont like it? dont bloody buy it. thats why they are releasing a demo Oct 26. BETA's are only a friggin BUG test, not a performance anaylsis. or settle for the fact that eye candy off, the game will hopefully be one of the most memorable FPS experiences for you, in terms of solid gameplay

A new game that makes use of new hardware? UNHEARD OF!....... >.>

[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.

Agreed!

ok guys, i wouldnt worry too much, i played the supposedly UNOPTIMISED BETA with everything low except for shader at medium and post processing on high at 1024x768 on my 3.0 GHZ PENTIUM 4, 1 GB DDR PC3200 RAM, AND 7900GT. i thought even on mostly low tha game looked great, about the same as farcy but with the cool motion blur and awsome explosions. if my **** PC can do that then...yeaah im sure it'll be fine

Stop crying...

Low DX9

Medium DX9

High DX9

Very High DX10

NOTE: Click the image to see the full resolution. I downscaled them

LOW DX9

MEDIUM DX10

HIGH DX9

VERY HIGH DX10

rimnet00

I don't know, I'd love to playthe very high DX10 it looks like photo. On first look, first impression I noticed a definateleap in quality from the high dx 9 to very high dx 10

Question

Did people whine about FEAR(like this) when it was about to come out back in 2005?

Well, I recently put together a PC which exceeds the new recommended specs, but frankly I couldn't care less about Crysis. All this damned hype about how great it looks and blabla, well whoopy faqqing doo. Take Bioshock, a game hyped into the furthest reaches of known space. It's System Shock 2, but with better graphics. And that game right there, with not the slighest bit of originality, is one of THE hottest games right now?

It's funny how people's reaction at first is always about graphics. When I hear the jock dudes talking about GTA, I can't help but say that GTA2 multiplayer still owns their dumb Vice City asses without breaking a sweat. It's just endlessly more fun. And yes they always have to make some sort of remark about the graphics.

Long rant in short: I'll be really surprised if Crysis actually turns out to be a geniunely great game, and that's coming from someone who isn't surprised very easily.

DX10 looks amazing. I hope its more optimized than other games. I think Crytek said there would be a "Ultra High" Setting also so the recommended might be for that =/

I wish you didn't have to go very high to use DX10. They should have lower settings for DX10 so you can still see the effects of DX10 texture and w/not.

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

Cry me a river run back to your consolesI am happy a dev has the balls to actually make software for my rig instead of old dustbunny pc's from 2004. The 8800gtx is 1 year old already and my 2900xt crossfire rig has been sleeping thru games now finally I get to use it and here you are crying Bbuuttt my pc is too old :lol:

Did you think your pc would run games on max forever??

Did you miss crytek saying they were pushing graphics,physics,ai to unprecedented levels ??

Guys like you make me sick and why devs are making poor use of modern hardware cause guys like you think your pc is immortal. Step up boy and stop crying you should have enough money saved up to upgrade, if you can't afford a new video card just stop gaming!!!

Stop crying...

Low DX9

Medium DX9

High DX9

Very High DX10

NOTE: Click the image to see the full resolution. I downscaled them

LOW DX9

MEDIUM DX10

HIGH DX9

VERY HIGH DX10

rimnet00

Heh, i actually like the medium settings a lot more then the very high.

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

:roll:

1) Bioshock looks and is technically inferior to Crysis in EVERY SINGLE aspect, its a bloody corridor shooter, where the DX10 effects barely change anything.

2) Xbox ? One evil to another ...

3) The BETA is an older build, the latest 1 UP Preview has stated it runs perfectly smooth ... it doesnt take a genius to tell that the Crysis beta wouldnt stay that way.

But yea whaetver, having a tantrum over one game that you cannot "max" even though on medium its still looks amazing, sounds to me like your just dribbling out your new 360 hype .. but you will be back.

This game is likely just gonna be a typical run-and-gun FPS with shiney visuals and physics,and its ABSOLUTE BS that you'll need a 8800GTS 640MB just to run this game any decently,i'm not a grafx whore or anything like that,sure i do like good visuals in my games,but they're useless without decent gameplay,i'll likely try out the demo,but if this is a typical run-and-gun shooter and it gets GOTY,i'll leave GS for good...Indestructible2

How is it a typical "run and gun" shooter, funny enough I bet your hyping some trash like Call of Duty 4 liek the rst of this PC baord is atm ... my god I jsut remember why I stay out of the PC section ... your all whiners , and genuinley dont even know much about the games your talking about :S

[QUOTE="Indestructible2"]This game is likely just gonna be a typical run-and-gun FPS with shiney visuals and physics,and its ABSOLUTE BS that you'll need a 8800GTS 640MB just to run this game any decently,i'm not a grafx whore or anything like that,sure i do like good visuals in my games,but they're useless without decent gameplay,i'll likely try out the demo,but if this is a typical run-and-gun shooter and it gets GOTY,i'll leave GS for good...Meu2k7

How is it a typical "run and gun" shooter, funny enough I bet your hyping some trash like Call of Duty 4 liek the rst of this PC baord is atm ... my god I jsut remember why I stay out of the PC section ... your all whiners , and genuinley dont even know much about the games your talking about :S

its funny how i post information to set up a good debate and some of you can just name call in your defence. you don't see me saying " you are ignorant" or "cry about it" or "you are an idiot" for wanting to get crysis or upgrading. but you guys don't even know what to say so you just call names. wow, that'll get you far in life.

and those screenshots someone posted, cool - med settings on crysis looks crappier than far cry on high.

and ill get this game, hopefully itll run a lot better, ill also be overclocking for it. maybe i can max it with no AA and get 30 fps

Here is my beef with crysis I am running the beta at medium settings 1280X1024 I get 20FPS at he MOST avg is 10-15

I got a 7900GS(OC'd the hell out of it)

Gig for ram

X3800+X2

Now I know its not the best system in the world but with a few mods far cry(2004) ends up looking better on my system than crysis (laggy and jaggy at the same time on Medium!)

Now I run games like Bioshock fine maxed out 1280X1024 30+ FPS

And im really looking forward to UT3 seens like Epic dident forget about those who are have 7600GT's or hell even 6800's(looking at the unreal system req looks like I will run it good :D)

I just feel like the crysis guys are like " **** they cant max out our game unless they got a 8800 or a X1900xt.....lets change the system req...)
And what about my friend who bought a 8600 thinking he was gonna blaze trough crysis ...running at low/med

Gekko101

1) You are comparing a Beta game with one retail game with patches and another with extensive mods created to make it look and run better.

2) Bioshock is an enclosed environment while Crysis is not.

[QUOTE="Meu2k7"]

[QUOTE="Indestructible2"]This game is likely just gonna be a typical run-and-gun FPS with shiney visuals and physics,and its ABSOLUTE BS that you'll need a 8800GTS 640MB just to run this game any decently,i'm not a grafx whore or anything like that,sure i do like good visuals in my games,but they're useless without decent gameplay,i'll likely try out the demo,but if this is a typical run-and-gun shooter and it gets GOTY,i'll leave GS for good...Indestructible2

How is it a typical "run and gun" shooter, funny enough I bet your hyping some trash like Call of Duty 4 liek the rst of this PC baord is atm ... my god I jsut remember why I stay out of the PC section ... your all whiners , and genuinley dont even know much about the games your talking about :S

Whoa I havea Crysis avatar and defended the game ... I must be loving Crysis :roll: ... I cant even play the beta at a steady framerate with my Q6600/8800 640 and 3 Gig Ram, yet im using common sense on the performance issue unlike the legion of whiners that is the PC forum about every single game let alone Crysis.

Ignorant... yea right.

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

I hate you ncderek. Go back to playing Halo on your console, you suck big time.

[QUOTE="Indestructible2"][QUOTE="Meu2k7"]

[QUOTE="Indestructible2"]This game is likely just gonna be a typical run-and-gun FPS with shiney visuals and physics,and its ABSOLUTE BS that you'll need a 8800GTS 640MB just to run this game any decently,i'm not a grafx whore or anything like that,sure i do like good visuals in my games,but they're useless without decent gameplay,i'll likely try out the demo,but if this is a typical run-and-gun shooter and it gets GOTY,i'll leave GS for good...Meu2k7

How is it a typical "run and gun" shooter, funny enough I bet your hyping some trash like Call of Duty 4 liek the rst of this PC baord is atm ... my god I jsut remember why I stay out of the PC section ... your all whiners , and genuinley dont even know much about the games your talking about :S

Whoa I havea Crysis avatar and defended the game ... I must be loving Crysis :roll: ... I cant even play the beta at a steady framerate with my Q6600/8800 640 and 3 Gig Ram, yet im using common sense on the performance issue unlike the legion of whiners that is the PC forum about every single game let alone Crysis.

Ignorant... yea right.

I ain't angry on the makers of crytec but I have to say......... starting to get scared :shock:

because I have a e6600 2 gb ramm a 8800gtx half a year now or so.

but with games like crysis and even if I look at the bench in world in conflict.....I am starting to think that my pc sucks :S

I see my 8800gtx performing on high but it's struggling to get nice frame-rates.

I am afraid this dx 10 gen will end the same way the geforce 5 series did with dx 9

also with recommended specs I am just above it so how long before I will go under ?

The hardware is changing faster and faster ......if you want to play games in full glory it's almost impossible to keep up with upgrading.

I hope this system will last me 2 years but I think it won't even my e6600 is just above remanded

plus it's hard to trust the system requirements with all these diferent cpu's you have singel cores pentium d amd x2 core duo quad core........ (in the good old days you only had to check the mhz lol)

its funny how i post information to set up a good debate and some of you can just name call in your defence. you don't see me saying " you are ignorant" or "cry about it" or "you are an idiot" for wanting to get crysis or upgrading. but you guys don't even know what to say so you just call names. wow, that'll get you far in life.

and those screenshots someone posted, cool - med settings on crysis looks crappier than far cry on high.

and ill get this game, hopefully itll run a lot better, ill also be overclocking for it. maybe i can max it with no AA and get 30 fps

ncderek

First of all, they don't. Secondly, lost of people have given articulated responses to your original post but you ignore them. It doesn't look worse than Far Cry on high, and the environments are destructible, there are tons of more effects, the AI is one of a kind. You're just looking to bash the game because you can't run it on high which is stupid. YOU DON'T GET THAT IT'S YOUR HARDWARE THAT'S THE PROBLEM. They've developed TONS of technology and to run all that PLUS the best graphics in the world takes a damn good comp, too bad for you. It's not their faul that they are doing cutting edge stuff and you can't run it because it's cutting edge. Even if you have to scale down the graphics to a level lower than UT3 you still use your comp to the max because THERE'S SO MUCH MORE THECH THAN THE RENDERER.

to the post above mine:

I don't know about WiC, but they add as much eye candy as they can and even if you can't use the highest settings on the highest resolution then it'll still probably look better than a game of an older generation. It's hard for devs to know exactly which level of graphics to shoot for when they're making a game that won't be done for 3 years. It's not a rule that you can run everything maxed out because maybe they add stuff that you just CAN'T. That doesn't make the lower settings any worse!

What if they added realtime raytracing (although parallax mapping is :P) and no comp could handle it, then if you had to put it on medium you shouldn't go "omg sux" just because it's on medium. Medium is just a word, people are getting worked up over nothing.

its funny how i post information to set up a good debate and some of you can just name call in your defence. you don't see me saying " you are ignorant" or "cry about it" or "you are an idiot" for wanting to get crysis or upgrading. but you guys don't even know what to say so you just call names. wow, that'll get you far in life.

and those screenshots someone posted, cool - med settings on crysis looks crappier than far cry on high.

and ill get this game, hopefully itll run a lot better, ill also be overclocking for it. maybe i can max it with no AA and get 30 fps

ncderek

sweet lets compare 2 games with one screenshot and call it a valid conclusion

Your complaints are what's pathetic, just think a second before typing, they did not make game harder to run for people with 7700 or whatever, they just made the graphics better for people with better hardware. You will still get the same quality of the game on your **** card the only difference is that now it will say "medium graphics" instead of "high graphics" in the option menu. What you want to be edge of the line? Well get a grip man if they don't push that edge EA has won, we would be stuck on pong graphics if everyone thought like you.

I repeat they did not just up the hardware requirements for fun, they actually made such changes to the game that their old high graphic is now medium and their old medium is now low.. You will still be able to play on the old high only now you can't brag about it to your friends.

Why are people complaining about this? If you can't afford the new hardware then wait a few years, you really don't have to buy the game the day it comes out. Do like me, wait 2 years, buy the card needed for less than 100 bucks and buy the game off ebay for 5 bucks, saves you a gripload of scrilla.

Foolish spoiled brats!

You guys have not realized by now PC gaming is an expensive hobby? Are the devs suppose to just hold back what they can do just so you can feel good about your system by saying you can max out (insert 2006 release game here)? Crysis at the settings you need to be at should still look just fine compared to the maxed out games you are playing now. If you need to max Crysis out, then you need to fork up some cash for better hardware, period.

You should have been around in the 90's when you had to upgrade once a year at least just to keep up. Whe a 4mb (yes mb as in megabyte) ram upgrade put you back $300 and you needed to use a bootdisk just tpo free up enough resident memory to run a DOS game. So forgive me if I don't feel sorry for you that you can only run Crysis at medium detail, if your PC was not up to it in the old days it would just not run.

Final step in a making games is optimization. Wait for the demo before you let loose your anger.

You complain about name calling and then tell people to go shoot themselves?

First of all, why don't you wait until you have the game and see how well you run it until you start throwing words around. Secondly, yes you might be able to run UT3 with better graphics but HOW CAN YOU COMPARE a game like UT3 with a game that does a fully interactive island with really advanced AI, fully interactive jungles and 16 km view distance. It's ridiculous, of course you can make UT3 look better with given specs. Render one box and you can make it look better than if you rendered two boxes.

I still don't understand how you can be mad about not being able to max Crysis but being able to max other games. IT'S BECAUSE CRYSIS HAS MORE FEATURES THAN THOSE OTHER GAMES. Again, wait for the game to be released.

About your questions, nobody can answer them. You're not going to upgrade anyway so seriously, just wait and see, the game is 1 month away and the demo even less

Games like Crysis are a major influence on computer technology. The hardware demands may seem steep for maximum settings but they really are not much to ask for if you have a decent gaming rig. Those requirements will not be very significant a year or so from now and we will see many games following its footsteps as the technology used in Crysis gets out in the wild. I dont get why people are still building PCs with 7 series cards or older ATI cards. If you want to be a serious PC gamer you need to be prepared to adapt your system, if you cant handle it buy an XBOX. I consider PC gaming higher brow, if you can afford it, building a high end rig feels very rewarding and its an experience you just cant get on a consol.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 2.4Ghz 4mb L2 Cache 1066 FSB

6gb DDR2 800 Corsair Dominator Ram

EVGA 8800 GTS 640mb Superclocked

ncderek does have a valid point when it comes to one thing: if crysis on low-medium settings looks and plays worse than a 2 year old game that he could max out on his computer, then it is indeed the optimization that is in part at fault here.

However, ncderek, you must also realize that one reason why you may not be able to run crysis as well as those games is probably because crysis is introducing game mechanics that are cpu and/or gpu intensive, that the games from 2 years ago did not have.

ncderek does have a valid point when it comes to one thing: if crysis on low-medium settings looks and plays worse than a 2 year old game that he could max out on his computer, then it is indeed the optimization that is in part at fault here.

However, ncderek, you must also realize that one reason why you may not be able to run crysis as well as those games is probably because crysis is introducing game mechanics that are cpu and/or gpu intensive, that the games from 2 years ago did not have.

spierdalaj666

Look at my thread on page 6 with the screen shots at different settings. Medium looks amazing, and does not "look like a 2 year old game". It looks sick.

i think the med settings screen looks bad...and im not just saying that, i am one to look deep and appreciate graphics, it doesnt look that good, i mean its detailed, and a large view distance, but it doesn't look like a next gen game, and no where close to "crysis."

what can someone tell me about the advanced AI i've read a few people in here bragging about? is there a link or would someone care to summarize what is so impressive about it?

also, i know my previous questions about how the game will run better than the beta is hard to tell and i should wait, but what is that usually like? what kind of change?

and i know this is also hard to tell since it's not out yet, but when overclocking a cpu by about .6 ghz, and overclocking a gpu by about 10-15%, how much fps can i expect on average? maybe 10-15 or more?

you know what, I wrote another long reply but I just deleted it

your comments and questions that you keep repeating are just out of this world

ok guys, im not taking sides here. obviously ncderek wanted to voice an opinon, one which seems to disagree with others. and while i too disagree with some of the points he is trying to make, this is beginning to turn into an un-fair slug match. its not fair to him either, who seems genuinely concerned and interested in what will be going to happen in the next month.

ncderek-

i can understand that you study those screenshots carefully and decide they dont look really impressive, but let us remember screenshots are just that, a still shot usually dumbed down. those are JPEGS. most screens are .TGA files 5mb + in size. so quality is hard to judge.

2 -BETA software is not final stage or even demonstration software.It is an un-optimised testing platform with they key focus of allowing gamers and devs to test the program and find its faults/flaws, bugs. while you seem to decide that performance and quality is its main flaw, please remember that its a TEST not a DEMO, no optimisations have been implemented, BETAs therefore drain on your resources a lot more than final release programming would do. you all remember the first Lost Planet benchmark that was released? they specifically said at the beginning, this is only a test and should not be used to judge real world performance. they were right, the actual game performed WAY better, given it took a few driver updates and patches.BETAs are not synthetic benchmarks fair enough, but they are very close to it in terms of programming and operation.

3 - overclocking your CPU from 1.8ghz to 2.4ghz will help yes, since it is rumoured that Crysis will take advantages from multi-core and multi-threading.with the proposed advanced AI and next-gen physics, gamers willfind their CPU's will take quite a hit so the more power the better.

4 - some things that may help you increase performance, i cant be bothered going back to page 1 so i dont remember what you said, but if u dont have 2GB of ram i highly suggest you get 2GB.

we all understand your concern and some people have taken your opinions quite personally, and the way you were apporached about it was wrong in some cases, but you must understand that until even a demo is released, we cannot base any judgment or performance on simple screenshots and BETA software. its not what its out there for. they have now released final system requirements 2 weeks before the demo is even being released to prepare people for the times ahead. as someone said early also, just coz you have to set it to medium does not mean your experience will be affected. games dont loser their 'next-gen' trademark stature just from dumbing down the settings. please wait until October 26 when the demo is out, as the demo will be an actual piece of the real thing, and you can judge the game then. until then just be patient and accept what you have for what it is, sampling and test data, nothing more.

thank you gtarmanrob for your mature post. yes, i may have attempted to voice my opinion in the wrong way. it was a bit "whiny", my appologies, it's a forum sometimes words are read in the wrong way. my attempt was basically i have really been looking forward to this game, and i spent weeks searching out a budget pc, to get a pc that would be the cheapest possible computer that i could run crysis on fairly maxed out, no AA, in dx 9 of course. i consulted with this on many forums and with friends who did the same. so maybe i was a little off, or maybe i am where i need to be and the final release will run much better. the first screens and vids of this game were amazing and ran on 2x1900's a little over a year ago, i was hoping to get close to that, with a single card, after reading that by having 2 gpu's really doesnt increase performance by 200% but more like 15%.

after people critisized me, i felt the need to critisize back, critisizing your hobbies in what i think is over spending on needless parts just to own them when in reality your games don't even need them or won't for months to come when that part could be half the price. i think i am right on this, but insulting one's hobby is personal, which is why i got angered posts back.

hopefully you guys can be appologetic, you don't have to reply, but just realize my intentions, to develop a discussion in how demanding this game is. i see this game is a piece of art, something much more powerful than any game out and any game yet to come for years, which is why to me it is not worth the upgrade, but for some people, it is worth the upgrade, even if it is the only game to use that new hardware, or if it is the first of many. to me, it is not. to many, it is. i'll accept that.

there were several threads, maybe dozens, from people with high end rigs with dx10 cards and dual cores who had horrible performance from crysis, and were just as angry as me. my thread just so happened to attract a lot of non-angered people.

now hopefully my strategy pays off and i am happy with the game. and hopefully you all learn to deal with your temper on an online forum, bc let's face it, it just makes you look really weak when you talk crap on a forum over a video game opinion.

are there any more screens of crysis in different settings? such as comparing it in low, med, and high for dx 9? i'd like to see more than 1 screen shot, bc i still thihnk low and med look aweful. also, dx9 high looks nothing like it did on their e3 demo last year when using 2x1900's, before dx10 was out, which is what i based my hype on and my build on, or did they have some way of using an upgraded dx9 that would resemble what dx10 would show?

thank you gtarmanrob for your mature post. yes, i may have attempted to voice my opinion in the wrong way. it was a bit "whiny", my appologies, it's a forum sometimes words are read in the wrong way. my attempt was basically i have really been looking forward to this game, and i spent weeks searching out a budget pc, to get a pc that would be the cheapest possible computer that i could run crysis on fairly maxed out, no AA, in dx 9 of course. i consulted with this on many forums and with friends who did the same. so maybe i was a little off, or maybe i am where i need to be and the final release will run much better. the first screens and vids of this game were amazing and ran on 2x1900's a little over a year ago, i was hoping to get close to that, with a single card, after reading that by having 2 gpu's really doesnt increase performance by 200% but more like 15%.

after people critisized me, i felt the need to critisize back, critisizing your hobbies in what i think is over spending on needless parts just to own them when in reality your games don't even need them or won't for months to come when that part could be half the price. i think i am right on this, but insulting one's hobby is personal, which is why i got angered posts back.

hopefully you guys can be appologetic, you don't have to reply, but just realize my intentions, to develop a discussion in how demanding this game is. i see this game is a piece of art, something much more powerful than any game out and any game yet to come for years, which is why to me it is not worth the upgrade, but for some people, it is worth the upgrade, even if it is the only game to use that new hardware, or if it is the first of many. to me, it is not. to many, it is. i'll accept that.

there were several threads, maybe dozens, from people with high end rigs with dx10 cards and dual cores who had horrible performance from crysis, and were just as angry as me. my thread just so happened to attract a lot of non-angered people.

now hopefully my strategy pays off and i am happy with the game. and hopefully you all learn to deal with your temper on an online forum, bc let's face it, it just makes you look really weak when you talk crap on a forum over a video game opinion.

are there any more screens of crysis in different settings? such as comparing it in low, med, and high for dx 9? i'd like to see more than 1 screen shot, bc i still thihnk low and med look aweful. also, dx9 high looks nothing like it did on their e3 demo last year when using 2x1900's, before dx10 was out, which is what i based my hype on and my build on, or did they have some way of using an upgraded dx9 that would resemble what dx10 would show?

ncderek

So you have never even played Crysis?

If your computer can't run it and you can't afford it, then why complain about it, just relax and play other games, Crysis is hyped, hyped, hyped, so who even knows how GREAT of a game it might be, for all we know it may just flop (i doubt it'll flop but maybe it won't get top score). I can't afford Nikes but I ain't complaining about it. I can't afford a HD big screen flat screen TV but I ain't complaining, I live in a shack and not a mansion, but I ain't complaining.

Basically if you spent money buying a computer for a game that now you're upset cause it won't work on it, then you've got the wrong idea for your hobby. Wait for the game to come out, because games are optimized and updated till the last moment before it goes gold, so for all we know before it comes out it might work on a 486 or it might only work on the highest possible CPU and graphics card with at least 2 GB of RAM. Wait till the game comes out, don't complain, especially since you can't play the game now. Enjoy what you can enjoy, you seem to have a much better computer than i do, but I still get a blast out of what I can play. Hobbies doesn't mean that you have to have top notch, hobbies mean you understand the technology enough to make smart decisions about it based on your knowledge. I know about cars so much that I would never buy a new car, and would rather get a used one. That's a smart decision based on my hobby's knowledge. Buying and spending money on new hardware for something that hasn't been completely optimized yet, is not a smart decision for someone who claims that computers is their hobby. So instead of complaining about being let down by whatever specs you found, you should have started reading up how to intelligently upgrade your computer. It's like those people that went out and bought a physics card, why would you do that when most games aren't even utilizing that card yet. Wait it out for a few years let the developers do their thing and thendo some research to see if it's worthwhile. Same with buying a new Windows, wait a year at least to let them get the bugs out of the system. I'm sorry if you are too impatient to wait for things or to gain knowledge rather than spending money on something that could bea waste, but complaining about having the money to spend on such a thing and then being unhappy with your purchase sounds like a yuppy to me. I have wet dreams about having a computer like yours so enjoy what you got, don't complain about what you still don't got.

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

No offence, but stop beign an idiot... okay?

[QUOTE="ncderek"]...Kokorin

No offence, but stop beign an idiot... okay?

I remember this thread... good times... I feel a little nostalgic now