Why is no one playing crysis?

[QUOTE="Realmjumper"]I'm still playing it. Not everyone has a system capable of handling Crysis, that's why ;)blackace007

is that a bad thing, multiplayer sucks if you dont have anyone to play with.

And aren't all computers bought in the last two years suspose to be able to run it so if they can run CoD4 they can run crysis at least on low.

About the system thing. The test showed that I could not run the game. I have a agp setup and rub the game on medium with now problems. I have nice components in my system and have prooven alot of ppl wrong about agp setups. So to the guys running "low end systems" give it a go. I waiting for 2 gig unbuffered low latency memory and i'll run it in high.

By the By, the game really, I mean REALLY rocks, and its my game of the year.

[QUOTE="Realmjumper"]I'm still playing it. Not everyone has a system capable of handling Crysis, that's why ;)blackace007

is that a bad thing, multiplayer sucks if you dont have anyone to play with.

And aren't all computers bought in the last two years suspose to be able to run it so if they can run CoD4 they can run crysis at least on low.

Why would anyone want to play a shooter game on low when they can play another one that's just as good (or bad) on medium or high?

err...can you please remove that babality sig of yours......it's sick.... :?Jinroh_basic

ya, the baby walks off in the whole video. And dont censor! freedom of expression man!

When CTCis modded in, then maybe. Been playing singleplayer im at the part where airstrikes start happening, and I need to take out AA's. Went from an average of 20-25fps to 3-5fps in that level. Multiplayer is not fun when its sluggish because of the game. From what I hear not even a quad core SLI 8800 ultra is smooth in Crysis.

The nano suit for Multiplayer sounds good in theory, but in actual gameplay it tends to get alittle lame, Ive not seen this much camping in a online game.

But yea, no one is gonna play a sluggish Multiplayer Game. Singleplayer is fine to chug at times, but for multi,. It needs to be butter smooth to be worth investing time in. Hope Ive shed some light on your question.

CoD 4 is focused on providing a MP experience (which is stupid IMO, not everyone likes MP) and Crysis is focusing on providing a SP experience. I think the main reason people aren't playing Crysis online is because of the system requirements, not everyone has a beast of a machine to run the game, let alone online.

Thing is, a couple years from know, people will still be talking about Crysis. When you say: "what about Call of Duty 4?" people will respond: "Call of Duty 5 or 6 is better." The online portion of CoD4 is not going to last very long, only until the next big title comes out... which won't be far off, doesn't UT3 come out in a couple weeks?foxhound_fox

If you think CoD4 multiplayer is gonna die because of UT3, or some other game coming out next year you are pretty wrong. There's TONS of servers up for CoD2 and even CoD:UO.

gamespy.com/stats

Check out even more old games:

CS 1.6:

32574 servers, 104637 players

CSS:

26602 servers, 74697 players

BF2:

4527 servers, 21691 players

Call of Duty 1:

2785 servers, 6627 players

Call of Duty 2:

643 servers, 6624 players

UT04:

1825 servers, 5689 players

Quake 3:

1790 servers, 3998 players

Crysis:

498 servers, 1648 players

I bought Crysis last Friday, but it's still sitting there in the wrapping. CoD4's multiplayer is absolutely fantastic and addicting.

Honestly, I'm not sure when I'm going to be able to put it down and play Crysis, simply too enjoyable!

Ive read that CoD4 has its issues to, with multiplayer. In the form of large servers running the small maps. Which is what sucked about CoD2, it turns into nade spam heaven. "Hey man, lets run 16vs16 on a 8vs8 map, cheers"

Nobody's palying it because we are all busy playing UT3.....oh wait.....nobody is playing that either.....

Just remember, the industry is supersaturated with shooters right now. It just happened that CoD4 came out as one of the first, and ran well on most systems and was widely recognizeable as a game in itself. Crysis needs a nuclear station to run on its max, but most people dont understand that it looks and PLAYS great even on lower spec computers

[QUOTE="blackace007"]

[QUOTE="Realmjumper"]I'm still playing it. Not everyone has a system capable of handling Crysis, that's why ;)Roguetrp

is that a bad thing, multiplayer sucks if you dont have anyone to play with.

And aren't all computers bought in the last two years suspose to be able to run it so if they can run CoD4 they can run crysis at least on low.

About the system thing. The test showed that I could not run the game. I have a agp setup and rub the game on medium with now problems. I have nice components in my system and have prooven alot of ppl wrong about agp setups. So to the guys running "low end systems" give it a go. I waiting for 2 gig unbuffered low latency memory and i'll run it in high.

By the By, the game really, I mean REALLY rocks, and its my game of the year.

I'll wait until I have a better rig. I don't need to play it now. But when I do play it, I want it to be at it's best.

people playing css and wow and now starting playing cod4 i tried crysis mp for 10min that was it, nothing special. sm0ke311

Whats so special about cod4 its seems like another run and gun shooter, with weapon unlocks and stats whores.

The single player is awesome, but multi-player is real boring. Overall Crysis deserved at-least an 8.5 - 9.0.Gnr_Helsing

why does every game has to have a good mp to be great. crysis sp alone makes it good for a 9.5

[QUOTE="Realmjumper"]I'm still playing it. Not everyone has a system capable of handling Crysis, that's why ;)blackace007

is that a bad thing, multiplayer sucks if you dont have anyone to play with.

And aren't all computers bought in the last two years suspose to be able to run it so if they can run CoD4 they can run crysis at least on low.

yeah, because everyone likes playing games on low settings....:roll:

Like other people have said, CoD 4 runs A LOT better on a wider range of computers then Crysis. Now if Crysis came out 6 months from now, was a lot more optimized, and most likely people would have slightly better hardware then it would be different.

Bottom line is Crysis is poorly optimized and the amount of people playing online is just one sign of it.

I can play Crysis @ 1280x1024 everything on high and I got 29FPS average with it dipping into the low teens waaay more often then I'd like.

Turn the graphics down and shut up you say? The game looks crappy on anything lower then high settings IMO. When I can play the game nearly maxed out with what I have they will have my business. Until then I hope they get to work and optimize the game better. Crysis is beautiful game I want to enjoy as much of it as I can without spending stupid amounts of money on.

Now look at CoD 4, I can max it out 1920x1280 (AA and AF) and never get any slows downs which is very important to me. If it slows down at all it ruins the game for me.

Out of all the games released this year i haven't had to upgrade from my 7900GS to be able to play them all on max settings with 1280x1024 resolution. Crysis is the only game that will force me to upgrade so i can play it on high settings at a decent resolution. However i just dont think Crysis is good enough to make me want to spend the price of purchase and £300+ on an 8800 series card purely for it alone. Especially at this time of year when money is usually tight as your spending on gifts for others aswell as buying games for yourself.

Other than Crysis's poor optimisation i think its only other drawback is the timing of its release, it couldn't of come at a worse time of year for people in terms of finance. Over the past few months people will already have spent lots on the many releases we've had, then there is christmas shopping and the costs of the festive season. Really after all that who has cash left over to pay for the game and a £300+ 8800 series card????

Had this game been released in the summer of 2007 i think it would have a lot more people buying and playing it as this years summer wasn't too great for game releases. I would have gladly bought Crysis had it been released then as i was bored out of my skull and had money to spare, although i have money to spare now come to think of it.

its simple.

mostof the people that bought crysis only got it becuase of its graphics and its supposidly awesome singleplayer. everyone knew already that its multiplayer sucks. if you got crysis specificly for mp you made a big mistake.

on the other people already knew how amazing the previous cod games where and knew cod4 wouldn't fail in being one of the best fps games. the mp just dominates any other fps game out.

on the other people already knew how amazing the previous cod games where and knew cod4 wouldn't fail in being one of the best fps games. the mp just dominates any other fps game out.

Ohmek

I don't understand whats so amazing about cod 4 MP. I haven't played it yet but judgeing from its review and game play videos it doesn't seem any different from BF2 or CS.

When you release a game that can bring even an 8800 card to it's knees, don't be surprised when there aren't too many people playing. But it's not even like the game needs to have such extreme system requirements. It looks great no doubt, but I get the impression it's just very poorly optimized. There are other games that look nearly as good that don't run so poorly. It also doesn't seem to scale well. It looks like trash at anything below high settings. From a gameplay standpoint I have to say that I'm not blown away by it so far. It really just seems like FarCry all over again with improved visuals. The nano-suit is almost worthless, as none of the powers last long enough to be of much use. It should make you feel like a superhero, but instead it's almost more of annoyance to use.

When you release a game that can bring even an 8800 card to it's knees, don't be surprised when there aren't too many people playing. But it's not even like the game needs to have such extreme system requirements. It looks great no doubt, but I get the impression it's just very poorly optimized. There are other games that look nearly as good that don't run so poorly.cmdrmonkey

Like what? No game comes even remotely close. And do you people even know what "optimization" means? Crysis is VERY well optimized, it's just so technologically advanced that it's taxing for current hardware. That has absolutely NOTHING to do with optimization. You want a game that's poorly optimized, look at Neverwinter Nights 2, a game that requires demanding hardware for no particularly good reason.

Out of all the games released this year i haven't had to upgrade from my 7900GS to be able to play them all on max settings with 1280x1024 resolution. Crysis is the only game that will force me to upgrade so i can play it on high settings at a decent resolution. However i just dont think Crysis is good enough to make me want to spend the price of purchase and £300+ on an 8800 series card purely for it alone. Especially at this time of year when money is usually tight as your spending on gifts for others aswell as buying games for yourself.

Other than Crysis's poor optimisation i think its only other drawback is the timing of its release, it couldn't of come at a worse time of year for people in terms of finance. Over the past few months people will already have spent lots on the many releases we've had, then there is christmas shopping and the costs of the festive season. Really after all that who has cash left over to pay for the game and a £300+ 8800 series card????

Had this game been released in the summer of 2007 i think it would have a lot more people buying and playing it as this years summer wasn't too great for game releases. I would have gladly bought Crysis had it been released then as i was bored out of my skull and had money to spare, although i have money to spare now come to think of it.

1005

the big hoohaa about crysis system specs was to get ppl to buy new pcs.It money making at its best. If you can play every other game on high, why change a good working system that can play crysisin medium or high. A mate of mine spent a small fortune and cant even run crysis on very high with an 8800 ultra. Its runs, but it sure aint smooth. Why do pc gamers need to show off all the time. the system does not make you a better gamer.

[QUOTE="cmdrmonkey"]

When you release a game that can bring even an 8800 card to it's knees, don't be surprised when there aren't too many people playing. But it's not even like the game needs to have such extreme system requirements. It looks great no doubt, but I get the impression it's just very poorly optimized. There are other games that look nearly as good that don't run so poorly.Zeliard9

Like what? No game comes even remotely close. And do you people even know what "optimization" means? Crysis is VERY well optimized, it's just so technologically advanced that it's taxing for current hardware. That has absolutely NOTHING to do with optimization. You want a game that's poorly optimized, look at Neverwinter Nights 2, a game that requires demanding hardware for no particularly good reason.

Neverwinter Nights 2 is definitely the prime examnple of bad coding. But Crysis, while I can play it at high setting with my 8800GT card, is pretty bad in medium setting, and its medium setting still requires quite a bit of hardware to run. I think Crysis doesn't scale well.

On most games, the different of medium and high aren't as huge as Crysis, and the hardware requirement gap between the two settings on those games are far greater than Crysis.

[QUOTE="Ohmek"]

on the other people already knew how amazing the previous cod games where and knew cod4 wouldn't fail in being one of the best fps games. the mp just dominates any other fps game out.

blackace007

I don't understand whats so amazing about cod 4 MP. I haven't played it yet but judgeing from its review and game play videos it doesn't seem any different from BF2 or CS.

It's all about the game play when it comes to multiplayer. Some games just have "it"... though it's hard for me to put my finger on what "it" is. A game can be a great single player experience but not have that 'umph' in multiplayer. Ever since SOF2 I've been looking for a game that can do it for me. I knew the other COD games had a similar style but I didn't like the WW2 combat. So I was hopeful for COD4. While it's likely that I will never fined any game as fun to me as SOF2, COD4 is pretty damn good.

Crytek also needs to remember that some people maybe arent that much interested in graphics more as when far cry arrived, plus far cry i ran on medium settings extremely smooth when it was realeased on a bad pc back then.

All games look great today, they pretty much have since we got far cry, doom3 and hl2. I cant say the water in far cry or the lightning in doom 3 looks ugly today, even though im looking at almost photorealistic graphics in crysis.

Therefore when crysis puts my computer to its knees now then ill just wait to play it since i got the gameplay in far cry and the graphics in that one looks better then what i can get out of crysis. And the same goes for crysis, even 10 years from now when games will be much more advanved then i still cant say crysis looks ugly. Quake looks ugly ;) But that was around some of the first graphics in a modern pc game where we have a bunch of squares all over the place to make the levels look like something else.

[QUOTE="cmdrmonkey"]

When you release a game that can bring even an 8800 card to it's knees, don't be surprised when there aren't too many people playing. But it's not even like the game needs to have such extreme system requirements. It looks great no doubt, but I get the impression it's just very poorly optimized. There are other games that look nearly as good that don't run so poorly.Zeliard9

Like what? No game comes even remotely close. And do you people even know what "optimization" means? Crysis is VERY well optimized, it's just so technologically advanced that it's taxing for current hardware. That has absolutely NOTHING to do with optimization. You want a game that's poorly optimized, look at Neverwinter Nights 2, a game that requires demanding hardware for no particularly good reason.

:lol: Seems youve been caught in the hype. I played the demo on high settings, of course, I didnt have good fps, but I didnt need good ones to see what the graphics look like: beautiful. Thats all. The game's beautiful, so what? HL2 was beautiful, as Stalker, oblivion, etc. were. Nothing exceptionnal.

Youll surely say "those games dont compare to crysis visually", I didnt say so. Just said they were beautiful too. I have a 7600 GT and AMDX24200+ processor, I wont buy a intel quadcore and a 8800 GTS just to play that game on high settings.

The game isnt so technologically advanced that its taxing current hardware, IT IS poorly optimized. I can play games looking as beautiful, some of them I named, like I said, the term beautiful is subjective, with everything maxed out with my low-mid rig. Thats called optimization.

Crysis IS NOT worth buying a new rig or even upgrading it, NOR worth playing on anything else than high settings at least.

people should realise one thing - CRYSIS is not poorly otpimized. Agreed its takes up a lots of resources but there a lot more stuff going on. Just because someone can run COD4 max and not crysis doesn't mean crysis is optimized worse than cod4, there are thousands more stuff going on in crysis than cod 4naval

[QUOTE="cmdrmonkey"]

When you release a game that can bring even an 8800 card to it's knees, don't be surprised when there aren't too many people playing. But it's not even like the game needs to have such extreme system requirements. It looks great no doubt, but I get the impression it's just very poorly optimized. There are other games that look nearly as good that don't run so poorly.Zeliard9

Like what? No game comes even remotely close. And do you people even know what "optimization" means? Crysis is VERY well optimized, it's just so technologically advanced that it's taxing for current hardware. That has absolutely NOTHING to do with optimization. You want a game that's poorly optimized, look at Neverwinter Nights 2, a game that requires demanding hardware for no particularly good reason.

From a gameplay standpoint I have to say that I'm not blown away by it so far. It really just seems like FarCry all over again with improved visuals. The nano-suit is almost worthless, as none of the powers last long enough to be of much use. It should make you feel like a superhero, but instead it's almost more of annoyance to use.

cmdrmonkey

[QUOTE="Zeliard9"][QUOTE="cmdrmonkey"]

When you release a game that can bring even an 8800 card to it's knees, don't be surprised when there aren't too many people playing. But it's not even like the game needs to have such extreme system requirements. It looks great no doubt, but I get the impression it's just very poorly optimized. There are other games that look nearly as good that don't run so poorly.kalossimitar

Like what? No game comes even remotely close. And do you people even know what "optimization" means? Crysis is VERY well optimized, it's just so technologically advanced that it's taxing for current hardware. That has absolutely NOTHING to do with optimization. You want a game that's poorly optimized, look at Neverwinter Nights 2, a game that requires demanding hardware for no particularly good reason.

:lol: Seems youve been caught in the hype. I played the demo on high settings, of course, I didnt have good fps, but I didnt need good ones to see what the graphics look like: beautiful. Thats all. The game's beautiful, so what? HL2 was beautiful, as Stalker, oblivion, etc. were. Nothing exceptionnal.

Youll surely say "those games dont compare to crysis visually", I didnt say so. Just said they were beautiful too. I have a 7600 GT and AMDX24200+ processor, I wont buy a intel quadcore and a 8800 GTS just to play that game on high settings.

The game isnt so technologically advanced that its taxing current hardware, IT IS poorly optimized. I can play games looking as beautiful, some of them I named, like I said, the term beautiful is subjective, with everything maxed out with my low-mid rig. Thats called optimization.

Crysis IS NOT worth buying a new rig or even upgrading it, NOR worth playing on anything else than high settings at least.

to me it seems like you just hate crysis

[QUOTE="kalossimitar"][QUOTE="Zeliard9"][QUOTE="cmdrmonkey"]

When you release a game that can bring even an 8800 card to it's knees, don't be surprised when there aren't too many people playing. But it's not even like the game needs to have such extreme system requirements. It looks great no doubt, but I get the impression it's just very poorly optimized. There are other games that look nearly as good that don't run so poorly.naval

Like what? No game comes even remotely close. And do you people even know what "optimization" means? Crysis is VERY well optimized, it's just so technologically advanced that it's taxing for current hardware. That has absolutely NOTHING to do with optimization. You want a game that's poorly optimized, look at Neverwinter Nights 2, a game that requires demanding hardware for no particularly good reason.

:lol: Seems youve been caught in the hype. I played the demo on high settings, of course, I didnt have good fps, but I didnt need good ones to see what the graphics look like: beautiful. Thats all. The game's beautiful, so what? HL2 was beautiful, as Stalker, oblivion, etc. were. Nothing exceptionnal.

Youll surely say "those games dont compare to crysis visually", I didnt say so. Just said they were beautiful too. I have a 7600 GT and AMDX24200+ processor, I wont buy a intel quadcore and a 8800 GTS just to play that game on high settings.

The game isnt so technologically advanced that its taxing current hardware, IT IS poorly optimized. I can play games looking as beautiful, some of them I named, like I said, the term beautiful is subjective, with everything maxed out with my low-mid rig. Thats called optimization.

Crysis IS NOT worth buying a new rig or even upgrading it, NOR worth playing on anything else than high settings at least.

to me it seems like you just hate crysis

youre entitled to your opinion, but I did love the demo, played it like 3 times full