[QUOTE="jamesgj"][QUOTE="JP_Russell"]

[QUOTE="fatshodan"]With an AMD 4200+, 2GB ram and an 8800GTS 640, I play the game all on high at 1600x1200 with a steady 30-50FPS. Expect better.JP_Russell

You have to be overestimating your framerate, man.

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/gaming-graphics-charts-q3-2008/Crysis-v1-21,748.html

Having seen your gameplay (from the one time you showed me), I can also tell you you're definitely not getting 30+. It really looks like it's about 25-30 average, 15-ish minimum.

Anyway, TC, you should manage all high at 1280x1024 if you have typical framerate standards.

I say Bull**** I can't understand why people think this game is so impossible to run all you need is to optimize your PC these benchmarks are Bull****. My 6600GT ran crysis at 1650 all medium settings smooth framerates through the whole game don't tell me or throw any benchmark that says this guy can't get 30 frames.

First of all, calm down. Second of all, I never said it was impossible to run. Stop jumping at spectres. Third of all, the "optimizations" you'll often find on the web only free up memory and processor usage, and they make no difference if you don't have a low-end system (not to mention most of them are dangerous to use). And finally, I don't mean to sound confrontational, but I have no doubt that your framerate at those settings is lower than I or most others would be able to tolerate. Crysis is much more easily playable than many make it out to be, of course, but my old 3200+, 7900GT, and 2GB of RAM system just did manage to play the game with playable frames (30-35 average, 20 minimum) at 1024x768, all medium except sound and physics on high. So I know for certain it's not what I would call playable on your system.

I WILL NOT CALM DOWN!!! I WILL NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

45.00 does seem a bit high, I was expecting 39.99. or less.

Not nit picking the price, I can afford it, but at that price it seems like it's a bit short. Better make up for it in FUN!

xipotec

i have more hours logged in at tf2 than any games in recent years (since diablo 2 and bg2), so i personally think that $45 for a multiplayer is reasonable.

[QUOTE="fatshodan"]

Interesting. The game is clearly tied to the original storyline (which wasn't a certainty), but if you look at the city silhouette in the logo, it is similar, but not identical to that used on the BS1 box. That to me suggests it is set in Rapture, but during a different time period, which the all growed up little sister suggests, too.

Just to put it out there, I'm really interested in BS2. From what I've read, the entire design team stated that they didn't want to work with Ken Levine (the BS lead) ever again, and he was kicked off to work on some X-Com game. Why? I don't know, but a change of lead designer is no small matter.

BioShock 2 could be a significantly better game. It does, afterall, have all of the basic elements that made SS2 so great. They were just dumbed down. With someone else at the helm, things may be different. Then again, maybe not, but I'm not going to dump on a game before I know anything about it. I may be pretty zealous, but it's a very rational zealotry.

Another problem I had with BioShock is that it was a blatant copy of System Shock 2's story with utter disregard for the experience of System Shock 2 fans. I assume even the BS devs aren't stupid enough to copy the same story a second time, so BS2 could have an excellent - and for once, new - story.

YoZbaNaToR

I'm getting tired of these accusations. Not that I would disagree with them, just that I hear them often from those who dislike Bioshock. You're not the only one with such an opinion which pretty much makes your views valid.

I'm not one to disagree as well. Why? I haven't played SS2, which is why I will not start a "Why do you hate Bioshock?" debate. I've read many threads and they're pretty much justified. But I will however, ask you a simple question: If I do find a SS2 copy and play it, would you think I would then understand why Bioshock keeps getting bashed? (Or) Would I then be able to see how it's truly a dumbed down copy of SS2?

I know what you're thinking: "It's like asking someone how many fish we will catch when we throw the bait in the water.", but still, I've watched a handful of SS2's reviews and was unable to find the kind of depth Bioshock had. How it contains a high dose of Philosophy, Politics, Allegory, etc... 'How it's narrative, one of the deepest and most immersive storylines experienced in a videogame since the conception of the medium...'
(I'll gladly give you a link if you wish).

People do have different opinions, so I won't throw mine any further so you won't think I'm asking for a debate. All I'd want to know is your answer to the question above. And if anyone else would like to answer, you have my thanks.

to be fair to fatshodan, his post was clearly not meant to bash bioshock. people know him on this forum, especially as the guy who loves ss2 and isn't thrilled about bioshock for some of the reasons he touched upon in his post, so we want to know what he thinks of bioshock 2 (as aliblabla suggests). and he was merely addressing this and primarily wrote about his opinion regarding bioshock 2 (and not to bash bioshock).

by the way, bioshock's story is pretty much a carbon copy of ss2's story (with the exact same method of telling it and the exact same plot twist at the end (and a far better conclusion to boot)), so ss2's story contains a high dose of philosophy, politics, allegory, etc, as well. except it told it first.

If you were at all into competitive gaming, you'd know that all the top, good and half-decent players will be playing the latest version of the game that has the latest unit additions and is getting the latest balance patches that take the latest units into account. How many pro SC players were playing SC after Brood War came out, I wonder?

F1_2004

ok, so what's your problem? no good player played sc after brood war came out. no good player played wc3 after ft came out. and no player will play sc2 once the expansions come out. so what has changed? you really should think through your arguments, cuz you're not supporting them with the examples you're giving.

[QUOTE="JnWycliffe"][QUOTE="F1_2004"]

[QUOTE="mudflaps2001"]Other RTS games have more than one expansion, but you never hear anyone complain about those companies milking their franchises.F1_2004

Companies like EA that milk it dry have been getting flak for a long time. This is even worse, since Blizzard are outright saying, before any kind of release, that they're gonna be dividing up the content into expansions. So yes, they do deserve to take heat for it.

you really think that what ea does with the sims franchise is the same as what blizzard is doing with sc2? let's break this down: the sims 2 has 8 expansions and 10 stuff packs with each of the expansions costing $30 and the stuff packs costing $20. that's $240+$200, which equals $440. not only that, it seems ea deliberately set out to do this from the getgo, which is pretty obvious since half the expansions are pretty much the same as what they released for the original sims. blizzard, from what we can tell, just went overboard with the terran campaign and ended up with more than enough content to justify releasing it as a full game. as mudflaps2001 mentioned, a lot of rts release at least 2 or 3 expansions, which pretty much comes out to $110-170 ($50 for the original, $30-40 for the expansions), which is pretty much on par with how much sc2 will end up costing as a whole. $490 (including the sims 2) v. $120-150? i really don't see the comparison.

Aside from the fact that the Sims 2 is the most extreme example, SC2's selling for $60 at the moment. Let's say $180 total. They imply new expansions will have new units, and in online play, you must have all units to be competitive, so you have no choice in the matter - you must buy all. Sims 2 stuff packs are completely optional, and even their main expansions are just extra stuff. With Blizzard, even if you're an online gamer with no care for single player, you'll likely have to buy them.

Yes it is a money grab.

first of all, that $60 isn't the retail price. i don't even know where you saw it, because amazon doesn't have a price, gamestop has it listed for $50, and gogamer doesn't even have the game listed yet; obviously, that's not the price that blizzard has set, but i guess that price, wherever you saw it, supported your theory the best, eh?

second, what they're doing with the multiplayer is no different from what they did with warcraft 3 - for those that don't buy the 'expansions', they can still play with/against others who don't have the expansions. just as warcraft 3 maintained separate online gaming lobbies and ladders for expansion set players and players with just the original game, so will starcraft 2. i don't know where you get the idea that you have no choice.