You might be thinking of 'Terminal Velocity' which is exactly the same as Fury3. Fury3 was just the same game but made to run natively in windows 95, and often came bundled with a joystick I think. Terminal velocity was a DOS game, and was around about 1996 I remember, 'cos I played the demo version through about a million times. T.V. had a sequel called Hellbender, which looks very similar to the original.

Try this link for info:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_Velocity_%28video_game%29

I didnt play for like 5 months, hooked my internet connection cos u have to have that on for your profile to avoid it getting corrupted, and yep... profile corrupted, its a real good game and looks sweeeeet but its so finicky, i uninstalled it and chucked it in a cupboard.

about your crashing, drivers been changed/need to be updated? graphics card temps?

[QUOTE="MyopicCanadian"]

[QUOTE="DarthMaul135"]wait wait so the 9600GT can play this game on high now?? what kind of resolution? I play on Medium and 1680-1050 on this PC, and I have a eVGA 8800GTX 320MBElectricNZ

Yeah, I was quite surprised. I honestly bought the card so I could play TF2 a little better, and Left 4 Dead when it comes out eventually, I hadn't expected it to work well with Crysis. My res is 1280*1024, no AA, high everything except physics and post processing effects.

I'm still tweaking it, and this was just the demo. The release patches are supposed to make the game run even better, so I'm going to try one of those ultra-high configs for the hell of it ;)

Yeah, I didn't ever see what was so special about this game. It doesn't really look good on paper. It just looks like a pretty shooter. I keep hearing good things though to where I'll have to at least get the demo. I finally have a system that can handle it, and I've heard just the demo level alone actually has a lot of possibilities.Srinivassa

Definitely download the demo and just play around with it, not necessarily working to complete the missions, but kinda.. just have fun. As soon as I started doing that I understood the game much better.

That's funny, because according to benchmarks,

With a Q6600 + XFX 9600GT Overclocked edition, 1280x1024 all settings at medium on Windows XP... the benchmark gave an average fps of 35fps.

You said you could play on High @ 1280x1024 and it would only dip into the 20s... according to pretty much all benchmarks, a stock 9600gt and a very very weak X2 3800 @ 3ghz would not ever achieve 20 average fps on high settings.

DarthMaul's GTX is much more powerful than a 9600gt... even though he said "eVGA 8800GTX 320Mb" which leads me to believe it's a 8800GTS 320 considering there is no GTX that is not 768Mb.

Zzz.

You should read some more benchmarks then. The 320mb gts dies in crysis due to lack of ram compared to the 640mb model, and the 9600gt with 512mb definetly has it beaten there and probably in most other games.

The X2-3800+ is not 'very weak' as a gaming cpu in the slightest, especially if hes playing with physics on MEDIUM (read the post) it shouldn't hold the game back that much, if at all. Quad core isn't always better than dual core.

If hes playing in dx9, especially dx9 in windows xp, he'll get better frames than in dx10 mode, if thats what the becnhmarks you refer to were doing.

If hes got the latest drivers, they apparaently give a boot to crysis, among other things.

If hes only just started the game, hes going through the early stages which are less demanding on the hardware. Later on in the game the frames come down as things get more complicated on the screen.

Hes not playing all on high, hes got post processing & physics on medium. Thats 5-8 fps alone extra right there.

I got 30fps average with a radeon 2900pro in the early stages, at 1400x900, which is more or less 1280x1024. That was windows XP, core 2 duo e6300 @ 2.6ghz, 2gb ram, running all on high with shadows, particle effects, volumetric effects, post processing and game effects on medium. No vid card overclocking, with drivers from december (catalyst 7.12) and no patches applied. Looks 90% as good as all on high, with 50% better frames, at the very least.

There is soo much rubbish flying around about crysis being only playable on really high end systems. Its totally wrong, just putting post processing and shadows on medium, rest on high, any decent mid-range card bought today will be just fine.

Ok, you've sold me!

I considered picking this up a while ago but thought it would suck away too many hours of my life. It looks like it still will, but it's a price I'm willing to pay since you keep referring to Morrowind (which I love) and in space (which I also love). But I do have a few questions-

Is it worth picking up a joystick for? I've played the demo with a gamepad and it's just overwhelming, but I can't say that I find kb/m to be too intuitive.

Can you recommend a good website/guide to teach me how to play the game (not exploit it or do things most efficiently, just a good overview of all of my tools)?

If this games consumes my life, you will be hearing from me Mr. Crazed! :P

Vampyronight

Mate be warned its really complicated. Ive been gaming since 1995 and no game has confused the hell out of me more than this one. Its a good game if your willing to commit time to it. I STRONGLY recommend heading over to egosoft's web site (just google it) and print out a strategty guide, or a few of the ones theyve got, and a sector map. The map kinda spoils the exploration bit a little, but it will save frustration by the bucket load.

Its a good title, incredibly deep, makes oblivion look shallow imho, the graphics are still very good with huge gleaming ships and planets and such, but make sure you patch it with the latest patch and be warned the voice acting is utter utter cr*p during the missions lol.

good luck!

[QUOTE="Lonelynight"]

[QUOTE="pseudodog07"]Eh, maybe I've just played too many shooters.vash47

I found Half Life 2 to be boring

Finally! Lonelynight I thought I was the only person who thought that, I was going to make a thread about it, but I feared getting flamed.

OnTopic: If you don't have any kind of creativiy, or just want to shoot your way through it, you ain't gonna find i t appealing.

Nope your not the only one. Was just too simple and i didnt give a toss about gordon or alex either, which didnt help matters lol. Thought it was a pale imitation of the original game btw. EP2 is an improvement though.

[QUOTE="F1_2004"]

lol. You're reaching pretty far there, mate. Horror and driving have nothing in common.mfsa

I was using an extreme example, because you dismissed three full paragraphs as 'not making sense'. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt in assuming that you genuinely don't understand my point, as opposed to trying to dismiss it because you can't argue against it. The example may be extreme, but the point is completely legitimate. You understand my point, right? I mean, you actually disregarded the point again - and focused on trying to dismiss the example as being extreme. Well, it is extreme. Don't argue the example, argue the point.

And that is why it is very disappointing that the game turned out this wayF1_2004

The word disappointment goes to expectations. If you're disappointed, it's because you had certain expectations which, in the case of Crysis, you should not have held. As I have argued for three posts now, we all knew what to expect thanks to a) acceptable standards for the genre, b) a pseudo-predecessor c) developer comments, d) videos, e) A PSEUDO-PREDECESSOR, f) previews, g) a demo... what more did you need to come to an educated conclusion as to game content and style?

As I have said several times, you are treating the game unfairly, and you are doing so because you had unrealistic expectations which were entirely of your making. Had you researched properly, you would have known what to expect - and you would be playing the game you had expected to play. While you would still argue that freeroam is better, the same is true of all games, as I have said.

that although at first look you're free to roam about a tropical jungle at will, in reality it's all about going from one objective camp/outpost to the next, with your options of getting side-tracked being very limited.F1_2004

1. At first look? As I said above, expections are your fault unless the developers made unfulfilled promises. You made unrealistic expectations based on invalid, illigitimate or entirely made up beliefs, and now you're disappointed with the game for not doing something it didn't try to do to begin with.

2. Acceptable standards for the genre.

I mean I don't know what you're getting at, it's clear that the whole tropical island thing is huge for Crysis, but it feels like it's even more constrained than FarCry 1... it's just corridors masked with trees, unclimbable hills, and "do not cross this line" zones that kill you if you go beyond. I don't know why you're defending it and denying criticism, because the gaming industry is bad enough as it is with everyone pumping out sequels and generic shooters that introduce nothing new to the genre.

oh, and I guess you haven't played STALKER. Shame, great game.

F1_2004

I have played S.T.A.L.K.E.R extensively. It's a great game, but it's also a series of big, empty fields (which I mentioned in an earlier post) connected by linear bottlenecks. It's funny you complain about unclimbable hils and do not cross this line zomes, because S.T.A.L.K.E.R does exactly the same. Every zone is lined in with fences - fences that you can't hop over, and the devs even stuck in anomalies any time they wanted to keep a player out of somewhere, or keep them out until a certain point. How can you possiblyjustify artificial computer gamey contrivance in one game, and criticise it in another game? Like I said, it goes to your singling out a specific complaint in a specific game, and ignoring acceptable standards for the genre. It's unfair.

For the record, I have also played Boiling Point, Mafia, all the GTA games, the Elder Scrolls series, Just Cause, Operation Flashpoint and numerous other freeroam games. I am very familiar with how they play.

i agree with what you say about the picket-fences in stalker and the wide open fields of nothing you come across sometimes, but then again I agree with the other guy about the nice moments in stalker, like wandering around seemingly empty buildings and finding monolith soldiers worshiping some shrine type thing or only spotting enemies when lightning flashes. Sometimes the emptiness was an asset as it made it sometimes feel as if everything was a little 'too quite' lol. Plus even if theres lots of more or less empty buildings and fields its nice TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY to explore in the first place - valve pls take note!! Not trying to take anything away from what either of you said but I agree with both of you on stalker, and also that crysis is more open than many might think. I only got to play crysis for an evening (long story dont ask lol) and never got past the bit with blowing up the petrol station, fighting the tank and rescuing the hostage. I finished it, but then went back and did it and some of the areas leading up to it again and again. You can go tracking through the jungle and come across patrols as surprissed as you are lol. It seems pretty epic although i heard it (the fun) tails off later on in the game, although Im looking forward to when its all frozen and snowy - sort of a spooky serene environment. Basically from what ive seen I like crysis for its far-cry like open style and the graphics, ...I mean wow just wow. Go to tweakguides.com and adjust the suit and ai values, tweak the graphics and away you go. You DONT have to live with the settings available in the menus or wait for mods, the game and gameplay is pretty customisable.

On a side note I played far-cry all the way through like 5 times, I liked the whole stalking/free roaming thing that much lol, but I will say its no more/less free than crysis. Far-cry had some pretty strong 'chaneling' going on aswell. The first level off the top of my head for a start, and the one on the river through the jungle (best level in that game by the way, still looks awsome with hdr & aa).

im getting a q6600. it runs at 2.4ghz stock. i wanted to overclock it to 2.8 or 3ghz. will this shorten the lifespan of my mobo and processor? if so, by how much?fearless_RTSer

No-one can say for certain but it shouldn't take really any more than 10% of its lifespan if you keep it cool with a decent 3rd party cooler (yes that means abandoning the stock cooler!). So say what should live for 5 years (maybe longer? who knows? nobody regularly uses the same pc for that length of time...) should live for 4 years and 6 months. But, whatever really. Its when you really start jacking up the voltage and clocks that lifespan might see some serious cuts, but then with decent cooling even a screaming oc (3.0ghz on a quad is NOT screaming) might happily make 18months of serious hard-core use, and if it wobbles a bit well just take it down 200mhz and it'll be fine for another year. Whatever, a quad at 3.0ghz is not a ticking time bomb nor will it die prematurely because of the oc.