1. games dont always work straight away even with the best hardware

2. you can never have the best hardware for more than a month

3. computers crash

4. i cant be **** getting the latest patches and drivers for my graphics cards, motherboards, windows xp, etc. etc. all the time!

5. it cost me 2 grand to buy and play crysis

6. other people have to use my computer and **** it up

7. microsoft is evil

i miss that feeling i used to have with my playstation 1 where i would buy a game, put it in and play it without a worries in the world. who else misses that sometimes when trying to get ****ing bioshock to work? (which i did after finally getting the right drivers).

Minglis

1. Not the hardwares fault its the software. As of late there has been an increasing trend of rushed games that don't workhardly at all. I.E. BF2, BF2142, COD2...to name but a few...

2. Yes you can they always release the best video card FIRST then they make budget versions....itsanywhere between a year or more before the next BIG jump in video cards andthe processor has a longer life than any other PC component so if you are still not on the 64 bit Chip train or dual core then you got problems.

3.Computers crash....so do consoles they are computers to...just read up ont he xbox 360 and PS3they have their crashing problems as well.

4. Well would you rather have companies not fix the problems/improve their products this is why they UPGRADE the software....to ensure compatibility andperformance. THe latest consoles do the same they have firmware updates tofix the bugs too.

5. Easy fix right here don't buy a computer premade from some big name company...you don't need an alienware computer or a dell xps or any of that junk to run Crysis...im running a 2 year old video card and i played Crysis just fine and enjoyed the heck outta of it. YOu younger guys just want to see eye candy and then whine that you spent too much money. QUIT DOING it.

6. Password protect anyone? Or just get over it. OR better yet EDUCATE them ON WHAT NOT TO DO to thecomputer.

7. Matter ofopinion but yes microsoft is evil

MOst ofthis sounds like your just lazy and cant spend 2 seconds updating things toensure things work right. Itsnot that hard.

[QUOTE="codezer0"][QUOTE="monco59"]

Also, the UTIII demo was smaller because it was crippled. You can't max it out fully.

shanelevy

No you can't, the demo doesn't include the highest settings AFAIK.

Also, why are you complaining that crysis is demanding. Would you rather the game look worse just so you can say you were able to play on very high? How selfish is that. So because hardware that was released about a year ago struggles with such a technically difficult game and causes you to turn down your settings, you think the game should have its highest settings be medium so that you can tell your friends that you "maxed" crysis.

Also, I see nothing wrong with having a patch that lets the settings be improved down the road. It gives the game a longer life, something to come back to. If you don't come back to your games later, then forget about it. If you had a console, your games would be in lower resolutions with much less eyecandy than crysis at medium settings. Heck, due to console memory limitations crysis will never be a direct port to consoles.

I'm sick of people bashing this game because its trying on their hardware. The one thing I'll agree on is that Crytek promised better performance, and even said that 64 bit OSes would run it better (hah). They marketed like every other company does, just like vista was supposed to IMPROVE performance. Other than that, I have no sympathy for people complaining about the requirements for this game.

When Oblivion came out, the x1950XTX got about 32 FPS with the game MAXED, and right now, the 8800 GTX gets about 30 FPS with the game maxed (no AA) in low resolutions.

Looking back, isn't it nice that oblivion pushed the limits a bit? Now we can enjoy it in all its glory and it looks great.

Vista was pushed because Microcrap was pushing the company's to jump on the band wagon. Windows XP x64 is actually beneficial. I had so many problems with WinXP 32 that i had to switch and wala no more crashes, freezes, performance crap, and the service pack that they made for it improved compatibility so its all good. Eventually you 32-bit guys are going to have to move over to 64 bit processing OS's

the demo sets me to high, It doesn't ren great though. I get 18FPS on high and 10FPS at very high. I wanted to play the game at least at high. malybe when the game gets here, Ill lower my res. or play on medium :(

how can I max bioshock with great FPS and they get crap on crysis, you tell me.

the game is fun though.

harrisi17

Different engines running the game. I played Bioshock on awesome with a single 7800 and i had great success with Crysis. I had about 50 or 60 on medium-high settings on 1680x1050.

I use Windows XP x64 which helps. Crytek even said if you switched over and you have a 64 bit processor it will boost performance.

So at first I was thinking "man, the requirements stuff can't be all that bad." After all, they probably just did like MS did with shadowrun for PC and list those specs as a way of saying "this is what you'll want in order to run the game fluidly... you could probably get by with less if you really needed to." or something to that effect. Well, I install the crysis demo on my newest computer now, and think that I should at least be able to run at High, with my 8800GTS (640MB) card and Core 2 Duo. At which point, it should be no problem, right? Wrong. I start up crysis, go to the auto-setting, and what does it give me? **** Medium for everything. Medium! And no AA either. So on one side, I have the UT3 demo, which played fantastic and allowed me to max it out and it played like absolute butter and was a download of 700MBs in size. And on the other, we have Crysis, which even on its auto-setting with no AA whatsoever, still chugging at spots, and is approx. 1.77GB for download size (and supposedly needs 6GB for the installed pack). This is exactly the kind of **** that aggravates me so much about computer gaming. Just when you think you finally have a system that will last you a good long time, then something new suddenly shows up and you're back to square one. It's like you need to take out a second mortgage just to keep up. It's like "omgcrysisissopretttyalahalahal!" well, what good is hyping up the graphics if you're not even going to be able to run with them all the way up? Or for that matter... what is it about PC gaming that we're somehow expected to wait a few years AFTER a game comes out in order to be able to see it in its full glory (maximum in-game settings) ? That kind of **** would NEVER be tolerated anywhere else, so why is it that when it comes to pc gaming, we just sit here like **** and take this kind of abuse? For **** sake, you'd think with a system like this I should at least be granted High by the auto-setting or something. :evil:codezer0

First of all, you and others like you have UNREALISTIC expectations. The Crytek guys have made engines that barely run on the most powerful generation of hardware. Ever heard of Farcry that game when it came out could barely run on anything but people learned to tweak it and it ran fine. Plus the MP beta and the SP demo had graphical caps on it. Games auto detect settings aren't necessarily that great at putting you at where it should be.

I ran my Crysis at everything medium with a few things up on high at 1680x1050 and the game looked great. AA and ANisotropic filtering just kill the system especially if you are running on XP.

I can point out the hardware flaw and stutter one you had AA on 2) one single 8800 GTS ...lol should of gotten the 8800 GTX or waited for the 8800 GT. Plus if your card plays all the other games out there why are you complaining?

If you have been to their official forums you would know that they were now considering it for PC and we would know by 2008 sometime. Just read the huge LONG post about The Force Unleashed not for PC petition.

It has an official statement posted in their near the end and whats funny is their lame excuse was that they don't think todays computer hardware will run the new technologies DMM and Euphoria lololol. Take a look at crysis.

In response to the dude that said FPS aren't for PC. ARE YOU MAD? FPS started on the PC and is much easier to play and takes alot more skill. ALot of console games are dumbed down to include such things as auto aim and screen adjustment issues amongst other things plus news flash all consoles are specially designed computers to give out a desired FramesPerSecond constantly thats all thats special about them.

Same at the moment I don't care. Halo for XP sucked. The graphics were direct x 8 ffs.

I don't see it coming anytime soon until Vista has its first service pack.

Me I guess im not a normal human being but I can easily deal with video game violence because I can distinguish between reality and the computer.

I don't think we will ever see children in it being ripped in half although some children can be pains in the asses so you never know....Lol jk jk i know not funny anyway.

So i mean if its a murderous violent game like Gears of War it won't phase me.

Take a look at the few good publishers/developers that are around now adays. ALot of them have fallen into the lets make a quick buck.

Midway, Epic, Crytek, GSC Gameworld, Valve, Vivendi, Monolith, Gearbox Software, Kaos Studios, Eidos Interactive, Petroglyph (guys who made C n C i think...), Io Interactive (hitman series),Ubisoft (some may argue that they are not but i have been happy with there products)....Im sure there are more that care to make a great game.

Shoot Crysis has been in development for 4 years and it shows. Before that it was Far Cry which was graphically and and in other areas ahead of most games out there.

Stalker was in development for 6 years and it shows. Its a great game and sure it had some minor glitches but they patched it and fixed alot of it.

If you want quality then you have to wait plain in simple. I'd rather patiently wait for a new game then play these 1 year wonders that get maybe 2 patches and don't work worth a darn.

Like EA all they care about is a buck after medal of honor and bf 1942 there games went tocrap

Infinity ward was good but then they decided to make a crap engine and look how bad there games have become.

So quit yourwhining about howgamedevsdelay stuff. It happens. I wouldn't want a buggy piece of crap game to play with.

It will be 12 players for the console due to the fact that the consoles dont run dedicated servers.

PC will be up to 32 due to the ability of having dedicated server tools. THe maps may be small but i read the ign review and they said they were big enough to support more players.

So basically coop and 12 players for xbox and 32 players for PC kapeesh?