# Crysis? Worst game ever



## Gulo Luseus (May 12, 2007)

Yup, thats what it says, worst game ever. I have been trying to run it successfully, and you know what? It wont. I get to a certain stage- aircraft carrier- and it drops the framerate so long i need a calender to follow it. Thats with everything off, on low, and 800x600. Sorry, but if you produce a game, make it run! Its not my computer, that much I do know, so it boild down to a game thats too highly strung. I am happy that there are options, but this is just a joke. So, worst game ever? Yup, far and away. Think minesweeper is looking good now. If this is the way things are going, then I have no interest at all. Lots of peeps will disagree, but try it before you get carried away. And yes, I have been running on medium settings happily until now.


----------



## Xkarinx (Nov 22, 2007)

Thanks for the heads up, I think the best game would be WoW =)


----------



## tony oh (Mar 22, 2007)

Mmm, what drivers are you using the 169.09 version?

The only reason I ask is I have a similar set up ... 2 gigs of ram less and less a 8800gts ..but kinda similar

I had everything to high but the shadows at medium at 1280x1024..the fps at that stage wasn't great about 20-25 but still playable.

But I didn't think it was the best game ever or anything and haven't gone near it again once I finished it.

There is supposedly a patch coming soon to help ppl with sli and other issues (what about proper quad support for a start...the UT3 demo uses the 4 cores better than this).

Nvidia are releasing proper drivers soon too.... the 169.09 are beta.


----------



## Satsumomo (May 29, 2007)

A glitch doesn't make it the worst game ever. Your installation is probably corrupt, so when it tries to read data from that specific part, it's just reading faulty information. Try a reinstallation.


----------



## gamerbyron (Apr 9, 2007)

Lol, why would you say it's a worst game?  Is it just because the frame rates are slow? Or is it because you can't play online because of "Server Authorization Failed?"

I like Crysis, its the best game and its better than Halo 3, its my opinion.


----------



## Gulo Luseus (May 12, 2007)

I dont plat online, dont have the time for it. I say worst, because if you get a good rig, you should be able to run a high spec. With Crysis, thats not the case. What is the point making it so heavy?
There is no corruption either. Tony, cheers for the link, I went to 169.12, the frame rate picked up a treat. Shame that new drivers had to be released for it though. However, I still feel its not the game it should be.Apart from anything else, dang me its short!!! 4 nights and finished. It does have a lot going for it, but just not enough there.


----------



## tom6049 (Aug 6, 2007)

Gulo Luseus said:


> I have been trying to run it successfully, and you know what? It wont.


I agree. Crysis looks a _little _ better than Half-Life 2 Lost Coast, but runs a *LOT* slower.


----------



## Jason Ess (Sep 4, 2007)

[email protected] so hard to play w/o a nice computer


----------



## Gulo Luseus (May 12, 2007)

On the bright side Jason, console yourself with the thought that mine only runs at medium. With settings like this who needs masochism?


----------



## gamerbyron (Apr 9, 2007)

Mines can run it on high settings with shaders and shadows low and I get 25 fps average.


----------



## McTimson (Aug 16, 2002)

I don't plan on getting Crysis, but if it was made in any way similar to FarCry, then it's really only there to show off their engine. They probably weren't planning on making a great game to play, just a good engine that they could sell to other game developers. That's how Doom 3 and FarCry were, most of the emphasis is put on developing the engine, not the gameplay.

And I agree that you shouldn't need to get drivers every time a game is released. Drivers have too many optimizations for specific applications, they should just be there, and the game should be designed with the drivers that are already available.


----------



## Satsumomo (May 29, 2007)

McTimson said:


> I don't plan on getting Crysis, but if it was made in any way similar to FarCry, then it's really only there to show off their engine. They probably weren't planning on making a great game to play, just a good engine that they could sell to other game developers. That's how Doom 3 and FarCry were, most of the emphasis is put on developing the engine, not the gameplay.
> 
> And I agree that you shouldn't need to get drivers every time a game is released. Drivers have too many optimizations for specific applications, they should just be there, and the game should be designed with the drivers that are already available.


That is very true, the Cry engine 2 is excellent, Crysis is just average.


----------



## ICONIC (Sep 8, 2007)

The game doesn't suck just because your computer cant run it. Its probably one of the best games out today.


----------



## Therion11 (Nov 20, 2007)

Considering your hardware Gulo, thats laughable... I can run it at medium settings and my PC is mediochre.

Beautiful game though, shame the price behind it just isnt worth the gameplay.


----------



## tony oh (Mar 22, 2007)

Anyone know when the proper non beta drivers are coming out...169.09 make my Oblivion grass all white sparkley and annoying

And where is the patch for Crysis....


----------



## BlooChoo (Jun 8, 2007)

Gulo Luseus said:


> Yup, thats what it says, worst game ever. I have been trying to run it successfully, and you know what? It wont. I get to a certain stage- aircraft carrier- and it drops the framerate so long i need a calender to follow it. Thats with everything off, on low, and 800x600. Sorry, but if you produce a game, make it run! Its not my computer, that much I do know, so it boild down to a game thats too highly strung. I am happy that there are options, but this is just a joke. So, worst game ever? Yup, far and away. Think minesweeper is looking good now. If this is the way things are going, then I have no interest at all. Lots of peeps will disagree, but try it before you get carried away. And yes, I have been running on medium settings happily until now.


but dont you have this same trouble with hellgate london? sounds like a hardware fault rather than the game


----------



## Gulo Luseus (May 12, 2007)

Iconic, with the rig I run, I expect a lot. Check the specs, if you think that shouldnt be able to run at high then tel me what can!

Bloo, the probs are actually different. Crysis lost framerate appallingly, but after I updated the drivers for the 8800s it worked fine.. I hold my hands up, should have done it first of all! But I still feel that HAVING to d/l a new driver for a game to run reasonably is a bit much. With Hellgate, it was a permanent stutter, and alot of crashing. The forums I tried all said the same thing, that it was a comon prob. I dont know if the drivers helped or if i got lucky, but at least I got finished.

I had my settings at med partly because it was the recommended setting, but mostly because if I went higher the framerate got stuttery. I prefer nice smooth graphics .

And I still say its way way too short!!


----------



## Bowsa (Oct 9, 2007)

how would it run on 6400 800mhz 2gb ram, 8800 gt, 500 gb Hdd , XiFi s/card
600 w Psu.. Asus 680i mobo??


----------



## Zeus.:God (Dec 28, 2006)

Bowsa said:


> how would it run on 6400 800mhz 2gb ram, 8800 gt, 500 gb Hdd , XiFi s/card
> 600 w Psu.. Asus 680i mobo??


It would run fine, I assume. People have lower system specs (all over the place, not just here) that are running on higher settings than Gulo.

I agree with Bloo Choo, it definitely sounds like a hardware problem. Gulo, if you don't believe it is, I would try reinstalling the game. If that doesn't work, try reformatting. If it continues to do it afterwards, then its gotta' be a hardware conflict.


----------



## BlooChoo (Jun 8, 2007)

yehi had no real bad things to say about crysis...although i do agree it is a bit short with only one real boss fight...its very very simelar to far cry, only shorter...and the crysis suit is more of a gimic than an instrument...


----------



## Gulo Luseus (May 12, 2007)

OK, time for me to make some clarifications, as it seems I have given the wrong end of the stick. I can run Crysis on high and, to a limited extent, very high settings. However, the frame rate tends to drop below 35/40 fps, and to my mind that is unacceptable. I prefer lower res with a nice smooth rate ( on med i tend tohit 60-70 fps), rather than more detail. So, in terms of gameplay, med is the highest res I feel I can play at comfortably.
Hope this makes things a bit less mudlike


----------



## BlooChoo (Jun 8, 2007)

aye thats clear..i do the same..but the thing is...40fps is perfectly playable...but yeh i do agree your system is a good one and really shud be able to play any of the latest games at high...


----------



## Zeus.:God (Dec 28, 2006)

Yeah dude, 35 to 40 FPS is definitely worth it for a beautiful game like Crysis.

Hell, I played online and single player of Doom 3 for years on an eVGA FX 5500 256MB graphics card at 10-15 FPS for high settings (not ultra- that just wouldn't run with it).


----------



## BlooChoo (Jun 8, 2007)

but i guess what gulo is saying is that he has made a decent system and it sucks that even that cant run it perfectly...30-40 is fine...but its not perfect


----------



## Therion11 (Nov 20, 2007)

BlooChoo said:


> but i guess what gulo is saying is that he has made a decent system and it sucks that even that cant run it perfectly...30-40 is fine...but its not perfect


Calling his system decent is like saying hitler was kind of a jerk.

Don't stress if you can't play it on maximum, the price of all the hardware + the game just isnt worth it if the game is as short as you claim.


----------



## BlooChoo (Jun 8, 2007)

thats wot i was sayin...i was saying it must be frustrating that he has spent all this money on the hardware...and its a shame that it doesnt run the game perfectly...but it is totally playable on ur system isnt it gulo...and besides...now that ut3 is out ur happy again huh..cos thats the game u wer really waiting for isnt it hehe


----------



## tony oh (Mar 22, 2007)

UT3 is definitely a game I have been waiting for


----------



## BlooChoo (Jun 8, 2007)

hehe yeh its so good..been playin it soley in between work and sleep


----------



## Gulo Luseus (May 12, 2007)

Bloo I hate you!!! But in a nice sort of way <g>. I go tUT3 yesterday, first time I could get to a shop... hate work... and it rocks. This shows the diff between a game like Crysis, and UT- I can run at a680x1050 ( I think- its nice and high anyway) and it goes like a lemming on steroids. Now, I am the first to admit that from a graphical point of view, Crysis can kill just about anything, but UT3 is so much better..... playable, good screen res, blinding framerate, FUN!!! .. decent additions from th elast one, and just so damn good. Perfectly illustrates my point really. This is the.... umm, fingers and toes moment.. 6th UT game i think ( Unreal, Unreal 2, UT, UT 2003, UT 2004, UT 2006.. is that all of them?) and Istill love all of them. Single player works, and online play is amazing.

But back to Crysis... yup, its a pain to acquire hardware and find out it isnt enough. But I havent found anyone at all that can play on highest rez, all on, and a high screen res... that kind of says it all. Exactly what spec do you need to get it? From what I can see, its pretty much impossible. And that is the bit that bugs me- dont put in sttings, that are unusable, as all it does is make peope feel cheated. Make low med, med high, and put in a lower setting for real basic play. Then everyone is happy. After that, can always patch it for smeg off level.


----------



## BlooChoo (Jun 8, 2007)

yeh i agree..even my comp doesnt run it on all the highest settings...check my comp specs, ther pretty much as high as u can go

but on the totally highest settings, i still get between 50-70 fps hehe...but yeh ut3 is jus so good..love gettin back to the satisfying "head shot" with the sniper rifle hehe missed that


----------



## tony oh (Mar 22, 2007)

Well I hate you both

I know someone has gotten me this as a christmas present already ...So unless I wander down to the shops and then end up with two versions I have 26 days to wait

I wonder how fast I get through Christmas Dinner.. I also wonder how drunk I'l be by the time I get back to my place, wait ...then out that night...aww no way can I play this with a horrible hangover... (rev) It'll be about 29 days before I get into the proper..lol.

Still playing the demo..practice


----------



## BlooChoo (Jun 8, 2007)

haha..dude...that sucks..i totally couldnt wait knowing that someone had bought it for a christmas present haha...id buy it off them then tell them to give u the money for christmas haha

but i guess paitence is a virtue


----------



## tony oh (Mar 22, 2007)

I know but ..still

I found this and it's only about the demo but...a game that actually benefits from quad core It shames crysis for all it's multithreaded talk..blah.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3127&cp=5

Anyone know if this holds true for the actual game .. I presume so if not better.


----------



## BlooChoo (Jun 8, 2007)

haha fear not my friend the e6850 works just as well as my processor which cost me £875 thats like £600 difference..crazy huh

but yeh ut3 runs perfectly on a dual core


----------



## tony oh (Mar 22, 2007)

I haven't really felt the need to clock my Q6600 to 3.0ghz yet as stock is still going good for me. I love ( well maybe not love..but like ) looking at a game and then looking at the task manager and seeing all cores being used...makes me happy


----------



## Gulo Luseus (May 12, 2007)

Well now........ I have just made a big sacrifice and got 2 lovely new pre clocked BFG 8800 GT cards <gggggggggggg>. Suddenly, Crysis tells me I should be runnung on very high spec, and it loves it. Framerate hits 40-70, depending where I am..... do these cards really make that much difference? I guess thats a yes.
Still think its not very good though <g>


----------



## B336700 (Jul 10, 2007)

God, I get 9 FPS playing Half-Life 2, so, I can't imagine playing Crysis.


----------



## B336700 (Jul 10, 2007)

Gulo Luseus, may I ask you if your playing on your first or second rig? And whichever one your playing on, may I ask you how much it cost?


----------



## B336700 (Jul 10, 2007)

In dollars or Pounds...Doesn't matter to me.


----------



## Gulo Luseus (May 12, 2007)

Hey B33 
I play on the first rig, the second one is kind of a spare. The spec is out of date, as I just upgraded to 2 8800 GT cards, but apart from that its right..... might even have the sig sorted soon<g>.
As for cost, my, thats a personal question!! I would guess, not including old parts that go to second rig or wherever, so just as is it. about £1300 ($2600), somewhere around there. A few bits and pieces i picked up cheap, so I am not sure the exact count. So lets say between £1000- 1300 ( $2000-2600).
Not cheap, but its nice to play


----------



## tony oh (Mar 22, 2007)

Aww...now I want two gt's


----------



## Gulo Luseus (May 12, 2007)

Tony, got 2 GTSs going spare.... offers welcomed


----------



## Michael Bennett (Nov 23, 2007)

Another thread about opinions.

*NO ONE* can say what game is the best, everyone likes different things.

Even if two people like one shooter game, they will have different opinions on the features in that particular game.

Michael.


----------



## Gulo Luseus (May 12, 2007)

Michael Bennett said:


> Another thread about opinions.
> 
> *NO ONE* can say what game is the best, everyone likes different things.
> 
> ...


Very true...... but this is more about the hardware side than the game side. My gripes with Crysis are mostly to do with the spec required to play at a decent level, as opposed to the gameplay itself.
Am I absolved??


----------



## tony oh (Mar 22, 2007)

Michael Bennett said:


> Another thread about opinions.
> 
> *NO ONE* can say what game is the best, everyone likes different things.
> 
> ...


Imagine....people in forums expressing opinions ...it's terrible, I say, get rid of them all


----------



## DarqueMist (Jan 16, 2001)

Gulo Luseus said:


> Very true...... but this is more about the hardware side than the game side. My gripes with Crysis are mostly to do with the spec required to play at a decent level, as opposed to the gameplay itself.
> Am I absolved??


Step back and take a good long look at what crysis is. At best it is a beautiful looking game, the eye candy is fantastic but what is there to the actual game? Very little. To offer my 2 cents worth it looks to me like the makers of Crysis were more interested in developing a vehicle to show off the capabilities of their new game engine ... which they did ... but it offers little in way of gameplay. Their goal was to get other developers interested in purchasing the right to use their new engine in games they will be developing down the road. With that in mind it makes perfect sense that an uber rig is needed to run Crysis with all the eye candy visible since what is cutting edge in hardware today will be run of the mill when the next gen of games comes out.


----------



## gamerbyron (Apr 9, 2007)

I like the weapons, you can either add some accessories, like scopes or siliences. It'll be sick


----------



## McTimson (Aug 16, 2002)

Most games that have brand new graphics are merely games to show off their engines, which were usually self-built. The majority of games with great storylines use a pre-made engine (Quake 3 engine, Doom 3 engine, CryTek, Source, etc.). Even Half-Life was based on the Quake 1 engine. Game developers have to pay a lot for the source code to a new graphics engine, and that's where the engine developers (CryTek, iD, etc.) get their money. Throwing together an FPS isn't that difficult for most game developers, the problem is getting a graphics engine to look good and work right. Throwing in extra features like adding scopes and silencers to a gun is nothing new, it's just not used often.

Gameplay-wise, the only FPS that I've really enjoyed is the Half-Life series.


----------



## Gulo Luseus (May 12, 2007)

So where is the incentive for us to buy it? If I want a new car, I dont give Renault 25 grand to get something that might work, but then again if the road isnt perfectly flat, chances are thr tyres will go down. 

We are not a walking advert for an engine development. Crysis is supposed to be a god game- read the pre issue reviews, current reviews, they all praise it as a game. When it comes to it, maybe reviewers arent telling the complete truth, hmm? 

If you want to put out an advet for your engine, fine, stick out a demo ar an industry flyer, dont use gamers as a springboard. If I spend money on a decent rig, I want it to run the way I want it to, not the way they think it should.

I mean, come on... even Nvidia released new drivers to cope with Crysis! I think that says an awful lot more than anyone else could.


----------



## tony oh (Mar 22, 2007)

Gulo Luseus said:


> Crysis is supposed to be a god game- read the pre issue reviews, current reviews, they all praise it as a game. When it comes to it, maybe reviewers arent telling the complete truth, hmm?


A Gamestop editor got fired a few days ago apparently for giving Kane and Lynch a so, so review. Rumours go Eidos the game's developer/publisher threatened to pull advertising from gamestop. At the time the review then got removed from gamestop..maybe a new one is up?

You might have a point Gulo...but I actually liked Crysis just thought it was a little short. If it was starwars it would have been like blowing up a star destroyer not the deathstar at the end .... I wanted to go back to the Island.


----------



## BlooChoo (Jun 8, 2007)

yeh thats exactly how i felt....good starwars reference too


----------



## Gulo Luseus (May 12, 2007)

Deffo have to agree with that. Dont want to spoil it for anyone that hasnt played it, but I didnt realise it was over till the credits rolled, in view of what went immediately before. It set everything up, with nope, just realised I cant actually say anything without spoiling it<g>. But anyway, fet

As an aside, I got hold of a Crysis review earlier... said it was a wonderful game, flawless...... lifespan about 8 to 10 hours which ( and I nearly quote) "is about average for a shooter". 8-10 hours average? Hmmmmmmm I guess I must be really bad, considering most of em last at least twice that, probably more. Maybe I need an autoaim bot.....


----------



## McTimson (Aug 16, 2002)

An 8-10 hour game is incredibly short. Older PC shooters used to have like a 20 hour span, and that was if you were good. I guess games just rely on multiplayer now instead of a longer storyline.


----------



## Gulo Luseus (May 12, 2007)

Thats why I got annoyed. If a review says it good, at 8-10 hours, then I dont see why I should trust anything else they say.


----------



## tom6049 (Aug 6, 2007)

McTimson said:


> An 8-10 hour game is incredibly short. Older PC shooters used to have like a 20 hour span, and that was if you were good.


It seemed like Unreal (the first one) and Half-Life (again, the first one) took
months to finish....none of this 8-10 hour stuff.


----------



## Zeus.:God (Dec 28, 2006)

GamesPOt.

As far as length goes, I feel its quality over quantity...


----------



## tom6049 (Aug 6, 2007)

Zeus.:God said:


> As far as length goes, I feel its quality over quantity...


It's really great when you can get them BOTH....Unreal, Half-Life...


----------



## BlooChoo (Jun 8, 2007)

yeh exactly...a good game is both of those..thats what makes them worth playing! if u make a really long but bad quality game then no one will play it...eva heard of ubersoldier?? google it...check out the images...it looks good huh, so then y does none of us know about it?? a good game has to have both quality and quantity...


----------



## BlooChoo (Jun 8, 2007)

oh and i read a few years ago, back in the days when i loved game cube (when it was first brought out) an interview with Shigeru Miyamoto (mr nintendo). It was published saying that publishers wer making games shorter as this is what the public want, short and sweet...as most people get bored with longer games and dont finish them, and this is a waste of coding effort...i dont know where they got those facts or if a certain nintendo mag had made it all up...but it does seem that games are becoming shorter and shorter...and we all know its to make the companys more money..rather than having a completed game sell out, u spilt it into episodes and create a bunch of media hype, then sell out 3 or 4 games rather than just one...bah...money rules them all...


----------



## MahaGamer (Jul 29, 2005)

Dude i dont want to hear it... Crysis runs on my PC on all highs with shaders on low, 1024x768... and look at my pc... it's a thing of the past!! I get like 30 fps average, so dude yes it is either YOUR pc or YOUR game install... not the game itself


----------



## PEP (Mar 1, 2006)

Except for the fact that shaders is the biggest factor of performance in that game..

I mean everything on low with shaders on medium already looks better...

I could only play 100% smooth with everything on low except physics i guess.. but then the game looks like crap and the gameplay isnt worth it at the end.. well so far.. i only played demo..

Im actually very depressed... im a quite hardcore gamer and it just kills me when i cant run games up to my standard... One day ill get a job and then its quad core sli video card 4 gig ram time!!!


----------



## McTimson (Aug 16, 2002)

Of course, by the time you're ready to get all that fancy stuff, the new thing will be 16 core CPU's, 128GB RAM, and 8 video cards running in quad-SLI


----------



## BlooChoo (Jun 8, 2007)

well lets jus say im glad i have my comp...im not having these troubles


----------



## Gulo Luseus (May 12, 2007)

MahaGamer said:


> Dude i dont want to hear it... Crysis runs on my PC on all highs with shaders on low, 1024x768... and look at my pc... it's a thing of the past!! I get like 30 fps average, so dude yes it is either YOUR pc or YOUR game install... not the game itself


As I said before, from my POV 30fps is not acceptable. I want 50 minimum, to give a good gaming experience. 
I think I can safelt say the rig is running fine, and th einstall is fine. The problem is that on highest settings the frame rate was notgood enough- the new Nvidia drivers helped a lot, and bumping up to the 8800 GT SLI made a huge difference.

And shaders on low? Mine are hig as they go. Thats why I got the rig i did <g>

I stand by what I said.. if you make a game, make it playable on a mainstream rig, and ensure that a custom rig that cost x thousand can run at full tilt. There is no point putting so much in that anything short of a couple of ultras will run it. It pees people off, and as a result means they may well not decide to buy the next instalment, after th eperformance of the first.

I may try running under XP and DX9 to see what that does- remeber, I am using DX10 and Vista, so there is a perormance hit there. Having said that, I now get around the 60 FPS mark on highest setings, so maybe things are looing up.

BUT.. as afinal word, I want high FPS. 40 is theabsolute limit, fo rme. My personal preference, yes, but thats my criteria.

Nearly forgot.. resolution is 1650x 1050. Gimme more <g>


----------



## Gulo Luseus (May 12, 2007)

BlooChoo said:


> well lets jus say im glad i have my comp...im not having these troubles


Bloo, have you tried Crysis on your rig? Looks like we are fairly similar, give or take a few points, I was wondering how it went on yours, see if i am actually having probs or if it is Crysis<G>

And as an aside, whats the merc stealth board like? I saw the ads before they came out, and it looked beautiful. I use a standard merc, as its about the best gaming board I found, but I really, really like the pretty lights


----------



## BlooChoo (Jun 8, 2007)

ha well i average 110 on high (not highest) and around 80 on highest...but then my rig is pretty much the best stuff u can buy for home pcs atm...the rigs probably cost me about £5k with all my upgradings


----------



## BlooChoo (Jun 8, 2007)

oh..soz..didnt get to the end merc stealth is again..probably the best gaming keyboard out..i agree that the merc was, then ther was the merc stealth, its the merc with nice lights and a nicer shape...its a great keyboard....and as for mice...its clear that razer have the best looking mice, and they perform as well as logitech's gaming range..if not better...so why the death adder and not the lachesis or boomslang...well..its the blue lights hehe...i like shiny things


----------



## tom6049 (Aug 6, 2007)

BlooChoo said:


> then my rig is pretty much the best stuff u can buy for home pcs atm.


I would agree. 
I think that you would benefit from a 64 bit OS...all 4GB of RAM could be utilized.


----------



## PEP (Mar 1, 2006)

McTimson said:


> Of course, by the time you're ready to get all that fancy stuff, the new thing will be 16 core CPU's, 128GB RAM, and 8 video cards running in quad-SLI


word


----------



## BlooChoo (Jun 8, 2007)

hehe...word..havnt heard that in a while 

and well..ill be going 64bit when enuff devellopers are taking advantage of it...no point upping to it yet as most games and things are still only 32bit...


----------



## Zeus.:God (Dec 28, 2006)

McTimson said:


> Of course, by the time you're ready to get all that fancy stuff, the new thing will be 16 core CPU's, 128GB RAM, and 8 video cards running in quad-SLI


Wouldn't that be 4 graphics cards, or are you referring to 4 SLI setups... Because technically, quad SLI is supposed to be 4 cards...


----------



## BlooChoo (Jun 8, 2007)

hehe splitting hairs ther...wen i think about a single SLI set up i think 2 cards...so if i think quad SLI then i think 4 single SLI set ups...ie.8 cards


----------



## Sithtiger (Aug 2, 2007)

I played the demo and with the settings on high I would get a high of 31 or 33FPS I think. It may have been on Medium too....not sure. I know I tested it on high, but I can't remember what I left it on. Anyway, check out my specs and you'll see it's more than enough for this game....well it should have been more than enough. Oh and to prove it's just not a DX10 problem. I ran in DX9 mode too to try it and nothing changed!

I'd say the best game right now that I've played is Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. This game is pretty great for a number of reasons. The foremost is the beautiful graphics and the gameplay. The other reason is it's scalability. I get about an average of 60 FPS on COD4 on my system and it's a beast IMO. Now, I didn't even think I'd get more than 10 FPS on my son's computer which is one I had build for myself a few years ago and it has a P4 3GHz, 1GB of RAM, Radeon 9800 Pro with XP Pro SP2. With it, I use medium settings and it looks good....more than good....nearly as good as mine does! The resolution is lower at 1280x1024, but even I use 1680x1050 but that's not a huge bit of difference. Do you know why it runs so well and looks so good on a 4+ year old computer? Because a good developer like Infinity Ward can scale a game where it looks great on a high end computer and a medium/low end computer too.

While Crysis looks good, I don't think it looks any better than COD4 and it should run much MUCH better than it does on both DX9 and DX10, but definitely on DX9. You can probably chalk this up to inexperience CryTek has. I know they've been around for a few years, but IW used to be part of 2015....the team that made Medal of Honor. I've got to say that Infinity Ward is probably my favorite developer right now. COD4 used a proprietary engine that IW developed in house. On the box, I see they give id software some credit so they must have either used or derived some technology from them....still, it's an IW engine. They used the same engine as COD2 had.

Speaking of COD2....now that game (to me anyway) didn't look that much better than COD, yet it ran pretty bad. Basically it was almost like the Crysis of 2005. It didn't run as bad as Crysis does for that time, but much worse than it should have ran. So IW learned from there mistakes and they really make up for it with COD4! Don't count CryTek out...chances are, they're next game will be optimized like it should be. I don't think any game should require you to have an SLi or Crossfire system. Of course that will be moot, once the next gen Nvidia and ATi cards are released that use multi-core technology like CPU's do now.

Anyway, the other game that is probably the best right now, and it's not really a game, but a box and that's The Orange Box. I don't own it, but from what I've read, it's the best price vs. performance deal there is right now. You get 5 games in that box....pretty good! The Source engine though is getting a bit long in the tooth from what other people are saying. It still looks very good and I think HL2 EP 2 uses an updated Source engine in it, but it needs a full overhaul, much like COD2's engine got for COD4. If Valve can do with Source 2 what they did with the original Source engine, Source 2 will be the best looking engine by far!!! The Unreal 3 engine is pretty good too, but honestly my two favorite engines right now are the COD4 engine and the Source engine believe or not!


----------



## BlooChoo (Jun 8, 2007)

yeh deffinalty...get the orange box!!! if u like fps then u need this!! then come join me on team fortress 2


----------



## Sithtiger (Aug 2, 2007)

Hopefully I'll be getting The Orange Box for Christmas...if I do, then I will see you on TF2! If you get COD4, you can see me there...my nick is Bowen


----------



## BlooChoo (Jun 8, 2007)

ah cool..well ill have to jump on in cod4 i completed it an havent really played the multiplayer too much...but i know its pretty good so yeh ill add u on ther ul know who i am...the names the same


----------



## stalepriest (Dec 6, 2007)

Sithtiger said:


> I played the demo and with the settings on high I would get a high of 31 or 33FPS I think. It may have been on Medium too....not sure. I know I tested it on high, but I can't remember what I left it on. Anyway, check out my specs and you'll see it's more than enough for this game....well it should have been more than enough. Oh and to prove it's just not a DX10 problem. I ran in DX9 mode too to try it and nothing changed!
> 
> I'd say the best game right now that I've played is Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. This game is pretty great for a number of reasons. The foremost is the beautiful graphics and the gameplay. The other reason is it's scalability. I get about an average of 60 FPS on COD4 on my system and it's a beast IMO. Now, I didn't even think I'd get more than 10 FPS on my son's computer which is one I had build for myself a few years ago and it has a P4 3GHz, 1GB of RAM, Radeon 9800 Pro with XP Pro SP2. With it, I use medium settings and it looks good....more than good....nearly as good as mine does! The resolution is lower at 1280x1024, but even I use 1680x1050 but that's not a huge bit of difference. Do you know why it runs so well and looks so good on a 4+ year old computer? Because a good developer like Infinity Ward can scale a game where it looks great on a high end computer and a medium/low end computer too.
> 
> ...


100% agree with you.

CoD4 is an amazing game and I was surprised my aging system ran it at max with frame rate well over 40 at all times, and online it's the most fun I have had online in along time.

I bought the Orange box as well, I didn't get along to well with TF2, I might try it out again. Everything else was fantastic Epi 2 which had been really looking forward to did not disapoint at all. And Portal was fantastic, I didn't expect the dry humour at all. I would love to see some more Portal levels made.

The thought of source 2 engine is enough to get me excited.


----------



## gascan (Jan 28, 2007)

i tried the demo,it sucks


----------



## stalepriest (Dec 6, 2007)

BlooChoo said:


> ah cool..well ill have to jump on in cod4 i completed it an havent really played the multiplayer too much...but i know its pretty good so yeh ill add u on ther ul know who i am...the names the same


I nearly sold it after I completed the single player, then i thought i will have a quick look at how the on line game is, that was 52 hours of game play ago over the last 2 weeks. Its been along time since i have lost track of time playing a game, looking at the clock and seeing its 2am when I have to be up for work at 6am is a bit of a shock.


----------



## stalepriest (Dec 6, 2007)

gascan said:


> i tried the demo,it sucks


Oh yeah Crysis, lol forgot what this thread was about, I find it more frustrating that it can either look like **** but be playable or look pretty damn good and be a slide show. Not when my PC has had no trouble playing pretty much every good, big game this year.

It kind of reminds me of Stalker, that needed some pretty decent pc to get it looking like the screen shots, I went back to it a year later with a new pc and found my machine just laughed at it. That is another excellent game. So I will probably just play Crysis next year when I can afford a better machine and the parts have hopefully come down to a decent price.

Well its the weekend and only 10pm, so it's time to shoot some fools on CoD4.


----------



## tony oh (Mar 22, 2007)

Ah Stalker...went back to that about a week or so ago and finally got the proper ending...loved that game. Roll on clear sky.

I wish nvidia would hurry up and release the official drivers I'm so tired of getting glitches in the OS and other games going funny with these stupid beta drivers. I just know that within an hour of me rolling back they release the new one's....might be worth it to see...lol


----------



## Sithtiger (Aug 2, 2007)

stalepriest said:


> 100% agree with you.
> 
> CoD4 is an amazing game and I was surprised my aging system ran it at max with frame rate well over 40 at all times, and online it's the most fun I have had online in along time.
> 
> ...


I'm looking forward to getting The Orange Box and playing TF2 and Portal. Of course I want to play EP 2, but I'll play EP1 first since I haven't played that either.


----------



## Sithtiger (Aug 2, 2007)

gascan said:


> i tried the demo,it sucks


You're talking about Crysis correct, because there's no way you could be talking about COD4. 

Crysis isn't a bad game, but the crazy system requirements make it very undesirable. Even if you have two 8800 GTX cards, you still get what....I think I read something like the low 40's. That's just ridiculous. Without Sli, I got in the low 30's so SLi for Crysis is a complete waste of time. What's even worse is that CryTek said a dual-core CPU or higher is more important that a video card if you have a decent one....meaning you shouldn't need a cutting edge vid card if you've got a dual or quad core proc. I have a Q6600 and a 8800 GTX and it still pretty bad.

Of course I've only played the demo, but from I'm hearing the game plays the same way. I guess when the new multi-core GeForce cards (assuming they keep the GeForce moniker still) or the ATi multi-core cards are released, you'll be able to just hit 60FPS....lol. I don't know what's worse....the fact that it runs so poorly in DX10 mode or that it runs just as bad in DX9 mode, with slightly less shader rendering.

I recall Company of Heroes took a big hit in performance when playing DX10 mode vs DX9 mode. I haven't tried playing COH for a few months now, but I thought I read that they fixed DX10 so it doesn't take such a hit.


----------



## stalepriest (Dec 6, 2007)

I have just about finished Crysis now and I am willing to upgrade my opinion a bit, once you get the Jungle romp out of the way and the Aliens are unleashed, it gets very exciting and the second half of the game runs alot better than the first half. Its still not what you would call smooth 100% of the time, but it's definitely playable and quite enjoyable.

I think they should have introduced the Aliens alot earlier because before them its a very standard unremarkable game. I found my self getting board after 2 hours of Far Cry style jungle tedium, amazing graphics or not its game play that counts first and foremost. .


----------



## tony oh (Mar 22, 2007)

I got the opposite with the start running much better than the end. The indoor sections esp on the carrier ran terribly and I had to lower my settings further than the start of the game to get it smooth.



Sithtiger said:


> Crysis isn't a bad game, but the crazy system requirements make it very undesirable. Even if you have two 8800 GTX cards, you still get what....I think I read something like the low 40's. That's just ridiculous. Without Sli, I got in the low 30's so SLi for Crysis is a complete waste of time. What's even worse is that CryTek said a dual-core CPU or higher is more important that a video card if you have a decent one....meaning you shouldn't need a cutting edge vid card if you've got a dual or quad core proc. I have a Q6600 and a 8800 GTX and it still pretty bad.


This really annoyed me too! I have a Q6600 and a 8800GTS and thought with a quad the game would run much better. All this talk of utilizing multicore...blah... They straight out lied.


----------



## Sithtiger (Aug 2, 2007)

Yeah, big time, because if Crysis was optimized for multi-core, even a C2D E6400 would have displayed a noticeably framerate increase according to the hype CryTek had brought up. Like I said before....to run Crysis smoothly, you'll need to get a multi-core vid card from either Nvidia or ATi, and then I'm not sure how much that will help since CryTek (along with all other game dev's) will probably have release a patch in order to utilize multi-core video cards, much like what had to be done with multi-core CPU's!


----------



## tony oh (Mar 22, 2007)

Was there a patch already released for Crysis for multi cpu?

According to the pres of crytek Crysis does support multicore at release/now ...blah..(UT3/source has better support).... or so he said in a IIRC chat. But I remember him making a big deal about how it would run so much better on a Quad (One of the reasons I bought one..I love my cpu anyways). Not true as it turns out crysis is mostly GPU dependant as oppose to CPU.

Anyone up for a class action


----------



## PEP (Mar 1, 2006)

Ahh.. cod4 was a very pleasant surprise.. its by far the best looking game that i could actually play with good fps on my rig.. which is sooo outdated... 'rushes out to get job'


----------



## Gulo Luseus (May 12, 2007)

Crysis on a quad core doesnt make a lot of diffwerence. Tried a 6600 at stock speed, then dumped up to about 3.4, no major difference. Only thing that really did was changing from 8800 GTS SLI to 8800GT SLI. the SLI does make a better game, but regardless, I still think it sucks. Dropping back to XP from Vista made a big difference too, so at the last count my framrate tends to hit around 75FPs ish. Sometimes higher. 

However, my opinion overall is still that Crysis is a bad game. Too short, too much the same, too high system specs. The only novel feature, really, is the suit, and even that has been done one way or another before. So yes, you get great graphics, if you are prepared to spend a grand pls on the hardware. Anything else, forget it.


----------



## BlooChoo (Jun 8, 2007)

yeh like i always thought...i had this argument months ago b4 the q6600 was out...quad cores will not be utilised for at least a year...game producers arent writting for quad multi threading..it complicates more things than its worth (and at the moment does make things run slower)...quad cores are only useful for things like if ur video editing or graphics rendering say, if ur working for pixar..


----------



## dragjack (Jul 20, 2005)

wasn't overly impressed with the demo, so not sure I'll be gettingthe game.
COD4 however is FANTASTIC!!!


----------



## tony oh (Mar 22, 2007)

New nvidia beta drivers work slightly better on XP - 169.21.

Also got rid of the graphical glitch in oblivion which I'm happy about


----------



## gamerbyron (Apr 9, 2007)

gascan said:


> i tried the demo,it sucks


Thats because you didn't update the drivers i guess, or maybe you comptuer can't handle it lol


----------



## Sithtiger (Aug 2, 2007)

gamerbyron said:


> Thats because you didn't update the drivers i guess, or maybe you comptuer can't handle it lol


Forgive me, but you're either lying or you don't know what you're actual framerate is. Now, while I don't have the game, I've tried the demo and I'd get around an average of 30FPS or so....can't remember precisely. Anyway, while I get in the low 30's, it was actually pretty smooth. That said I think I used the high setting. The highest setting was too much and it did look too much.

Can you take some screenshots then along with a screenshot of your computer specs.


----------



## BlooChoo (Jun 8, 2007)

na what byron is sayin is true
if u dont update the drivers (Nvidia anyway) then ur not gonna run it fast .. or even at all...even my rig didnt play it properly till i downloaded the beta nvidia drivers...


----------



## Gulo Luseus (May 12, 2007)

My rig runs Crysis in highest settings AND full shaders 
<ickle dig, but only an ickle one coz its Christmas>

Had the same prob as Bloo, it needs the beta drivers to run even remotely well. Still think its useless, given the hardware you need to get it running properly, and the fact it would only run with Beta GPU drivers!! 
The fact that I can get a good run with a decent framerate is, I think, still beside the point of the thread. Crysis has really added nothing to the genre, and in some ways I think it has detracted. Imagine you are new to gaming, and went out and bought a lovely shiny new rig that the salesman tells you will run anything you want. You take it jhome, install crysis, and after 5 mins give up because its rubbish on your lovely shiny computer. Is that the waythings should be? you cant say, oh, go to this site or that site and download this/that, because you SHOULDNT HAVE TO. So what we have is someone teed off to the back teeth because the store lied to them, or something is wrong with their computer. That isnt the way it should be.

So, under my initial criteria, I have to go with my initial opinion. Yes, it looks lovely if you can run at highest spec, but thats not what a game is about. I remeber a game called Chrome, oh, a while back now, that was similar- it pushed tech a bit too hard. I fully intend to fire it uo soon and see how it plays now, because it was a GOOD GAME. It had interest, new features, and enough to keep you going. Crysis? Well, I hear a lot about multi player, but thats not what I want. I dont have time to faff around going online and trying to join a game. I dont WANT to. And for peeps with no internet access, its a moot point anyway.
So, anyone convinced yet? Bear in mind the points, not just the personal opinion.


----------



## tony oh (Mar 22, 2007)

For XP the official drivers (whql) are out 169.21 and vista 169.25...now I'm finding the pain of dual boot.

Downloads double.

Anyway the XP drivers seem to run a tad better than the beta and are more stable on my PC (Except Bioshock seems to have a dip every so often?)


----------



## Sithtiger (Aug 2, 2007)

OK, so the newer drivers help out noticeably. I still find it hard to believe that Byron can still run it at high settings with nothing more than a 7800GS when Bloo and Gulo run it at the same settings with either dual 8800 GT's or GTX cards. Like I said, I'd like to see some screenshots with the framerate in the corner and see a screenshot of your specs.

See my problem is I've read quite a few reviews of Crysis and despite the lackluster review of the game, everyone said it ran just horribly slow on even the highest end system. I could see a driver allowing some 8800's in SLi, heck even one 8800 GTS (old revision), but no way a 7900GS...sorry, I don't see that at all.

Not only that, but the 8800 GTX is about twice as fast as the 7900GS. Check out this review: http://www.legitreviews.com/article/413/10/
You can pick any review and they'll have the same results too. I don't care if someone has a faster rig than me...both Bloo and Gulo do afterall. I've just got a think about lying, and I'm sorry but I just don't believe you.


----------



## cool_zed (Dec 19, 2007)

Do you play Crysis on these Spec's:
Q6600 quad core @3.3Ghz, BFG 680i SLI mobo, 4x 500Gb RAID 1000w PSU, 4 Gig OCZ DDr2 mem, 2 x BFG 8800 GT 512 meg , Fatal1ty s/card, XP/Vista

It should run on high!..my friend got the same only none SLI but a 700mb 8800GT and He has great FPS no lag on very high!..except online but that the server! ^^
I think it's that you have SLI gfx and the game argues with them!...You do get online support with it!..dont you?


----------



## Gulo Luseus (May 12, 2007)

Zed, re the specs, yup thats the one, with the CPU at between 3.0 and 3.4 Ghz, depending on how clocky I feel. With regard to framerate, I get a good FPS now, hits high enough that I am happy with it. SLI isnt a problem, and does give you a bit more oomph. My point isnt that my rig wont play Crysis... I did upgrade the GPU's after all... but that it demands such a huge spec to run at highest settings.

Sith, I am not sure about the 7900 claims, but I do know he said earlier it was without shaders. Bit of a cop put really<ggg> (Tongue in cheek! Tongue in cheek!). No shaders dumps a lot of work out the window, so it requires a lower spec. 
Anyways, if i had, say, a dual core, with an 8800, I would expect to be able to run any new game at max. With Crysis, you cant do that. It is too high a spec, and thats the point I was annoyed at. Combined with the need to create new drivers to cope with it, it just makes you think, well, next game they release, I think twice about


----------



## tony oh (Mar 22, 2007)

I bet we'll be the same over Far Cry 2...foilage that grows and alot of the other stuff seems mad..but the vids look cool.

I also heard it was being developed by the same studio that did rs vegas..ouch ..poorly optimised anyone.

http://www.n4g.com/pc/NewsCom-89415.aspx


----------



## Sithtiger (Aug 2, 2007)

Gulo Luseus said:


> Zed, re the specs, yup thats the one, with the CPU at between 3.0 and 3.4 Ghz, depending on how clocky I feel. With regard to framerate, I get a good FPS now, hits high enough that I am happy with it. SLI isnt a problem, and does give you a bit more oomph. My point isnt that my rig wont play Crysis... I did upgrade the GPU's after all... but that it demands such a huge spec to run at highest settings.
> 
> Sith, I am not sure about the 7900 claims, but I do know he said earlier it was without shaders. Bit of a cop put really<ggg> (Tongue in cheek! Tongue in cheek!). No shaders dumps a lot of work out the window, so it requires a lower spec.
> Anyways, if i had, say, a dual core, with an 8800, I would expect to be able to run any new game at max. With Crysis, you cant do that. It is too high a spec, and thats the point I was annoyed at. Combined with the need to create new drivers to cope with it, it just makes you think, well, next game they release, I think twice about


As soon as you said "without shaders" then yeah, I can easily see that. Having shaders enabled is what gives Crysis (or any other game for that matter) it's good looks. Was this a few pages back or something that he said that because I don't see in on this page or the last. If he said without shaders then I humbly apologize because even a GeForce 5900 would be able to run it on high, because it has little to do without the shaders.

Anyway, while Crysis looks really good, the gameplay just seems...average. I got The Orange Box for Christmas...it's just sitting here and I'm dying to open up, but since I'm pretty sure I didn't get many gifts, I'm gonna save it so that I have something to open. Yeah...I know....poor me with only The Orange Box and a new SanDisk Cruzer Micro 4GB USB Flash drive. Yeah, it was a tough year since I only got a 8800 GTX and a.....well look at my specs. I'm suffering pretty bad material-wise. If anyone has it in their heart to give me say....oh $4000 (or more) then I can upgrade to the latest tech next year. If I don't get that then I'll have to (GASP) wait until 2009 to upgrade...sniff.....sniff.


----------



## Gulo Luseus (May 12, 2007)

Sith, take heart, it isnt that much for the full upgrade. Mine weighed in at only about £1100 Ithink,, thats only $2200 . 
Should be less in the US, because everything costs a LOT less there... still pees me off, that. 
Actually, I just thought, it is kind of a big wedge.. I could have got married for that. Although to be honest, turning on a computer is a lot less hassle free.. and its bad news when a computer goes do.. nope, im not saying that!!


----------



## Sithtiger (Aug 2, 2007)

Gulo, I was being sarcastic at how bad off I am...lol. I was playing the spoiled American who thinks he must have the very best hardware at all times. Sadly, I do wish I had the best hardware out there at all times, but I don't feel that I need to. I'm quite happy with my current setup.

If I had the money, would I buy the fastest parts out there....no way....and if you believe that, you'll believe anything! Of course I would, but if you look at the numbers between the lowest Quad and the highest one....the difference in game performance is...well very little. The video card decides the vast majority of this. Also, having SLi or Crossfire (2 cards for this example) doesn't give you twice the performance like it should (most of the time), so as long as you have a mid, high range card like the 8800 GT or the GTS, you're sitting pretty.

It's funny because at the beginning of this year, buying a quad core and just one 8800 GTX would cost around what....$1400 or so. The same combo will now cost around $800 or so. That's just crazy to see that much of a price drop (with the CPU's) in that small amount of time. Then Nvidia releases the 8800 GT, which effectively killed the 8800 GTS sales so they had to re-release the 8800 GTS with more shaders and more stream processors, but with a lower price than the original....just amazing. I believe this has been THE best year to upgrade in the history of PC gaming, or just PC's. Sorry to get OT...so back on topic. Crysis sucks!


----------



## Gulo Luseus (May 12, 2007)

Hehe.. nicely said Sith 
I dod notice though, the 2 people who seem to have best spec are in the UK.. aint we, bloo?

Maybe we just got more free cash, or more understanding other halfs. Mine at least does... She LOVES having 3 screens to play on when she visits me. Although she doesnt get a lot of time on th ecomputer <wweg>.
With SLI, 30% boost is pretty normal, and I have to say its useful. 
And Crysis? Still worst game, regardless.


----------



## wiley8425 (Nov 11, 2007)

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Doom3 have a similar problem when it first came out? I remember the (beta) demo wasn't even playable on my 2.4 Ghz.


----------



## PEP (Mar 1, 2006)

If you cant play crysis on high settings than its not worth it..... because the gameplay is... eh....i wouldnt say its bad.. its just .... well the energy you get runs out to fast, the switching of power modes are not as smooth as youd like them to be... i tried to swim up to one of those boat things and i ran out of energy before i got close.. and i couldnt even get on top when i snuck up to it.. it was the demo though.... well w/e the best part of the game are the trees!!! even though i broke one at a cliff side once and the tree started climbing up the cliff!! literally just floating up.. i was like eh???


----------



## andres_sz (Jan 3, 2008)

i dont think the game is bad, perhaps ridiculously demanding but if u can play it right, the game will be awesome. and PEP, the energy is sposed to run out quickly so it can give action to the game and give u more to think. think about an strategy befor u try to get on the boat. If it is the boat on the first dock after u find jester i think u can't get on that boat that roams around because i tried... lol


----------



## Gulo Luseus (May 12, 2007)

Andre, what you said is pretty much why I started this thread. With an excessively high specce machine yes you get wonderful graphics, but thats the problem. Games should be able to run on an "average" system, and still give you good performance. Crysis doesnt. You should have good gameplay, with interest. Crysis, IMO,doesnt. You should be able to keep playing for a couple of weeks, as an evening gamer, and think wow, be finished soon if Im lucky! Crysis doesnt even come close.

Now, for me, I have just got a lovely shiny new 24" TFT, and I can play Crysis at 1920x1200, with DX10 effects, everything at highest settings, FULL shaders, and get a FPS over 50av all the time. From that point of view, its awesome. It looks beautiful, moves well, faultless in execution. But its still way short, still doesnt have the surprises it promised, doesnt utilise everything it is capable of, or impress past the first 5 minutes.

Crysis still sucks, and I am right. Anyome who says its brilliant is wrong.


Hehehe.. April Fool


----------



## BlooChoo (Jun 8, 2007)

hehe..u shud have saved that for a few months


----------



## Gulo Luseus (May 12, 2007)

Crysis still sucks, and I am right. Anyome who says its brilliant is wrong.

That was the only april fool bit- the rest of it was pure brag <g> hehe


----------



## BlooChoo (Jun 8, 2007)

hehe well brag away my friend brag away! 

an yeh ill agree crysis wasnt all it is made out to be...im still loving team fortress 2 to care about it now


----------



## PEP (Mar 1, 2006)

you 2 and your goddamn super computers!!!!!! well.. with a job and a couple of months i can get that everntually too...


----------



## BlooChoo (Jun 8, 2007)

yeh thats the way to do it...wen u have a good surplus of spare money knockin about its worth gettin a new system


----------



## Cadeyrn (Feb 19, 2008)

Well, the thing with Crysis is it's awesome, yet it sucks ****ing monkey balls.

The problem is, the IDIOTS at Crytek made the same mistake they made with Far Cry: a game so outstanding, so outrageously phenomenal that they FORGET to make graphics settings in the game that can ACTUALLY be handled by a computer made in this CENTURY. That's why I was ripped of when I bought it. My crappy computer that's pretty respectable specs can't even handle LOWEST settings. Ridiculous.


----------



## B-Subs-Me (Nov 8, 2007)

It's a good game, although it does get old quickly. It runs on my machine on high smooth as butter.


----------



## BlooChoo (Jun 8, 2007)

the game plays well but is technically flawed...im not on about just the graphics "problems" but im talking about the actual game play...the suit was just a gimmick, the powers didnt last long enuff to be useful at all...the game tred to be a mix of far cry and dues ex...it had the potential to be the best game eva...but it fell at the final post


----------



## the_man550 (Nov 30, 2007)

Took me about 30+ hours to complete crysis. Ran at high, but very high was very playable for the most time as well.

The difference in fps between xp and vista is quite big, in xp I've never, and then I mean _never_ been under 25fps with high settings (always had it at 1680x1050), it's mostly at 30-35.

Crysis was the best game of the year for me. Far cry was quite nice as well, just a bit too claustrophobic for me on the later levels :O (yep, I'm a giant chicken)


----------



## Dharq (May 29, 2008)

All versions of the Cry Engine are genuinely flawed. Crytek seem to spend 9/10's of their budget on their engine, and the game is almost always the secondary component to the game. And, personally, it's always been paltry compared to the Source Engine...
Not sure on an official release date for the non-beta drivers, but sign up to fileplanet's mailing list if you haven't already - they'll keep you updated on them when they arrive.


----------



## the_man550 (Nov 30, 2007)

The only thing I agree with of the former post is that the source engine is better, but it's not comparable to anything as it is and will always be the best engine ever 

Crytek makes games which only the players who like to think a lot when they play will enjoy. Those who like the games, they love it. Those who doesn't, are rude to the creators and thinks it sucks. 

I've never heard a comment that's even made me a little convinced of why it should suck, and I'm one of those who are good to see things from other peoples perspective!


----------



## Dharq (May 29, 2008)

I do have to agree with you, and take back my previous statement.
I've just heard of so many of my friends having serious difficulties with Crysis, and, myself having the original Far Cry crash and get lag when it never has before.
When it works, I adore Far Cry - it's a genuinely original game and I do enjoy playing it, I just think that more time could be spent by Crytek ON the game. However, Far Cry 2 looks to be brilliant


----------



## the_man550 (Nov 30, 2007)

Whao some1's agreeing with me =)

I've never had any problems with any of the games, on any system. there are loads of far cry forums with experienced users still going, if you want to fix it (I'd recommend it!), go there. Here are some:

www.crysystem.tk
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/frm/f/452106891 <- prolly the best

btw, I've had 800fps in far cry with maximum settings, beat that! xD


----------



## joeitalo (Apr 7, 2008)

I am running crysis on the highest settings and it runs and runs good I am not sur what you are using but I would be glad to tell you what I am....Crysis is the best hands down


----------



## Cadeyrn (Feb 19, 2008)

the_man550 said:


> Whao some1's agreeing with me =)
> btw, I've had 800fps in far cry with maximum settings, beat that! xD


Is 800fps even physically possible? Either you're lying, or you went a hundred years (or maybe 10 years, the way technology is increasing) and came back with the best computer that time had to offer.


----------



## mewarmo990 (Aug 27, 2006)

Crysis has been a blast for me on Very High in forced DX9 mode. The negligible effects in DX10, plus the decreased FPS, just isn't worth it. Still, I have to agree about the absurdly poor performance in certain parts of the game. After I left the Core level and emerged in the blizzard where you first encounter alien scouts, my beast of a system that I spent big bucks on hacked and coughed down to single-digit FPS. SINGLE DIGIT! I had to turn it down to medium to get through that level, and then keep it on high for the remainder of the game. That was before I figured out how to force DX9 mode, though.



Cadeyrn said:


> Is 800fps even physically possible? Either you're lying, or you went a hundred years (or maybe 10 years, the way technology is increasing) and came back with the best computer that time had to offer.


Seeing as how PCs now can get some insane FPS with Source games like TF2, that wouldn't be too surprising. I still think he meant 80


----------



## the_man550 (Nov 30, 2007)

Cadeyrn said:


> Is 800fps even physically possible? Either you're lying, or you went a hundred years (or maybe 10 years, the way technology is increasing) and came back with the best computer that time had to offer.


oh fack, I ment minimum :O

sry... my maximum with highest is something at 350-400.


----------



## the_man550 (Nov 30, 2007)

mewarmo990 said:


> Crysis has been a blast for me on Very High in forced DX9 mode. The negligible effects in DX10, plus the decreased FPS, just isn't worth it. Still, I have to agree about the absurdly poor performance in certain parts of the game. After I left the Core level and emerged in the blizzard where you first encounter alien scouts, my beast of a system that I spent big bucks on hacked and coughed down to single-digit FPS. SINGLE DIGIT! I had to turn it down to medium to get through that level, and then keep it on high for the remainder of the game. That was before I figured out how to force DX9 mode, though.
> 
> Seeing as how PCs now can get some insane FPS with Source games like TF2, that wouldn't be too surprising. I still think he meant 80


Just a small question, as you are the first person with a BFG 8800gtx OC2 I've met, what are your temps with that one?


----------



## Gulo Luseus (May 12, 2007)

Sith, you spotted the crysis flaw 
31fps is pretty low really, especially on med or high, considering there is a very high setting too. As you say, specs are decent, so why oh why, did they do it? Take something like UT3- a new game, loks pretty godd ( good enough for whats needed, even), and it plays lovely on highest settings. It means if you laid out the dosh for a high spec rig, you get the benefit, but if you are lower, it still plays well. 31 on med on a good rig? Maybe a sign of the contempt that the makers have for all of us out here, who buy something and expect it to give depth, good graphics, originaluty that actually MEANS something, AND be able to play on high with good FPS.
I know i said it before, but any future release will pass me by,


----------



## mud77 (Jun 3, 2008)

Xkarinx said:


> Thanks for the heads up, I think the best game would be WoW =)


hahahahahHARHARHARHAR!!!

Oh...you're serious. So sorry.


----------



## thatoneguy24 (Aug 11, 2007)

wow worst game EVER? i think thats a little dramatic my friend. i recently tired a demo of that ironman game that just came out, and that was pretty awful. i can also think of a few other great examples of worse games...

oh you were judging on how it runs on your computer? entirely different things, i think.


----------



## PEP (Mar 1, 2006)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Rigs:_Over_the_Road_Racing

worst game ever........


----------

