Crysis, the best FPS to date

BDV said:
I found it extremely boring and overhyped... Crysis does nothing innovative but push the hardware to its knee's. Graphics do not make the game... lame story and weird FPS mechanics killed it for me.

It just feels like FarCry... which was an OK fps but nothing special. Once you take away the graphics.... nothing innovative is left.


COD4 was alot more fun then Crysis.
Click to expand...

Nothing innovative? Hell, I'm not a huge fan of Crysis myself but credit is due here.

Crysis, like Far Cry before it, attempts to set you in an open world, leaving you to complete objectives however you please. It may not be executed perfectly, what with technological limits hindering the AI somewhat, but it's still extremely impressive.

I guess I just don't see how someone can find Crysis to be 'not innovative', yet love Call of Duty 4 - a game that consists of "MOVE TO THE FLASHING YELLOW LIGHT. HIT F," and soldiers who can single handedly win wars yet fail to be able to maneuver over an eight inch high barrier on the side of the road.
 
I dont think crysis brings anything to the table (besides graphics) that we haven't seen before, cloaking, weapon augmentation, and the suit... its all been done before, (Metal Gear Solid series)(Deus Ex) or atleast thats the feeling I get from the game, the games got major Far Cry syndrome , at times I have to remind myself that Im playing Crysis instead of the new Far Cry. Secondly the A.I is pretty horrible for the amount of time that they spent on this game , for example I shoot at them standing 20 feet away in plain sight and they crouch down and say "american pig" "where is he". lol what is that? That was a major turn off for me, also the hitboxes horrid. Once you get over the wow factor of the game, it starts to go downhill due to the lack of A.I and originality.

Anyways this game could have been so much more if they had worked on the meat of it all as much as the graphics.

3.5/5
 
rantanamo said:
So who has actually played Crysis?


and I can't believe some of the comments about Far Cry. That has to be the most awesome FPS ever made. Endless possibilities on how to set up an attack on enemies OR just bust in there and wing it. Only game I rank above HL2.
Click to expand...

besides the soldiers that would snipe you with rocket launchers half way across the map and those pos trigens that looked like they came out of morrowind, it was good. but come on those trigens had to be the shittiest npcs ever, they didn't even look like they belonged in that graphics engine and they were just annoying overall. the yeti's from resident evil 2 would of fit in much better.
 
Far from being that best FPS to date. I don't even think it would rank in the top 5 for me personaly. Like many have said I think the graphics more than anything is causing many to put it on a higher pedestal than it should be.
 
Yep starting from the rediculous sci-fi storyline the game goes downhill. Graphically it looks great. But it's unplayable at highest levels and many things are porked, such as weapon accuracy.

Looks like they made big promises at the expo, ran out of time, had to cut the project half way when optimizing graphics and slap Far Cry base story with quick modifications in. They delayed a lot already and decided to ship it half finished.
 
LiquidX said:
Far from being that best FPS to date. I don't even think it would rank in the top 5 for me personaly. Like many have said I think the graphics more than anything is causing many to put it on a higher pedestal than it should be.
Click to expand...

Not at all. Graphics are just the icing on the cake.
I'll ask you a simple question. Let's assume for a moment, that HL2 is in that top 5 list of yours. Lets remove the graphics provided by CryEngine 2, out of the equation and just keep the "dated" look that the Source engine provides. Now add the nanosuit abilities, the weapon customization, the open and destructible environments and almost complete freedom of Crysis, to HL2. Wouldn't HL2 be a MUCH better game ?

You can use this example for any game in your list, that fits the same genre that Crysis does.
My answer is yes. Any game would be much better. And with near photo realistic graphics, we are just getting a big bonus, into the immersive experience, that Crysis is.
 
Silus said:
Not at all. Graphics are just the icing on the cake.
I'll ask you a simple question. Let's assume for a moment, that HL2 is in that top 5 list of yours. Lets remove the graphics provided by CryEngine 2, out of the equation and just keep the "dated" look that the Source engine provides. Now add the nanosuit abilities, the weapon customization, the open and destructible environments and almost complete freedom of Crysis, to HL2. Wouldn't HL2 be a MUCH better game ?

You can use this example for any game in your list, that fits the same genre that Crysis does.
My answer is yes. Any game would be much better. And with near photo realistic graphics, we are just getting a big bonus, into the immersive experience, that Crysis is.
Click to expand...

No, because you just took everything that is HL2 and turned it into Crysis in your description. I want a good story, not a loose, generic walk through a game.
 
Why do you actually support the trend of modern shooters that continously raises the hardware requirements drastically with every single release? Mind you I haven't played Crysis just yet, but I can imagine how it is like. There's other things to games than graphics you know.. just off the top of my head:

  • Sound design
  • AI
  • Story, delivery of the story
  • Content as in the size of the the game. Modern Gfx-whore shooters are usually quite short. Remember Unreal? Half-life1? Lengthy shooters that had pretty much everything right.
  • Gameplay (features like how you run out of life, how you use weapons etc etc)
  • Ingame movies to enforce immersion
  • Technical performance rating (does it run well on standard comps or older comps? maybe it does but then it ironicly looks like shit and then whats left to enjoy????????)

Again I haven't played Crysis yet and it may actually feel like a complete game but seriously what's up with game developers empathizing graphics so much over all other aspects that goes into making a game? Obviously the deals they have with the hardware companies (nvidia/ati) requires them to make the game as heavy as they can so that the players have to buy new hardware all the time. Is this shit acceptable? I dont think so and i cant believe that other gamers will put up with it let alone support it. We should all fucking boycot games like crysis/farcry/doom3 you name it.

Guess how im gonna aquire crysis... hint: im not leaving the house for the matter.

Just on a final note, the Half-life2 franchise is some of the only games I see as overall complete shooters in recent time. They have excellent graphics too but still run great on most systems. Funnily they are also the most successful games.. go figure already for fucks sake.
 
TheRapture said:
Most of them have crappy older generation rigs.....:p
Click to expand...
Just like those 8800 Ultra PC's are really giving mind blowing FPS at 1900 like 25fps..sure
old or new if you wanna play it all on its max you CANT....Game shouldnt have been released till 9series cards came out.
 
sl3000gt94 said:
Just like those 8800 Ultra PC's are really giving mind blowing FPS at 1900 like 25fps..sure
old or new if you wanna play it all on its max you CANT....Game shouldnt have been released till 9series cards came out.
Click to expand...

Typical newb response here....

You got it wrong....I have a pretty new modern rig...at 1920x1200 medium settings except lighting to high, it looks great, plays great ~35-45fps. If you have an older rig....even medium settings at high res will kill it.

People complained about Doom3 when it came out...and nobody was running it smooth and maxed out either at that time...now it runs like hot butter. This is the same thing, the hardware guys will MAKE the parts to run this game smooth and fast, in just 6 months or so, it will be a different story.



Stop bitching about steep hardware needs, it makes better games down the road. For crying out loud, if the programmers did not do this, we would all still be running FX5600's at 800x600....
 
eurin said:
No, because you just took everything that is HL2 and turned it into Crysis in your description. I want a good story, not a loose, generic walk through a game.
Click to expand...

You missed my point. HL2 stays as is, with everything Crysis as to offer, except for the story and graphics. What Crysis offers is hardly a "generic wlak through a game". I don't even understand why you said it...
Also, HL2 = Alien invasion, Crysis = Alien invasion. That's hardly different. And we have yet to find out the kinks of Crysis story, or at least I do, since I haven't played the whole thing.
 
Silus said:
You missed my point. HL2 stays as is, with everything Crysis as to offer, except for the story and graphics. What Crysis offers is hardly a "generic wlak through a game". I don't even understand why you said it...
Also, HL2 = Alien invasion, Crysis = Alien invasion. That's hardly different. And we have yet to find out the kinks of Crysis story, or at least I do, since I haven't played the whole thing.
Click to expand...

Having played the full game...

Comparing HL2 story with Crysis is like comparing War and Peace to Maxim.
 
TheRapture said:
Typical newb response here....

You got it wrong....I have a pretty new modern rig...at 1920x1200 medium settings except lighting to high, it looks great, plays great ~35-45fps. If you have an older rig....even medium settings at high res will kill it.

People complained about Doom3 when it came out....now it runs like hot butter. This is the same thing, the hardware guys will MAKE the parts to run this game smooth and fast, in just 6 months or so, it will be a different story.



Stop bitching about steep hardware needs, it makes better games down the road. For crying out loud, if the programmers did not do this, we would all still be running FX5600's at 800x600....
Click to expand...
HAHA..I like the newb comment. I see just cause I dont have a ton of post then I am a newb. Your post made no sense..You basically said you can play it fine then talk about medium settings. Anyone with anything modern can play at med settings. Graphics aside. The game is a let down to me and is kinda boring. The fact it takes 50bullets to kill a korean if shot anywhere but the face. Time and time again also I read people are complainging even on max settings it doesnt look like the vids they where showing many many months ago. yes I play it but it doesnt really make me feel like I am having FUN like other games do when you play them. It feels incomplete. YET I am going to be a newb cause thats how I feel huh.
 
I got to say FPS when they went on to drive around in vehicles kinda lost it for me, I like calling in airstrikes but not driving around in a tank and to top it off now you have tanks and special abuilities so you can hop out and what zap someone with electricity ehhh the game looks flashy but I dunno...
 
sl3000gt94 said:
Your post made no sense..You basically said you can play it fine then talk about medium settings.
Click to expand...

This game on medium is better than 99% of other games on highest settings....

The fact is, you are bitching about speeds....it's pointless, and a rehash of every grand new game engine that has comeout, they push the envelope on current hardware, so the hardware guys make faster hardware....
 
TheRapture said:
Typical newb response here....

You got it wrong....I have a pretty new modern rig...at 1920x1200 medium settings except lighting to high, it looks great, plays great ~35-45fps. If you have an older rig....even medium settings at high res will kill it.

People complained about Doom3 when it came out....now it runs like hot butter. This is the same thing, the hardware guys will MAKE the parts to run this game smooth and fast, in just 6 months or so, it will be a different story.



Stop bitching about steep hardware needs, it makes better games down the road. For crying out loud, if the programmers did not do this, we would all still be running FX5600's at 800x600....
Click to expand...

All the people who bitch about the performance of Crysis don't really understand what it's meant to do in terms of pushing the graphical boundaries for the PC. IMO anyway...

Silus said:
You missed my point. HL2 stays as is, with everything Crysis as to offer, except for the story and graphics. What Crysis offers is hardly a "generic wlak through a game". I don't even understand why you said it...
Also, HL2 = Alien invasion, Crysis = Alien invasion. That's hardly different. And we have yet to find out the kinks of Crysis story, or at least I do, since I haven't played the whole thing.
Click to expand...

Seriously - this is not even funny...

I think you should've actually completed Crysis before posting that. I mean Ilove both games, but story-wise they are... well "quite" different?

sl3000gt94 said:
HAHA..I like the newb comment. I see just cause I dont have a ton of post then I am a newb. Your post made no sense..You basically said you can play it fine then talk about medium settings. Anyone with anything modern can play at med settings. Graphics aside. The game is a let down to me and is kinda boring. The fact it takes 50bullets to kill a korean if shot anywhere but the face. Time and time again also I read people are complainging even on max settings it doesnt look like the vids they where showing many many months ago. yes I play it but it doesnt really make me feel like I am having FUN like other games do when you play them. It feels incomplete. YET I am going to be a newb cause thats how I feel huh.
Click to expand...

The graphics are a pretty big part of Crysis for getting the "whole" experience, but gameplay is probably on par with the graphics. And as it goes for the Koreans taking a full clip of ammo - it's probably a bug and I think I may've had it happen to me once when I needed about 10 bullets to kill one dude, but that's it... usually takes 3-4 shots to kill an enemy when firing at the body.

Fun - hellz yeah!
Incomplete - maybe 1% at places, but overall it's sleek, well the demo is and I'm sure the final game will be... similar lol
 
TheRapture said:
People complained about Doom3 when it came out...and nobody was running it smooth and maxed out either at that time...now it runs like hot butter.
Click to expand...
The only setting I couldn't use with my 6800 GT was the "Ultra" setting, which allowed for uncompressed normals, and wasn't a big deal at the time. Ran smoothly at High -- some hitches now and then, but no deal-breakers.
 
Koko56 said:
Seriously - this is not even funny...

I think you should've actually completed Crysis before posting that. I mean Ilove both games, but story-wise they are... well "quite" different?
Click to expand...

Not in the base they're not. And as I said, I must know the kinks of the Crysis story, to do a full comparison, but basically that's what both are about - Alien invasions - and thus, people should really stop praising HL2 for story, when comparing it to Crysis.
 
hfk said:
Why do you actually support the trend of modern shooters that continously raises the hardware requirements drastically with every single release? Mind you I haven't played Crysis just yet, but I can imagine how it is like. There's other things to games than graphics you know.. just off the top of my head:

  • Sound design
  • AI
  • Story, delivery of the story
  • Content as in the size of the the game. Modern Gfx-whore shooters are usually quite short. Remember Unreal? Half-life1? Lengthy shooters that had pretty much everything right.
  • Gameplay (features like how you run out of life, how you use weapons etc etc)
  • Ingame movies to enforce immersion
  • Technical performance rating (does it run well on standard comps or older comps? maybe it does but then it ironicly looks like shit and then whats left to enjoy????????)

Again I haven't played Crysis yet and it may actually feel like a complete game but seriously what's up with game developers empathizing graphics so much over all other aspects that goes into making a game? Obviously the deals they have with the hardware companies (nvidia/ati) requires them to make the game as heavy as they can so that the players have to buy new hardware all the time. Is this shit acceptable? I dont think so and i cant believe that other gamers will put up with it let alone support it. We should all fucking boycot games like crysis/farcry/doom3 you name it.

Guess how im gonna aquire crysis... hint: im not leaving the house for the matter.

Just on a final note, the Half-life2 franchise is some of the only games I see as overall complete shooters in recent time. They have excellent graphics too but still run great on most systems. Funnily they are also the most successful games.. go figure already for fucks sake.
Click to expand...

First off this is PC gaming. Why do people complain that in order to play some new games at maximum settings that they need new hardware? That’s a given in PC gaming. But guess what, one can turn down the settings to a level that will run the game intact and still look good. If one doesn’t want to spend the money on the latest and greatest PC hardware, then they have the option to go the console route.

While Half-Life 2 and the episodes are great games, graphically, they just aren’t in the same league as Crysis. I’m sure people will argue this point, but the Source engine is now over three years old. It’s been tweaked since then, but the Crytek engine is at another level right now.
 
Whats with all the comparisons between Farcry and HL2 ?? You are a definate minority when saying Farcry is better than HL2. If Farcry was such an amazing game and had such an amazing engine, than why was there almost no multiplayer? If Crytek was such an amazing developer, why was Farcry MP full of bugs, uninspired gameplay and horribly massive maps?? I also found the single player full of bugs and crappy uninspired enemy AI, and I ended the game twice. It never ever felt as polished and impressive as HL or HL2 did to me when I played those. I'd like to think that the multiplayer plays an important role in proving how successful and popular the entire package is, and most people like myself, played the singleplayer, enjoyed it, and that was it, because it was years before the MP element was good enough to actually play, and by that time nobody played it online. Check out the servers and players still on HL2 multiplayer. I'm going by complete package, and HL2 fucking owns Farcry.

I find the arguement of these open-ended FPS games as being more advanced and worthy to more linear FPS games totally ignorant. IMO an open ended FPS is simplistic. Make a large jungle map, put an objective at the end, and place enemies in various locations between you and the objective, thats it... As opposed to playing through a more linear game where the devs had tweaked gameplay every step of the way to ultimately give the user a more enjoyable experience. I found running through the massive jungle, killing a few enemies here and there pretty boring, even IF I had the option to run on the left side of the path versus the right... I've played through Farcry twice, and basically both times felt like I went the same path, only when I tried to take a vastly different path, the game fell apart and I fell behind objectives causing me to restart the last checkpoint... Its just as linear as other FPS games, and just because you are in a large jungle map, doesn't mean you have more options in progressing through the story.

As for Crysis, I cannot comment since I've only played the demo and I really wasn't impressed... I know my system is old and crappy, but I couldn't get decent framerates even at very modest settings, and at those settings, the game looked worse than older FPS games that were on lowered settings... I still want to play Crysis, but until I upgrade I won't be playing it any time soon.
 
Krenum said:
I dont think crysis brings anything to the table (besides graphics) that we haven't seen before, cloaking, weapon augmentation, and the suit... its all been done before, (Metal Gear Solid series)(Deus Ex) or atleast thats the feeling I get from the game, the games got major Far Cry syndrome , at times I have to remind myself that Im playing Crysis instead of the new Far Cry. Secondly the A.I is pretty horrible for the amount of time that they spent on this game , for example I shoot at them standing 20 feet away in plain sight and they crouch down and say "american pig" "where is he". lol what is that? That was a major turn off for me, also the hitboxes horrid. Once you get over the wow factor of the game, it starts to go downhill due to the lack of A.I and originality.

Anyways this game could have been so much more if they had worked on the meat of it all as much as the graphics.

3.5/5
Click to expand...

I have to agree about the AI despite how much I really liked the demo. The AI reminded me COMPLETELY of the FarCry AI as if very little work has been done to update it. There are times where they take cover when being shot at and other times they wander around out in the open, albeit crouched down, but still very vulnerable. I doubt it would take much to make the AI take cover when being shot at, from a distance, with a silenced weapon. Prudence dictates that at the very least.
 
heatlesssun said:
First off this is PC gaming. Why do people complain that in order to play some new games at maximum settings that they need new hardware? That’s a given in PC gaming. But guess what, one can turn down the settings to a level that will run the game intact and still look good. If one doesn’t want to spend the money on the latest and greatest PC hardware, then they have the option to go the console route.

While Half-Life 2 and the episodes are great games, graphically, they just aren’t in the same league as Crysis. I’m sure people will argue this point, but the Source engine is now over three years old. It’s been tweaked since then, but the Crytek engine is at another level right now.
Click to expand...

I wont continue discussing Crysis before I've actually played it. I just dont understand why people have this mindset on the FPS scene, if something has more detailed graphics then its better. The source engine is getting relatively old but so what? if you played Episode Two thru on highest settings you cant deny it was a stunning experience graphically, but you know why it was also fun? because it ran smoothly even so, had excellent sound design, excellent map design, ai, thrilling and somewhat compelling story, interesting possibilities to kill your opponents with the gravity gun or whatever you choose.

When do people learn that the quality of the graphics doesnt mean shit if everything else is mediocre?
 
ojax said:
<snip>

I find the arguement of these open-ended FPS games as being more advanced and worthy to more linear FPS games totally ignorant. IMO an open ended FPS is simplistic. Make a large jungle map, put an objective at the end, and place enemies in various locations between you and the objective, thats it... As opposed to playing through a more linear game where the devs had tweaked gameplay every step of the way to ultimately give the user a more enjoyable experience. I found running through the massive jungle, killing a few enemies here and there pretty boring, even IF I had the option to run on the left side of the path versus the right... I've played through Farcry twice, and basically both times felt like I went the same path, only when I tried to take a vastly different path, the game fell apart and I fell behind objectives causing me to restart the last checkpoint... Its just as linear as other FPS games, and just because you are in a large jungle map, doesn't mean you have more options in progressing through the story.<snip>
Click to expand...


You're joking right? While I see your point about being able to tweak the game along the game 'path' I am certain developers like Crytek aren't lazy in allowing such a broad game arena. In fact it's harder for them to create a game experience like this where the variables are much larger. And really...in linear games there always seems to be an out. Someone left ducting open...on both sides. Someone dropped their 'key' to a door somewhere and there happens to be a ducted way out of that room too. It gets really old when it's the same thing over and over again. With an open environment like Crysis and even FarCry the developer and game players are forced to think creatively and out of the box. In some ways even an open environment must become linear (hence objectives) however they leave it up to you how you want to assault an objective rather than being forced into a certain corridor in a certain way with certain weapons. Very limited replay value versus an open environment where it can be quite different each time you play it.
 
Maybe what we should be talking about is how STALKER was the biggest waste of money EVER. Seriously, it might be one of the worst games that has gotten hype ive ever played in my entire life.
 
Silus said:
Not in the base they're not. And as I said, I must know the kinks of the Crysis story, to do a full comparison, but basically that's what both are about - Alien invasions - and thus, people should really stop praising HL2 for story, when comparing it to Crysis.
Click to expand...

Well it also depends how it's told...

A bit off topic, but Transformers (the film) has a pretty "generic" plot for an action film and it could've ended up as another average action movie, but it is far more impressive than that. Just thought I would say it.

But really though... Crysis, HL2 and CoD4 are all rather different IMO.
 
I dunno... I am kind of partial to classic doom for doom3 myself. :) but I guess I will pick up Crysis and give it a whirl. :)
 
Why do people like to dismiss visual quality in FPS games? While a good story adds to the experience, really, what FPS has a story that couldn’t have been written in an afternoon? Now, how many rendering engines could you write in the same afternoon?

Sure, we’ve seen the story a hundred times before in other games, on TV, and in the movies. But when have we seen it told like this? The FPS, like a movie, is a visual medium. There is a certain thrill to seeing something that one has not seen before. That’s way a movie like Transformers made hundreds of millions.
 
Wolf-R1 said:
You're joking right? While I see your point about being able to tweak the game along the game 'path' I am certain developers like Crytek aren't lazy in allowing such a broad game arena. In fact it's harder for them to create a game experience like this where the variables are much larger. And really...in linear games there always seems to be an out. Someone left ducting open...on both sides. Someone dropped their 'key' to a door somewhere and there happens to be a ducted way out of that room too. It gets really old when it's the same thing over and over again. With an open environment like Crysis and even FarCry the developer and game players are forced to think creatively and out of the box. In some ways even an open environment must become linear (hence objectives) however they leave it up to you how you want to assault an objective rather than being forced into a certain corridor in a certain way with certain weapons. Very limited replay value versus an open environment where it can be quite different each time you play it.
Click to expand...


Well perhaps it isn't as lazy as I pointed it out to be. I do understand they want gamers to think "out of the box", but I find most of the "open ended" gameplay is just me running / sneaking through jungle until I get to the next camp or objective where the actual fun, action and gameplay is... where as a more linear game would make that expansive piece of jungle walking a load sequence or small hallway, but at least I'm always in the action and where I find most of the enjoyment. Running or driving for long periods without any action is boring and uninspired. If people care about graphics over gameplay which many seem to do, I guess you would enjoy those hours wasted sneaking around in a jungle because "OMG the graphix are purty".

Like I said, I've only played the demo, so I'll respect others opinions on Crysis and reserve my judgement after I play it...
 
phide said:
The only setting I couldn't use with my 6800 GT was the "Ultra" setting, which allowed for uncompressed normals, and wasn't a big deal at the time. Ran smoothly at High -- some hitches now and then, but no deal-breakers.
Click to expand...


Yeah, at about 35fps, same as Crysis does now on decent hardware. Crysis on medium settings makes Doom3 at it's highest, look like a crayon drawing.
 
ojax said:
Well perhaps it isn't as lazy as I pointed it out to be. I do understand they want gamers to think "out of the box", but I find most of the "open ended" gameplay is just me running / sneaking through jungle until I get to the next camp or objective where the actual fun, action and gameplay is... where as a more linear game would make that expansive piece of jungle walking a load sequence or small hallway, but at least I'm always in the action and where I find most of the enjoyment. Running or driving for long periods without any action is boring and uninspired. If people care about graphics over gameplay which many seem to do, I guess you would enjoy those hours wasted sneaking around in a jungle because "OMG the graphix are purty".

Like I said, I've only played the demo, so I'll respect others opinions on Crysis and reserve my judgement after I play it...
Click to expand...

I'll give you that about travel between action points. What I've noticed about the Crysis demo is that vehicles are provided to shorten the time between action points. What they could have done to make it better is add random enemy patrols. Which in reality is what we'd have happen and would make the game not only more difficult but more exciting and edgy.

As a previous poster indicated graphics is as much a 'must' these days as game play is. Personally I think one without the other is a waste. Overall yes I'd take hot game play over pretty lights but in a day when we can nearly render gorgeous images real time it would be a waste and a shame not to take advantage of that.
 
phide said:
That's probably because it's a three year old game.

Who would've thought?
Click to expand...


I am talking about people bitching about how steep the hardware needs are....at the time Doom3 came out, it pushed current cards just as hard as Crysis does now.

But faster cards came out fast, that ran D3 in full on high res glory. New cards are coming even now that will speed up Crysis tremendously...
 
TheRapture said:
I am talking about people bitching about how steep the hardware needs are....at the time Doom3 came out, it pushed current cards just as hard as Crysis does now.

But faster cards came out fast, that ran D3 in full on high res glory. New cards are coming even now that will speed up Crysis tremendously...
Click to expand...

Can you enlighten us? The next big speed jump in a single card that I'm aware is the 8800GX2, if that's what is supposed to be called. Two 8800 GT's or similar on a single card, similar to a 7950GX2, but that's just all in one SLI and not till Q1 2008.

You know of anything sooner because I'd LOVE a new high end card about now, like a bunch of people, because we're in a gaming Crysis!
 
TheRapture said:
I am talking about people bitching about how steep the hardware needs are....at the time Doom3 came out, it pushed current cards just as hard as Crysis does now.

But faster cards came out fast, that ran D3 in full on high res glory. New cards are coming even now that will speed up Crysis tremendously...
Click to expand...

Cmon now, granted with the whining about hardware scaling in this thread. You're pointing out the obvious. when the week is over and everyone has finished the single player campaign. Without solid multiplayer, Crysis is nothing more then a real world benchmark for future video cards.
 
aKrippler said:
Maybe what we should be talking about is how STALKER was the biggest waste of money EVER. Seriously, it might be one of the worst games that has gotten hype ive ever played in my entire life.
Click to expand...

LOL-lolz.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top