Was Crysis Overhype?

Darkwave · 29 Nov 2007 at 01:28

helmutcheese said:
I think you cant read too well, WHEN did I say CoD4 looked Graphically better overall ?, you really go on like a broken down gramaphone.

At least the Game is playable.

You keep banging on about me not being allowed to say that the other guy was wrong for saying that COD4 looks better than Crysis. Am I to take it then that you don't actually agree with him, you just felt like making an issue out of it?

Also, Crysis is playable if you adjust the settings to suit your hardware. You might want to turn them down.

Tom|Nbk · 29 Nov 2007 at 01:28

ebilcake said:
lol, it's like I just insulted you or something.. Get a life, it's just a game.

He was just explaining himself.....

:confused:

helmutcheese · 29 Nov 2007 at 01:29

Tom|Nbk said:
Um right but my point stands...

My GTX runs it maxed @ 1680x1050 with 4xAA Edge AA at around 35-40FPS AVG, how is this 10-20fps and unplayable?

My friend conveniently has a GTS 640, he plays at 1280x1024 Maxed with a slightly higher avg FPS IIRC, it definitely was not lower.

Once again, both setups are playable at what Cevat claimed so how is he in the wrong?

You or you pal dont get that with all at HIGH or Very High (obv Vista) even with no AA IMO.

Darkwave · 29 Nov 2007 at 01:31

helmutcheese said:
You or you pal dont get that with all at HIGH or Very High (obv Vista) even with no AA IMO.

I play on all high 1680x1050 but with no AA. It's playable.

If I put AA on it eats my VRAM, I've not even tried very high as then it would probably be unplayable for me. Have you actually tried turning options down to suit your hardware? :rolleyes:

helmutcheese · 29 Nov 2007 at 01:31

Ulfhedjinn said:
You keep banging on about me not being allowed to say that the other guy was wrong for saying that COD4 looks better than Crysis. Am I to take it then that you don't actually agree with him, you just felt like making an issue out of it?

Also, Crysis is playable if you adjust the settings to suit your hardware. You might want to turn them down.

Hmm, I have the hardware above what we were told we need so thats BS, I think more like Crytek need to majorly patch the game as you may or may not know they said they will in 10-14days (lost count how many days ago that was).

Apart from a Super Duper Quad that aint needed in this game as it stands, just what hardware is more powerfull than mines ?. (regardless it still more then the so called needed 8800GTS.)

Tom|Nbk · 29 Nov 2007 at 01:31

helmutcheese said:
You or you pal dont get that with all at HIGH or Very High (obv Vista) even with no AA IMO.

Check the Crysis benchmark thread I made eon's ago (Use your patented search

), the results are in there, I believe I got 35FPS AVG 1680x1050 @ High

Darkwave · 29 Nov 2007 at 01:32

helmutcheese said:
Hmm, I have the hardware above what we were told we need so thats BS, I think more like Crytek need to majorly patch the game as you may or may not know they said they will in 10-14days (lost count how many days ago that was).

Yes we know it was BS. Now you know what it needs so turn the settings down. :rolleyes:

Maybe if you didn't waste your money on an ultra though...

easyrider · 29 Nov 2007 at 01:32

Tom|Nbk said:
He was just explaining himself.....

Stop Bullying helmut.

It stinks.

mr.sly · 29 Nov 2007 at 01:33

helmutcheese said:
Hmm, I have the hardware above what we were told we need so thats BS, I think more like Crytek need to majorly patch the game as you may or may not know they said they will in 10-14days (lost count how many days ago that was).

I can't be bothered to find the interviews. But Cervat has said all along it would NOT be playable on Full settings. Which means Dx10 Vista Ultra High.

Dx9/Dx10 High or with tweaked CVars is easily playable on todays hardware.

Tom|Nbk · 29 Nov 2007 at 01:37

Ulfhedjinn said:
Yes we know it was BS. Now you know what it needs so turn the settings down.

Maybe if you didn't waste your money on an ultra though...

How was it BS though?, Cevat Yerli's definition of playable might be 30-40 FPS just because this differs from other peoples definitions they cry BS when it doesn't fly at 60-80FPS

. For the record 30-40fps is more than playable and didn't affect the game playability in anyway Infact I'm looking to start it over soon.

At the end of the day we all know we should take these claims from developers with a huge pinch of salt before the game arrives on our doormats to test ourselves, some people take it as gospel and then cry a river when it doesn't max their expensive hardware

.

mr.sly · 29 Nov 2007 at 01:38

Tom|Nbk said:
How was it BS though?, Cevat Yerli's definition of playable might be 30-40 FPS just because this differs from other peoples definitions they cry BS when it doesn't fly at 60-80FPS . For the record 30-40fps is more than playable and didn't affect the game playability in anyway Infact I'm looking to start it over soon.

At the end of the day we all know we should take these claims from developers with a huge pinch of salt before the game arrives on our doormats to test ourselves, some people take it as gospel and then cry a river when it doesn't max their expensive hardware .

*Cough* Assassins Creed.

Tom|Nbk · 29 Nov 2007 at 01:38

Slyvester said:
I can't be bothered to find the interviews. But Cervat has said all along it would NOT be playable on Full settings. Which means Dx10 Vista Ultra High.
Dx9/Dx10 High or with tweaked CVars is easily playable on todays hardware.

Case closed as far as I'm concerned. Helmut you may as well leave now

, and yes I take his word over your's.

ebilcake · 29 Nov 2007 at 01:39

Tom|Nbk said:
He was just explaining himself.....

yeah and it was great up to the point when he made it personal with that stupid comment at the end, I have my opinion and some crysis fanboy who can’t take negative comments isn’t going to change them by insulting me. :rolleyes:

helmutcheese · 29 Nov 2007 at 01:39

Ulfhedjinn said:
Yes we know it was BS. Now you know what it needs so turn the settings down.

Maybe if you didn't waste your money on an ultra though...

What crap you spurt.

My Ultra was not a waste when I got esp at £70 off Retail, it has no issue in any game bar this POS.

And now you admit the info was BS but your happy to swallow that BS and lower settings

I would say buying the game in current state is more a waste of cash than my card and your only filling Cryteks pockets.

Darkwave · 29 Nov 2007 at 01:39

Tom|Nbk said:
How was it BS though?

I don't even know and I don't care really.

All I care about is now, and right now we know what settings run playably on different hardware configurations. Anyone who says the game is "unplayable" either has ancient hardware or just hasn't tried turning anything down.

helmutcheese said:
And now you admit the info was BS but your happy to swallow that BS and lower settings

The game has given me more than enough enjoyment, at playable framerates while still looking fantastic, to justify the money I paid for it. Not to mention that I still haven't completed it and I still have countless more hours in multiplayer to look forward to.

Why am I supposed to be angry again? :confused:

If you're so angry about being lied to by businessmen you better never turn on the TV or read the newspaper again. In fact you better not buy any sort of product ever again if you feel that way.

easyrider · 29 Nov 2007 at 01:40

Tom|Nbk said:
when it doesn't max their expensive hardware .

Only I can max My hardware.

A 39.99 game aint gonna tax it.

Claims and gameplay don't even cut it.

The game is short and style over content.

Thats the bottom line.

helmutcheese · 29 Nov 2007 at 01:43

Slyvester said:
I can't be bothered to find the interviews. But Cervat has said all along it would NOT be playable on Full settings. Which means Dx10 Vista Ultra High.

Dx9/Dx10 High or with tweaked CVars is easily playable on todays hardware.

WRONG, and the fact you cant be bothered to go get the proof shows that.

Tom if anyone should leave its you, your dissed in many threads and now I know why I should never remove you from ignore again.

Tom|Nbk · 29 Nov 2007 at 01:44

Ulfhedjinn said:
Why am I supposed to be angry again?

If you're so angry about being lied to by businessmen you better never turn on the TV or read the newspaper again. In fact you better not buy any sort of product ever again if you feel that way.

Was this directed at me Ulf?. Im not angry at Crytek at all?

Ulfhedjinn said:
I don't even know and I don't care really.

All I care about is now, and right now we know what settings run playably on different hardware configurations. Anyone who says the game is "unplayable" either has ancient hardware or just hasn't tried turning anything down.

The game has given me more than enough enjoyment, at playable framerates while still looking fantastic, to justify the money I paid for it. Not to mention that I still haven't completed it and I still have countless more hours in multiplayer to look forward to.

Agreed, well worth the cash I felt like I was more in a movie than a game, really was a different experience. Had a lot of wow factor, if you haven't completed it yet you have much greatness to come.

Darkwave · 29 Nov 2007 at 01:44

helmutcheese said:
WRONG, and the fact you cant be bothered to go get the proof shows that.

So I'm not allowed to say someone's wrong, but you are?

Maybe it's "just his opinion". :rolleyes:

Darkwave · 29 Nov 2007 at 01:45

Tom|Nbk said:
Was this directed at me Ulf?. Im not angry at Crytek at all?

Nah not you, helmutcheese being annoyed at being lied to by businessmen. As if it's not normal.

Tom|Nbk said:
Agreed, well worth the cash I felt like I was more in a movie than a game, really was a different experience. Had a lot of wow factor, if you haven't completed it yet you have much greatness to come.

Aye I've been too busy to play it thoroughly lately, not to mention tied up with other great games (COD4 and Mass Effect) to be able to share time between them properly.