Crysis: MAXIMUM Edition

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ogs
  • Start date Start date
i think many people didn't buy the crysis games due to them running like crud on the majority of systems back then, however now if they sell em all in one pack for say £20-25 it would be worth the dosh ..

nearly all games with sequels or addons get released as a compilation these days, bashing EA is daft as im sure many who do also purchase a few of their games from time to time :rolleyes::eek:
 
Strife212 said:
Always people complaining, I for one think that Crysis has some of the best FPS gameplay out there.
Click to expand...

definately, it was an overall good game with a rather good engine that people complain about to no end, saying it runs terrible. though in truth crytek did a great job with the engine and an overall terrible job with the in-game settings, crysis/warhead can look better and have better performance at the same time, they screwed up on that part
 
Nothing wrong with Crysis performance ... well over a year old and to my eyes there's still nothing that comes close to it, and this is only the dx9 version since I don't have Vista!
 
Both run like **** for me, Crysis (and Warhead) is still a game I can't run on high with mild AA on 25+ FPS, even on 1280x720... Unless they optimize it for a geforce 8800 it won't see much respect from me. People say GTA IV ran **** but at least that runs 30+ fps even now that I play at 1920x1080... Crysis just fails on my pc, it needs a good gpu and it barely cares about RAM and CPU :(. Gameplay is nothing that really interests me in Crysis, a bit generic...
 
Well, behold the awesome performance of warhead ( note, the framerate isn't always like this, but I just wanted to show I have terrible framedrops, it's usually in the low 30's):

Crysis%202009-02-09%2004-37-04-17.jpg

Crysis%202009-02-09%2004-37-07-29.jpg

Crysis%202009-02-09%2004-38-55-23.jpg

Crysis%202009-02-09%2004-39-28-16.jpg



On a 3.2 ghz c2q, 6gb ram and an 8800GTS512 :rolleyes:. Before you say the physics are too hard on my machine, I get a 35% cpu usage when playing it... Surely a 3.2 ghz quad is enough ?

Graphics imo aren't much to brag about either:
Crysis%202009-02-09%2004-38-44-65.jpg
 
Last edited:
warhead ran alright on my laptop the first time i played it, i played it again today but i havent got a clue why it ran like ****... havent changed any settings on it. :/
 
It looks (even more) rubbish without it though and doesn't have some kind of full screen blur to hide the jaggies like GTA IV. Plus oddly my native res of 1920x1080 doesn't show in the list which means I can't up the res to take care of some of the jaggies either :confused:.


What my point is though, why play it if doesn't have good graphics, doesn't have good gameplay? It must have at least one of the 2... But on those settings it doesn't have either, and runs badly too.
 
Last edited:
i only played through 2 lots of chapters im not tempted to play it again. to me it just feels the same over and over.

run in gun them down. move to next location take them down again move to next location. find more attachments run in gun them down with new grenade laucher.

the graphics are nice but nuthing can rest fully on that.

is this what the whole games about? just running in and killing? no killing somthing else than koreans?

maybe its because im addicted to multiplayer, don't know i would like a coop mode on crysis than i may have played it more,

igrone me its just not for me :)

this game is definitly marmite.

have all 3 games to lol
 
Well done for using the two worst screenshots I've seen of the game :p

I know this sounds a bit obvious, but if you stop thinking that there are jaggies, then you will hardly notice them as you play. When I first played the game I was actually too astonished by how the game looked and played to care much about the jaggies (plus, they were mainly concentrated in the trees).
 
Personally I liked Crysis, I thought it was a bit boring near the end but still a good solid shooter. I have Warhead but have only played the first few levels, should give it another go really.
 
Like others i only managed to get to chapter 2 then i just quit.

Game was boring, no brain shooter, felt like i was playing a dumbed down version of doom with a naked womens picture in front of my eyes.

To think i waited playing this game so i could experience what it was like on full settings, then it turns out to be the worst FPS to come out in a long time.
 
Last edited:
Greenlizard0 said:
Yeap, I thoroughly enjoyed it until that stupid 3-d floating part.
Click to expand...

I think I must be the only person on these forums who found the floating bit to be awesome. Very little in the way of gameplay, but in terms of pure eyecandy and visual immersion, it was unreal, a level of graphical wizadry most games would die for.

That said, I am a bit of a graphics whore and have been known to play games like Stalker without actually 'playing' it, lol. :o
 
Last edited:
titaniumx3 said:
I think I must be the only person on these forums who found the floating bit to be awesome. Very little in the way of gameplay, but in terms of pure eyecandy and visual immersion, it was unreal, a level of graphical wizadry most games would die for.
Click to expand...

Nope I loved it to, I was entranced during that whole level.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom