So who else is waiting before they play Crysis?

[{SAS}TB]

Was it though? I don't recall Crysis being hyped nearly as much as the other major shooters from last year such as Bioshock and Halo 3. Bioshock and Halo 3 had TV ads, Crysis didn't. Halo 3 even had ads splashed all over busses in my town.

Plus, the graphics are not just "good", they are great. I'd love for some Crysis haters to name a shooter, or any game for that matter with better visuals. Seriously, come on. Calling Crysis just "good" in the visual area is just ignorant. It's the best looking game available, period. If you think it looks bad, you must be playing it on all low.

As for gameplay, yes, it's repetetive and tedious in places, but it's still leagues ahead of every other shooter in terms of gameplay. The AI is also better than people give it credit for, it's not without flaws, but at least enemies aren't omnipotent like every other shooter out there. CoD4 a better shooter? Oh please, if you like endless respawning armies of unintelligent arab soldiers, then yes, it's better. Don't get me wrong, CoD4 is a fantastic game, but its the most on rails game I've ever played and the gameplay is genuinely frustrating at times.

You can play Crysis in two ways, taking full advantage of the power house that is the nanosuit, sneaking around in the undergrowth and leaping 20 ft into the air and pummeling and unsuspecting Korean squad and trying to have fun. Or alternatively, you can just play it from start to finish without any imagination and without attempting anything fun or cool, purposely playing the game on rails. Crysis is a game that invites you to take advantage of the environment, physics and suit powers. If you don't take full advantage of that then it's your loss.

If you haven't guessed it already, Crysis is one of my favourite shooters. It's a great experience both visually and gameplay wise if you are a fan of shooters - I really don't understand the negativity towards it and don't think I ever will. I'd recommend it to any first person shooter fan.

I'm not attacking anyone with this post by the way, but I just thought I'd post something from a more praising angle about this game since so many people around here seem to hate it. :/

IMO - in MY opinion - i dont appreciate being called igronant - the graphics were good, sorry for not sharing your opinion

IMO COD4 has better immersive gfx and far better gameplay - IMO

I personally think Crysis was hyped to buggery and that may well have been part of its downfall - just because it wasnt splashed all over busses in your town doesnt mean to say to say it wasnt all over every gaming site and being hyped by anticipating gamers for months on end

And FYI i played it at several resolutions and settings and due to its poor coding it still runs poorly with SLId overclocked GTXs and an overclocked Q6600 - another mark, imo, of a poor game.

Everyone is entitled to theor opinion - i dont apreciate being called ignorant for sharing mine

 

[keyser]

I didn't wait, it run ok on current setup, but the game doesn't play as well as it looks. Also I felt the sounds and voices where all a bit 'distant' (volume had no effect). I lost interest toward the end.

other games that I gave up on: Bioshock and S.T.A.L.K.E.R.

 

[{SAS}TB]

I didn't wait, it run ok on current setup, but the game doesn't play as well as it looks. Also I felt the sounds and voices where all a bit 'distant' (volume had no effect). I lost interest toward the end.

other games that I gave up on: Bioshock and S.T.A.L.K.E.R.

indeed, IMO, both poor, poor poor and overhyped

 

[willhub]

IMO - in MY opinion - i dont appreciate being called igronant - the graphics were good, sorry for not sharing your opinion

IMO COD4 has better immersive gfx and far better gameplay - IMO

I personally think Crysis was hyped to buggery and that may well have been part of its downfall - just because it wasnt splashed all over busses in your town doesnt mean to say to say it wasnt all over every gaming site and being hyped by anticipating gamers for months on end

And FYI i played it at several resolutions and settings and due to its poor coding it still runs poorly with SLId overclocked GTXs and an overclocked Q6600 - another mark, imo, of a poor game.

Everyone is entitled to theor opinion - i dont apreciate being called ignorant for sharing mine

You not tried 1680x1050? all high settings should run pretty decent at that settings, or even get a CFG that makes it look amazing, better than very high and still run good, at least it was smooth for the most part at that res with a single 8800GT here, but I guess you where expecting AA.

I think the gameplay in Crysis was abit boring and the last bit of the game was a total let down and the game was just crap after that.

IMO I would say the graphics are in no way any good compared to Crysis and the graphics in crysis where more immersive. But then again I found the single play of COD4 just as rubbish as Crysis.

 

[d3moliti0n]

I tried Crysis on my PC, specs: Athlon X64 3200+ (2.00GHz, single-core), 2GB DDR Ram, Radeon HD3850 256MB (PCI-E) but now I am in the process of a computer upgrade to: Core 2 Duo E2200 (2.20GHz, will probably be OC'ed to 2.80/3.0GHz), 2GB DDR2 Ram and keeping my current graphics card, the Radeon HD3850 as it's only 3 months old. How will it run on my new system? On the old one it was pretty much unplayable on every graphics setting.

 

[{SAS}TB]

Again - tried many settings - the game, IMO, is poor, not my thing, not enjoyable, not my cup of tea, i would actually go as far as to say i thought it was sh1te.

As for SP COD, never played it, I kept missing the rope in training

 

[MystaEB]

Again - tried many settings - the game, IMO, is poor, not my thing, not enjoyable, not my cup of tea, i would actually go as far as to say i thought it was sh1te.

As for SP COD, never played it, I kept missing the rope in training

Clearly, as you have even said yourself, the game is "not your cup of tea", in which case it is completely unfair to say the game is *****. There are numerous games I didn't enjoy but I can still appretiate that they are essentially very good games. BioShock, for instance. Didn't like it, but I bet it's a great game for those who do.

Plus, if you haven't even played single player CoD4 how can you even compare the two? I'm sorry but in my opinion your opinion is not valid, because you are not even making valid points and I doubt you have even given either games a decent play through.

To me it just sounds like you are writing the game off purely because you believe it should run perfectly on your system and it doesn't. Next gen games, and games that looks as good as Crysis will always push hardware to its limits.

Plus, on my system (Below), Crysis is perfectly playable at 1680x1050 on mostly high with a couple of settings medium. It looks great, and performs well enough. I'd like more, but it's generally at around 40-45 FPS which is playable.

 

[{SAS}TB]

Clearly, as you have even said yourself, the game is "not your cup of tea", in which case it is completely unfair to say the game is *****. There are numerous games I didn't enjoy but I can still appretiate that they are essentially very good games. BioShock, for instance. Didn't like it, but I bet it's a great game for those who do.

Plus, if you haven't even played single player CoD4 how can you even compare the two? I'm sorry but in my opinion your opinion is not valid, because you are not even making valid points and I doubt you have even given either games a decent play through.

To me it just sounds like you are writing the game off purely because you believe it should run perfectly on your system and it doesn't. Next gen games, and games that looks as good as Crysis will always push hardware to its limits.

Plus, on my system (Below), Crysis is perfectly playable at 1680x1050 on mostly high with a couple of settings medium. It looks great, and performs well enough. I'd like more, but it's generally at around 40-45 FPS which is playable.

The COD statement was a joke - oh dear

And i still maintain, imo, that crysis is a poor game, in terms of gameplay and the way its coded, IMO, does that make me ignorant, i dont think so - if you do then perhaps you need to look at your own views of other peoples opinions

 

[toucam]

Had it, played for about 1h, quit the game and uninstalled it.
This was right after I finished COD4. Don't understand what the fuss was all about.
It's probably a great game for others but personally not for me. Simple.

 

[Rybo89]

crysis as got the eyecandy but not the gameplay, and to me gameplay is a lot more important

i think cod4 has nicer GFX especially the sniper mission,and the gameplay blows crysis to bits

 

[Richie P]

most overhyped game ever .boring , repetitive. only good thing is it looks good.

I enjoyed the driving bits and the scenery was nice but agree that gameplay was repetitive and lacking. COD4 was a much better game albeit too short.

I seriously cannot understand how people can call Crysis repetitive, especially when the same person doesn't apply that thinking to COD4.

COD4 - linear, scripted, repetitive, albeit relatively good gameplay.

Crysis - open, unscripted, and creative gameplay that I can personally play over and over and over again.

I remember installing the demo and playing it for longer than I've played most games I paid for.

That being said, comparing Crysis and COD4 is like comparing Pro Evo and Football Manager - they're completely different.

I think some people made up their mind about Crysis before it was released, or are just holding a grudge because what they thought were high end rigs couldn't max the details.

Each to their own I suppose.

 

[Rybo89]

I think some people made up their mind about Crysis before it was released, or are just holding a grudge because what they thought were high end rigs couldn't max the details.

ok mr e-penis

maybe its just because people dont like the gameplay as stated in the posts, i played the game for a few hours, bored me absalutely sh1tless to be honest ended up going onto gamecopyworld and using a trainer, what kept me entertained me for a hour or so then uninstalled the game, just glad i didnt spend any of my cash on it

but im mostly a race and war game fan......

 

[Richie P]

ok mr e-penis

maybe its just because people dont like the gameplay as stated in the posts, i played the game for a few hours, bored me absalutely sh1tless to be honest ended up going onto gamecopyworld and using a trainer, what kept me entertained me for a hour or so then uninstalled the game, just glad i didnt spend any of my cash on it

but im mostly a race and war game fan......

Neglected to quote the part where I said "Each to their own" then?

And what's with the e-penis dig? I run a review site and I have some nice hardware I'm currently playing with...does that mean I had a 9800GX2 to play Crysis on max details when it was released? No. I was there doing my best to overclock a 8800GTX with a dual core so I could play it on nearly max settings. Did I appreciate every second of it? Yes. Did you? No. That's fine.

Crysis is in the past, we need to look forward, so the lessons to be learnt are to not get so sucked into a game's development or the hype surrounding it that you're disappointed when it's released.

 

[HangTime]

Personally I have had the game for ages but refuse to play it until my PC can play it smooth @1920x1200 on very high settings.

Maybe GTX280 is the card to do this.

1920x1200, very high, smooth? I'd say you'll likely be waiting until next year at least.

However, like you I haven't bought Crysis yet because currently good value hardware is too slow for my liking.... the bare minimum kind of level I'd want to have before playing this game is 8800GTX-SLI, and I certainly wouldn't be using those kind of settings.

I'm hoping that GTX260 will be priced well and give me acceptable performance in 1680x1050 0xAA medium/high settings.

People say you shouldn't wait to play games, but I've done it many times before, in fact I started a thread about it once http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=17824669
I suspect my AVG(COMPLETION_DATE - RELEASE_DATE) is probably higher than most people who've completed as many games as me, as quite often I'm picking up classic old games.

 

[Richie P]

1680x1050, DX10, Very High and smooth is possible with a 4Ghz Quad and an overclocked 9800GX2.

1920x1200 shouldn't be too far behind - depends on how anal you are about framerate.

 

[Duff-Man]

1680x1050, DX10, Very High and smooth is possible with a 4Ghz Quad and an overclocked 9800GX2.

1920x1200 shouldn't be too far behind - depends on how anal you are about framerate.

"Smooth" is a subjective term.

As I understand it, Crysis is highly GPU limited in almost all scenes, so CPU performance should make little difference. This will be particularly true at high resolutions, where GPU load will dominate. Also it does not effectively take advantage of multi-threading, so a quad-core should offer the same performance as an equivalently clocked dual-core CPU.

 

[Perfect_Chaos]

anybody else think this card will just run acceptable for crysis? probably for medium + high

 

[Perfect_Chaos]

The game runs rubbish, care to elaborate on that, or do you mean the game is rubbish?

it is what i meant, runs as in operate, perform or in easier terms the fps the game runs at are garbage

People say you shouldn't wait to play games.

Practically impossible with crysis, its not even enjoyable if it doesnt run smooth.

 

[MystaEB]

The COD statement was a joke - oh dear

And i still maintain, imo, that crysis is a poor game, in terms of gameplay and the way its coded, IMO, does that make me ignorant, i dont think so - if you do then perhaps you need to look at your own views of other peoples opinions

Not a very good joke then, was it? And if you don't like the gameplay, that's fine, I won't criticise you on that because every person has their own way of eating yogurt.

As for coding, how could you possibly know that it is badly coded? You didn't write the game, and I doubt that you work in the industry and somehow have a working knowledge of what is coded well and what isn't. The game isn't badly coded, it's just way ahead of it's time. Just like Half Life 2 and Doom 3 were 4 years ago when they pushed boundries and destroyed systems. How many people could play Half Life 2 completely maxxed at 1920x1200 when it first came out? no one if I recall correctly, and you wouldn't say the Source engine was badly coded, would you?

Besides, personally I feel it actually performs well considering how damn good it looks. I think people fail to realise just how good the models are and just how spectacular the effects are, even little things that people miss like the fact that everything recieves and casts a shadow. How many other games do that? None. It's the best looking game I own by a huge margin. Even on medium. I feel people are too busy being ****** off that it runs at <30 FPS at times to appreciate how good it looks.

Anywho! Rant over.

 

[{SAS}TB]

Not a very good joke then, was it? And if you don't like the gameplay, that's fine, I won't criticise you on that because every person has their own way of eating yogurt.

As for coding, how could you possibly know that it is badly coded? You didn't write the game, and I doubt that you work in the industry and somehow have a working knowledge of what is coded well and what isn't. The game isn't badly coded, it's just way ahead of it's time. Just like Half Life 2 and Doom 3 were 4 years ago when they pushed boundries and destroyed systems. How many people could play Half Life 2 completely maxxed at 1920x1200 when it first came out? no one if I recall correctly, and you wouldn't say the Source engine was badly coded, would you?

Besides, personally I feel it actually performs well considering how damn good it looks. I think people fail to realise just how good the models are and just how spectacular the effects are, even little things that people miss like the fact that everything recieves and casts a shadow. How many other games do that? None. It's the best looking game I own by a huge margin. Even on medium. I feel people are too busy being ****** off that it runs at <30 FPS at times to appreciate how good it looks.

Anywho! Rant over.

lol

your obviously a fanboi with a chip on your shoulder

Have i said my system wouldnt run it ?

The "bad coding" is my opinion in that other games come very close using a lot less resources - your opinion is your opinion, and unlike you ill respect that.

It still my opinion that this is a very poor game that whilst may be good in the eye candy department fails to deliver in gameplay and longevity

sheesh

some people