So who else is waiting before they play Crysis?

[Gashman]

I played Crysis thru on my 2900pro/3870 and absolutely loved it! The Core level was pretty boring to be fair but itself was pretty creepy! If you can last the 45mins or so of that level then great because after that the game gets good again! I will be looking forward to playing the game more smoothly on the new hardware tho

im so glad im not the only non crysis-hater around here, good game, IMO better than COD4, brought some stuff to the table instead of another generic FPS, i also found the core to be one of the spookiest levels i have played on a game in a long long long time, so atmospheric, reminded me of doom 3, though doom isn't the highest rated game around here either, the aliens were also cool design and sort of dangerous, i think the thing that puts people off crysis is its not like your run of the mill FPS, its not run in, shoot everything, game won, on delta is far more methodical and the way one can approach a situation in multiple ways is interesting.

'look at that small village' i could either A) use my camo to infiltrate, not killing anyone (just stunning) and complete an objective or B) i could chuck a few grenades in, jump on the roofs shooting people or even C) do a ninja and get stuck in with your fists, throwing people through walls and such or better still D) i could get in that jeep, back up a bit, drive full pelt, drive through stuff (not something i have seen often) then get out, shoot some people and blow the hell out of the ride, i don't get why people hate it so much?

 

[HangTime]

How many people could play Half Life 2 completely maxxed at 1920x1200 when it first came out?

Part of the trouble is that with ever increasing monitor sizes (and thus native resolutions), people's expectations are getting higher all the time.

Back in 2004 (FC/D3/HL2), 1600x1200 was considered a high resolution, with 1280x1024 or similar being more standard. Go back to the Q3/UT engine days in late 1999 and it was more like 1024x768 at the high end with a lot of people expecting to play at 800x600.

 

[keyser]

Part of the trouble is that with ever increasing monitor sizes (and thus native resolutions), people's expectations are getting higher all the time.

Back in 2004 (FC/D3/HL2), 1600x1200 was considered a high resolution, with 1280x1024 or similar being more standard. Go back to the Q3/UT engine days in late 1999 and it was more like 1024x768 at the high end with a lot of people expecting to play at 800x600.

yup i've always thought that. There's been a huge leap to 1920x1200 and everyone expects the hardware to cope. It's still catching up!

 

[MR.B]

At the end of the day Crysis did not magically get good reviews for no reason.

And going by a lot of posts, people are just backing up my earlier comment : that they would like it a lot more if they could run it well.

It's true as someone else said, a lot of people are just holding grudges because there precious hardware cant run it. Which is ridiculous. Infact i'd go as far as to say that people who cant run it well should not even be commenting, as they are obviously not experiencing the game properly. A 8800GTX will run the game well at 1680x1050 on mostly very high setting.
Otherwise playing Crysis is like watching a film that someone has recorded in a cinema on mobile phone. You cant judge it properly at all.

It's people that bitch about Crysis that kill off ground breaking graphical PC games and innovation. What would you rather have? yet more crappy console ports?

And it's funny when someone says Crysis is repeaditive and then owns up to owning COD4. I've been through both and COD4 is an extemely scripted game on rails. It's still good. But Crysis has so many other options to do something, i've done some levels countless different ways, you just cant do that in COD4.

 

[Perfect_Chaos]

Infact i'd go as far as to say that people who cant run it well should not even be commenting, as they are obviously not experiencing the game properly. A 8800GTX will run the game well at 1680x1050 on mostly very high setting.
Otherwise playing Crysis is like watching a film that someone has recorded in a cinema on mobile phone. You cant judge it properly at all.

bs

my 8800 GTX ran it poorly and it slowed a lot at medium settings, i know my CPU isnt up to scratch yet but still

it runs like crap and thats why so many people have complained, i dont think the game is that special either and not even a new card will change that. A game that runs poorly cannot be enjoyed

and i dont want to enjoy a game 6+ months after release just because it runs well, there are more enjoyable games that actually run well

 

[MR.B]

bs

my 8800 GTX ran it poorly and it slowed a lot at medium settings, i know my CPU isnt up to scratch yet but still

Yeah i guess when i had my 8800GTX with the current system i have i must have imagined it running well at those mentioned settings...

Also the demo runs worse than the actual game.

I'm sure if everyone was like you games would look like crap. Just admit you're mad at it because you couldn't run it well and it made your e-penis feel small.

 

[{SAS}TB]

rofl at this thread

 

[davecarter]

Finished it several months ago but unlike other games (call of duty, half life2) it has little replay value so havent touched it since.

May go back to it when I have a system that can run it maxed out.

 

[Hyb]

hmmm i think its a mint game had it since day one but takes me ages to complete em cos of css!!

I cant understand this bad performance malarky! i have striker2extreme Q600 at 3.4ghz and 2 8800gtx at 2600x1600 all on max bar AA and its mint

 

[Gashman]

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.

don't worry im right with you on this one, thats one thing thats always bugged the hell out of me, so many people ranting about crytek and how crysis is crap, rubbish coded (do any of them actually know how to code?) and repetative, yet they worship one of the most linear games physically possible, COD4 is so linear its not even funny, and someone said the graphics are more immersive, how on earth did you come up with that statement, how can a game that looks so much better be less immersive? heres a perfectly acceptable way to compair the two: crysis is like 20/20 vision, COD4 is being short sighted, your trying to tell me its more immersive to be short sighted? forgive the analogy, but im trying to understand all your thinking because it continues to confuse the living hell out of me?

and i forgot to mention, i played through this game perfectly smoothly on a lowely G92 8800GTS, know how? don't go overboard on resolution, just mess with making yourself a custom config. file, takes couple of minutes and yields impressive results and sometimes even a framerate increase and it looks just as good/better than higher resolution with the crappy standard high/very high

 

[BlairH]

Most people here will bash the game repeatedly, the truth -however- is that it was critically well recieved by almost all of the gaming press, and I -for one- enjoyed it.

You can't really compare it to the likes of COD 4, which is more of a blockbuster, action-oriented, cinematic but linear experience. Crysis gives the player a lot more options, as it is much more of an open, free-roaming experience. The Korean infantry in the game were probably the most "fun" enemies to face in any modern game. They are quite intelligent, but falliable to the extent that you can amuse yourself by messing with their heads, distracting them, and ultimately vanquishing them.

There's no denying that you need a hefty PC to enjoy the graphics, and I think a lot of people sort of got hung up on that. Understandably so, might I add.

 

[BlairH]

and i forgot to mention, i played through this game perfectly smoothly on a lowely G92 8800GTS, know how? don't go overboard on resolution, just mess with making yourself a custom config. file, takes couple of minutes and yields impressive results and sometimes even a framerate increase and it looks just as good/better than higher resolution with the crappy standard high/very high

I have 2 gaming PCs. One has a GTX driving a Samsung 275T 1920x1200 monitor.

The other has a lowly 8800GT, driving a Pioneer 4208XD 720p TV (the best 42 inch TV on the market). This machine actually runs the game better, on higher settings due to the "lower" resolution.

 

[hernaldo]

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. :/

That's a nicely written persuasive post, and had I not played the game then would defo be taking a look based on your view. Trouble is it just doesn't work like how you say it does, no disrespect but to have "fun" in a game like farcry following your directions works a treat. In Crysis it just feels pointless and empty.

 

[Dyson]

Yeah i guess when i had my 8800GTX with the current system i have i must have imagined it running well at those mentioned settings...

Also the demo runs worse than the actual game.

I'm sure if everyone was like you games would look like crap. Just admit you're mad at it because you couldn't run it well and it made your e-penis feel small.

Yeah thats right, have a go at him. I mean, how dare he disagree with you! The cheek



Get over yourself, if people didn't like or enjoy the game, so what? I played it all the way through, and thought it was "ok". Nothing more, nothing less. I've played worse games, but i've also played better.

 

[3t3P]

crysis was hyped yes, but at the end of a day its only a GAME, escapism, don't expect to feel like you've just popped an E!
the nanosuit is amazing, that alone gives it replay value! combine with big environments and very good AI and you can doss around for ages if you want to ( I do)
story is not so good but how can anyone dispute graphics they are simply the best at the moment.
gears of war was however very nice too but not as complex

 

[izzy eckerslike]

Crysis is a game untouched graphically by any other, comparing it to COD4 is quite frankly ludicrous. Anyone with a good rig & playing at high settings couldn't fail to be impressed
COD4 is said to be photo realistic, & having finally succumbed to playing it I have to agree, it looks like a photo ,i.e. nothing moves. Do the bushes & grass move if you touch them?
can you leave footprints as you walk? does every tree & blade of grass move in realtime if you brush past? can you pick up & throw countless objects, shoot down trees to block enemies path, shoot birds out of the sky, blow up anything you like when you like, how you like ? drive any vehicle & just free roam & do what you like?
Apart from leaving bullet holes & the amazing technical wizardy that lets you actually blow up a TV screenCOD4's a dead world, I was a little impressed by some of the scenes but a major annoyance is that you can't replay any of the saves can you? apart from the last one made how can you replay earlier saves from different levels? have I missed something here?

Edit: just played the end level in COD4, the chase on the highway, you could play it 10 times & it would be identical, you can't shoot the driver, you can't shoot the tyres, its just a 100% scripted sequence, same happens each time. Yes it runs on any system, hardly surprising really. Those of you posted above saying you have Crysis but not played it - get it up & running & see what you missed !!