The ONE AND ONLY ***OFFICIAL*** Crysis thread - SPOILERS!

Most people bought a 8800Gt/Gtx because Cevat Yerli said it could near max it"smoothly" and he is the number 1 in control for ****** sake if we cant trust him then who can we trust ?

Anoher thing Cevat Yerli said that it would benifit from 4 cores as aposse of 2 and theres like 0.4 fps benifit.

All points to a badly coded rushed game that is not finished. :(
 
tron said:
Most people bought a 8800Gt/Gtx because Cevat Yerli said it could near max it"smoothly" and he is the number 1 in control for ****** sake if we cant trust him then who can we trust ?

Anoher thing Cevat Yerli said that it would benifit from 4 cores as aposse of 2 and theres like 0.4 fps benifit.

All points to a badly coded rushed game that is not finished. :(
Click to expand...

yeah man... I agree with both of you ... they were just plain and simple: Lying. :( Its stupid really ...
 
I finally got round to finishing the game and I must say it was great but the ending was kinda annoying...ok lets go get prophet.....dark screen.....credits! oh bloddy superb!
Obviously we are now bound to see a quick fire sequel which is painful to take! Still loved the game though just wish it hadn't ended like that
 
is anyone else having problems on high settings at 1680 x 1050 ?

ive got a new 8800 GTS and it really seems to struggle

Most of the time its playable, but seems to really lag when moving fast, like looking round inside the jeeps etc..

ive got a 2.4ghz C2D e6600 / 2gb DDR2 800 / 8800 G92 GTS 512mb
 
MrLOL said:
is anyone else having problems on high settings at 1680 x 1050 ?

ive got a new 8800 GTS and it really seems to struggle

Most of the time its playable, but seems to really lag when moving fast, like looking round inside the jeeps etc..

ive got a 2.4ghz C2D e6600 / 2gb DDR2 800 / 8800 G92 GTS 512mb
Click to expand...

Well, for mine to be playable all the way throughout with my GT (basically almost never drop below 30FPS) I need to run 1440 x 900, and have shadows on medium.

If you want instant playability on 1680 x 1050 everywhere, set shaders to medium.
 
i think it is a very well optimised game. it has the best gfx i have ever seen in huge open environments. CoD4 and UT3 look pretty but nowhere is there the level of detail found in Crysis over huge maps. It is a stunning achievement imo!

i'm running everything medium apart from post-processing and shadows and find it very playable at 1680x1050. I have just finished the harbour level which i did experience slowdown for the first time and think i will turn the shadows back to medium. However the game still looks stunning and i look forward to a replay next year when i might have nextgen hardware capable of running at high/very high!

it's been an interesting experiment releasing a game that can cripple top-end gear but in the years to come i'm sure we will see new games running the same (amazing) engine in all its glory. for sure Crysis was a bit before its time but im glad it wasnt delayed so that hardware can catch up...

still looks better than anything i have played on medium settings. i like the way nothing is too shiney, know what i mean?!
 
it does look nice but on low-med settings it doesn't look that much different to Far Cry and that's a good few years old now. Sure the advanced shaders make everything look very pretty but they beat top spec hardware over the head with a shovel.

The AI is uncannily accurate but uncannily dumb. It's a decent game but I don't think it quite deserves all the hype as I think people have been grossly mislead over various aspects.
 
zytok said:
fair enough but I have enough trouble on medium ;) Am I the only person who can use up an entire clip trying to get a head-shot?
Click to expand...

I certainly don't have that much trouble. I've been playing it on Delta all the way through and haven't found anything too difficult so far. However, I have been going through the game very slowly and sniping as many people from far away so I don't get raped to bad when I enter an enemy base.
 
zytok said:
it does look nice but on low-med settings it doesn't look that much different to Far Cry and that's a good few years old now.
Click to expand...

Does it really not look much dif to FarCry? i havent played FarCry in years and i hold it in high regards as to how great it looked...but it is for ones memory to remembver things being rather better than they are..! Furthermore, the FarCry engine was a testament to Crytek and to their development of an engine to use future hardware eg HDR + 64bit. brilliant!
 
J0hnb0y said:
Does it really not look much dif to FarCry? i havent played FarCry in years and i hold it in high regards as to how great it looked...but it is for ones memory to remembver things being rather better than they are..! Furthermore, the FarCry engine was a testament to Crytek and to their development of an engine to use future hardware eg HDR + 64bit. brilliant!
Click to expand...

I remember metal gear on PS looking awesome but looking at it the other day its poo. Farcry's water is cack compared to crysis and the trees are too. Oh and the people. Oh ...... ah heck its totally poo compared to crysis in my opnion.
 
LOL at all the "it's a terribly coded game" comments. It's uses an engine that is way more advanced than all the other games out now. It just needs extra GPU horsepower. If it still runs like crap on the next wave of NV cards, then yes, it is a badly coded game.
On the otherhand, maybe we have some programmers from the Crysis dev team on this forum, who are admitting that they wrote the code and it is in fact crap.
 
Thing is other games running at an average of 25fps seem to be unplayable and very noticeably stutter along. However with Crysis despite the seemingly low average it all runs really really smooth. Still cant wait for the patch to see if things get improved slightly still
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom