What is Digg?340 Comments
- DefaultGen, on 11/28/2007, -1/+281BREAKING: Crysis is sort of system intensive.
- inactive, on 11/28/2007, -15/+200The reason Call of Duty 4 runs so well is because it doesn't have to render all those ***** leaves and rocks. All it has is not-so-distant scenery and a wallpaper sky. Crysis is intended to get better as the graphics cards get better. It is a revolutionary game but nobody seems to notice it yet.
- Rev0lver, on 11/28/2007, -1/+146Crytek repeatedly has said that the Very High mode in Crysis was not made with current generation hardware in mind.
- 28dayslater, on 11/28/2007, -7/+141I am playing the game at a very high frame rate on my cell phone, but then again I am on acid, and may have never even purchased the game. Actually I am pretty sure I did purchase it.
- nitsnipe, on 11/28/2007, -4/+75I was expecting to see a PIC of a Fried Silicon Edition of an 8800 gtx ultra.
- Dokument, on 11/28/2007, -8/+74Megahurtz is what Chuck Norris does.
- nullx42, on 11/28/2007, -7/+72but its so beautiful D:
- bapplebo, on 11/28/2007, -7/+62I agree. From my experiences, the Unreal Engine not only looks good, but it has godlike performance. Almost every game that I've played that uses that engine performs superbly.
- nitsnipe, on 11/28/2007, -55/+109Crysis simply failed and ruined everyones expectations.
Call of Duty 4 and Unreal Tournament III simply killed, i mean VEHICULAR MANSLAUGHTERed it.
And the best part is that both games run at 50-60 fps on a 600$ computer and with all settings on high. While crysis just doesnt run. I mean, even when it runs it isn't fun to play. It looks good but not as jawdropping as it did 6 months ago during the hype. And when you put the settings on low it stills runs like crap but at these settings even Counter Strike 1.6 looks better than crysis. - LordSeth, on 11/28/2007, -10/+63What the hell? I am using and 8800GTS 320MB, 2 gigs of RAM and a core 2 duo E6600 and I can run it on med with the odd setting at high at a very playable frame rate on Vista. you must be doing something wrong.
- nullx42, on 11/28/2007, -3/+53corrected by a dude named "mr.ASSMAN". oh internet...
- banmaster, on 11/28/2007, -10/+49Sorry, but since I saw his "lets get religion forced back into the classroom" video all he does is megaSUCK!!
- mrASSMAN, on 11/28/2007, -3/+41RivaTuner. .. megahertz
- carl25, on 11/28/2007, -2/+32did you actually just compare cryengine 2 to cod4's engine ?
cryengine2 blows it out of the water. There is almost no interacting with the environment in cod4, there is no water, no animals. Not as close to as the things you can do with the powers. On the go customization of weapons and suit.
But cod4 is optimized much better and because of the lack of features it ends up being more fun to play - nitsnipe, on 11/28/2007, -4/+34Crysis=Credit Card Killer
- iPood, on 11/28/2007, -4/+30I don't know why people go through all of this ***** to run one game. It seems that everything has to be perfect for this game to even run. A friend of mine just dropped about $800 on ***** to prepare for this game. All that for a game that he claims to be "one of the best ever". I watched him play it for a bit, and aside from the graphics (my friend kept pointing out the reflections on the water, and how you can shoot tree branches, wow, that really makes a game), it didn't blow me away whatsoever. I understand the game has amazing graphics, but in the end, isn't it just a really good looking shooter?
- dannyboy3020, on 11/28/2007, -2/+26Different resolution, perhaps?
- novask, on 11/28/2007, -2/+24Buried for not being specific on the 8800 gts used. It might not seem like much to some people, but I have a 640 meg one and it runs Crysis about 50% better then the benchmarks showed at 1920x1200.
- valkyries, on 11/28/2007, -4/+23so they designed a game for hardware that was still in the design process...
- Rev0lver, on 11/28/2007, -8/+26No you're not.
- chris9902, on 11/28/2007, -5/+22he probably has it running at 1600x1200. noob.
- Guspaz, on 11/28/2007, -3/+20Just like Far Cry, by the time most gamers can run it acceptably, it'll be too late (nobody will care about it anymore).
This happened before and caused Far Cry's less than stellar initial sales, despite good reviews. It's happening again to Crysis. Don't they learn from their mistakes? There's no problem including really nice look graphics if you only make it scalable to look and run decently on older hardware. The kind that most people actually have.
Design your very high settings for the next generation, your high settings for current generation, your medium settings for previous generation, and your low settings for two generations ago. Which means that upper-midrange 7000 series cards should be running the game on medium quality and looking damned good doing it. - inactive, on 11/28/2007, -14/+308800GTS 640mb 3.2ghz Pentium dual core extreme, 2gb ram. 1680x1050 NO AA, low settings, Same result 15-20FPS. BTW if you have 8800GTS overclock with RiverTuner or something I forgot the name. It made my framerate 20-25+ it was fricken amazing... and just a few megahurtz increase too!
- jgtg32a, on 11/28/2007, -0/+16Um yes it has to render then because you don't just magically walk through them, they interact with you.
- BlakeEM, on 11/28/2007, -4/+20Must be a bug or driver issue?
8800GTS 640mb, 4 gigs ram, 6850 core 2 duo... no AA, 8AF, 1280x1024... all settings on high runs around 50+ fps and looks awesome. Never had any problems. - keithburgun, on 11/28/2007, -8/+24probably he is douchebag.
- grat2001, on 11/28/2007, -2/+17Here is where the type of motherboard, chipset, kind of memory, & heat all come into play. Also I assume you turn off sidebar, virus scan, and any other crap that may take up cpu cycles?
- adraft, on 11/28/2007, -3/+18I was really psyched for this until I downloaded the demo and got to play "Crysis: PowerPoint Edition" even with the graphics on medium. I'm not going lower than that on a game that's hyped all on its visuals. I got a great rig that is only about 2.5 months old now and the only problems I've noticed with other games is that they aren't Vista compatible (Armed Assault). So to wrap it up, I'm skipping this one.
- thecheatah, on 11/28/2007, -8/+23I got a 2.6 HT, 1 gb ram, 7something nvidia card. Running linux. Stupid installer wont run.
- Rev0lver, on 11/28/2007, -0/+15They say in the "making of" that they themselves were using beta and alpha HARDWARE for production.
- sunshine666, on 11/28/2007, -2/+15I agree with RaidenWoW,
look, you're not going to spend a ***** of money on a machine so far, but maybe in the next year or so, you'll buy a new video card, or hell, get a new machine. Once you do - you'll play Crysis and be happy with it. It's understood that "rocks and leaves" (a very understated name for an extremely detailed environment) won't necessarily make the game play any better... But you can't say that it's revolutionary in graphics, and unless you're still playing Duke Nukem 3D, or Wolfenstein, you can't tell me that graphics don't have anything to do with the user-experience. - l00s3r, on 11/28/2007, -1/+14Remember Doom 3 anyone? Did you try playing on the highest settings when it first came out?
- quaunaut, on 11/28/2007, -0/+13No, its sad that Lostmongoose has no ***** clue what he's talking about. Those leaves and rocks are completely interactable in ways that are rather extreme- shoot a tree, it will fall down if its thin enough. The smallest things to render have huge impacts- shooting a weakly-put-together shack in just the right spots could bring the entire thing down, etc, and not in a predictable way at all.
- quaunaut, on 11/28/2007, -3/+16Hardly. Crysis is ***** amazing, and if you're wanting to get down on the game because your PC can't run it, you're missing the point.
- KanosWRX, on 11/28/2007, -2/+14I am running a 8800GT with a Core 2 Duo at 3 Ghz (2.4 OC). I admit it still crushes my system, all settings very high 1680x1050 = 15 fps. But I lower half to just high and it goes up to 25fps which is quite playable. Not to bad for the best looking game out there. Its all the little things I notice in the game that make it great, cutting down trees, little crabs walking on the beach and seagulls flying that you can actually shoot. Destructive enviornments. Show me any of that in COD 4? And I even like COD 4, but it doesn't have the detail or graphics level crysis has. In this case you do get what you pay for, and you have to pay a lot to get the most out of it. I will also say I can run crysis on my mac book pro (with vista) on all settings low and 1440x960 (something like that) and it runs great. Looks pretty good to even.
- BassCadet, on 11/28/2007, -2/+1450fps, everything on High, on a GTS?
lol....no - IIIKrazyKiDDIII, on 11/28/2007, -3/+14And scripted unlimited bad guys, which try to surprise you in a linear alleyway, and standing in the open shooting you is revolutionary? Please... I'd find more excitement on Epcot Center's linear ride: "Spaceship earth."
- HBNDonut, on 11/28/2007, -0/+11It's future-proof!
- MikeCerm, on 11/28/2007, -0/+10Their plan was to make something that would look beautiful on a $8000 system today, or mainstream system 3-5 years from now. I'm not saying it's the greatest plan ever, but that's what they were trying to do.
- robbiekhan, on 11/28/2007, -1/+11There is very little difference between 8800GT and 8800GTX - well if you discount that the GTX costs DOUBLE that of a GT whilst only performing a few fps faster.
2GT cards in SLI will cost the same as 1 GTX whilst wiping the floor with a GTX. - GawtMilk, on 11/28/2007, -1/+11There are those dogs...those god damn dogs. I usually just shot them. They were crazy @.@
- kronix2, on 11/28/2007, -1/+11What are you running at, 800x600? I've read dozens of "testimonials" from people about Crysis, and the overarching trend is an inability to get past 30fps @ 1600x1200 on High for anybody who doesn't have an 8800 GTX or Ultra - and that's without AA.
My machine specs: E6320 @ 3.2 GHz, 4gb RAM, 8800 GTS 640mb (675 core, 1500 shaders, 2160 memory)
At 1600x1200 on high for everything, I get 25 to 30fps - without any anti-aliasing. If I reduce the resolution to 1280x1024, I get...25 to 30fps. This is with the latest drivers.
I'm not accusing you of *****. I'm accusing you of being dense by telling us you're getting 60fps out of Crysis with an X1950 Pro (a budget card) without telling us that you're running it at a really low resolution. When will some people realise that fps figures are meaningless if we don't know what resolution you're running it at? - mrASSMAN, on 11/28/2007, -1/+11That's quite a low resolution for a PC game though.. and that framerate is an absolute minimum for most players. FPS games need a smoother framerate for enjoyment.
- aquatrini, on 11/28/2007, -2/+11I remember a column I read back when UT2k4 came out, where Cliffy B described how games shouldn't try to be better than hardware, but work with it. Take for example UT2k7, that game looks amazing and, ran at around 60 fps on my lowly x1600pro at 1680x1050, before Crysis forced me to upgrade. The engines in so many modern day games are insanely inefficient. More so, people might say, well just turn down the graphics settings. This is one area where PC gaming suffers, when you buy a console game, you get what you see. On the other hand, if you prefer PC games, like I tend to, you have to constantly worry if a game you spend 50 bucks on is going to look how you imagined it on hardware you recently spent sometimes 600+ bucks to upgrade.
- KloroFormd, on 11/28/2007, -4/+13@xGrill: EA didn't develop Crysis, Crytek did.
And the game IS quite efficient for all the stuff it's got going. - sHockz, on 11/28/2007, -3/+12I dont drop below 35 fps in crysis, its nice. I really enjoy the game, it is really spectacular. It is a shame it gets dogged so hard since people have the older technology. Get over it please, some of us with the brand new latest and greatest WANT a game we can only get the typical 45-60 fps on. Something that pushes the components you just spent thousands on to the limit. This is our game, let us have it and enjoy it. I know I do, the active environment is probably the neatest thing ever. No other game ever relates to it in that aspect.
- nullx42, on 11/28/2007, -2/+11Nvidia did that themselvs with the 8800 gt's release.
- byebry, on 11/28/2007, -4/+12Graphics are nice and flashy etc. but I would much rather have a game that lasts more than 10 hours and has more a more involved story. It seems to me that gaming, along with our society, is becoming more and more shallow.
- Krippy, on 11/28/2007, -8/+16Probably old drivers.
- inactive, on 11/28/2007, -1/+9There is no way in hell you're speaking truth, I have better specs and setup than that, and my computer struggles with Crysis.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 335 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is