Where the FREAK is the Crysis patch at?!?!?!

[jonneymendoza]

crysis is a load of crap, thank god i diddnt waste money on a far cry 1.5 type game. im looking forrward to teh real far cry 2 and if it plays just as well has teh tech demo on 8800 then far cry 2 will put crysis to shame

 

[Hamidxa]

Reality evades you doesn't it? Its either that or you're a troll, and I'm starting to lean towards troll. Quad Core support doesn't exist, it doesn't work and gives no benefit. How do I plan on taxing a CPU in a GPU intensive game? I don't know, ask Cevat Yerli, he's the one that said the game is CPU limited and Quad cores would give higher framerates and more stable framerates. Of course, as usual, he lied.

As for people not having the hardware to enjoy the game, my friend who I mentioned has an E6600 and an 8800GTX. He bought a ~$2000 machine earlier this year and he can't stand the performance or the gameplay. Heck the more I play, the worst the AI really seems to me.

As for Farcry, I bought it second hand and played it once. I could, however, play it on a $100 GPU with reasonable performance. Now you have to spend around 300 just to make it playable at medium/high settings.

Your ignorant argument can go on forever, but the sales numbers speak for themselves.

Are you really that obtuse?

If sales speak for themselves, and Far Cry went on to sell over a million copies (which is a rarity for PC games and considered to be a majorly successful title on the PC platform), and Crysis is on pace to break that number comparatively speaking, then that should speak for itself.

I should not have to spell this out for you a second time.

Secondly, quad cores do get taxed ~ 40% per core.

This is not Supreme Commander, a game that would require massive AI code to be handled by the CPU.

As for your friend who went out there and purchased a $2000 system for one game, based on GPU technology that is by now well over a year old, well he is an idiot, and you are an idiot for trying to justify his purchase.

Who goes out there and buys hardware without a definitive understanding of what it takes to explicitly run the game at the framerates, settings, and resolutions one would expect?

He's a moron for doing that and you are equally moronic for defending him.

Cevat never gave explicit and definitive resolutions, settings, and framerates that would justify your remarks.

Hell, you can max out Crysis at 800x600 and run it at 70 FPS.
Tell your friend he should do that, if you and he are so fixated on not playing it at 30 FPS while maintaing that it should be able to be ran maxed out.

Which is rather preposterious in of itself.
Who the hell in their right mind expects to be able to max out Crysis with 1+ year old tech without investing heavily into dual and triple sli systems that would cost well over $2000?

It's just not going to happen until the next wave of cards come into the picture.
That's called common sense, discerning judgment, foresight, something you and your friend evidently lack in abudance!

Rather, the prudent thing for him to have done would be to wait until some previews came out which gauged performance, at the very least, before heavily investing cash so impetuously.

 

[theDreamer]

Wow...what resolution is that, it looks like shit!

 

[jonneymendoza]

Wow...what resolution is that, it looks like shit!

like i said before, far cry looks better then crysis at medium lol. please tell me that screen shot is on low

 

[Hamidxa]

As for Farcry, I bought it second hand and played it once. I could, however, play it on a $100 GPU with reasonable performance. Now you have to spend around 300 just to make it playable at medium/high settings.

Why do you insist on perpetuating more idiotic bullshit,
You were wrong about SLI not working, amongst other things, and you are wrong about this as well.

Where on earth did you get this ridiculous idea that you need to spend $300 to play Far Cry on medium/high settings?

You must live in some sort of fantasy world where numbers are just pulled capriciously from thin air to support your position, which is quite delusional.

Let me buy you a clue.
You could run Far Cry at 60+ FPS on the 6800 Ultra and X800XTPE, 3-4 months after it launched, at High settings, and at 1600x1200 resolution.

You can pick up those cards for ~ $100 these days.
What's this $300 nonsense?


For that matter:

Maximum quality option, Direct3D renderer
Level: Volcano, demo: Volcano.tmd
Pixel shader: model 2.0b
Antialising: 4×
Anisotropic filtering: 8×
HDR: disabled
Geometry Instancing: disabled
Normal-maps compression: disabled

Here is by far one of the most demanding levels in the entire game, which brought many a system down to its kneese back in 04, Volcano.

Not only is the res 1680x1050, but all in game options are maxed out, AA is cranking along at 4x, AF is set to 8x.

Pay attention very closely, and watch what an $80 card (after rebate, $100 before) does to Far Cry:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127286

http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/xfx_8600gt_fatal1ty/5.htm

Not $300.
An $80 card for all intents and purposes is running the most demanding level of the game at the most demanding settings, and is achieving nearly 60 FPS average, 55 to be exact.

Not $300, but $80.

Stop perpetuating your nonsensical bullshit.

Wow...what resolution is that, it looks like shit!

That wasnt taken by me.
The point of that pic was merely to illustrate that quads do get taxed ~ 40+ % per core.

like i said before, far cry looks better then crysis at medium lol. please tell me that screen shot is on low

Yea, it was low. Once again, not the point.

 

[jonneymendoza]

That wasnt taken by me.
The point of that pic was merely to illustrate that quads do get taxed ~ 40+ % per core.



Yea, it was low. Once again, not the point.

40%? and you call that being taxed? the quad core is not even breaking sweat on crysis. 80's and 90 is when a cpu is getting taxed ona game not 40

 

[lopoetve]

Yes, just because other people have liked Bioshock, that apparently precludes them from liking Crysis as well is essentially how your post comes across.

Wrong. You quoted a place giving it GOTY as a reason why it's good, so I quoted several other places that choose ~not~ to give it the same honors to show that your belief that everyone thinks the way you do to be false. Many people don't feel that Crysis is the GOTY and that there are better games out there - i'm not alone in my thinking/

It's this very type of obtuse and parochial thinking which leaves me dumbfounded at times -- how can people be so narrow-minded and limited in perspective.

I suppose Crysis garnering a 91% average rating via MetaCritic doesn't speak for itself?

Not really, no. It's an average game with great graphics - there are plenty of reviews on there that tend to agree. A good engine, but nothing special gameplay wise. COD4, Portal, etc all have higher reviews.

Nor does its numerous votes from numerous sites for Overall GOTY, Overall FPS of the year, PC GOTY, irrespective of whether it has won or not -- it has received numerous nominations from both the editors and readers.

It only won one, from gamespy though

Really, who the hell are you to make such a categorical statement about it, as if yours is the only opinion that matters.

Someone who has as much right as you to state and have their own opinion, that's who. I dislike the game, such is my right, and who are you to tell me that's wrong?

Open your mind a little bit.

Pot, meet Kettle.

You don't like it, state that YOU don't like it and move on.

I did. Do I need to quote my prior statement? I dislike the game. I'm waiting for a patch to fix some of the many issues it has.

What's with this "No it stinks and that's final" types of denunciations?

My choice, that's what?

Hundreds of thousands of voters respectfully disagree with you; indeed that's the height of hubris to assume that one's opinion is to be taken as fact.

It hasn't sold hundreds of thousands of copies...

When I state I like it and explain why I like it, I am not stating it as fact, rather I post statistical data corroborating my sentiments to illustrate that I am not alone.

Liking something cannot have statistical data, buddy. Like is an opinion, based on a subjective, not quantitative, basis.

I dislike the game because it has piss poor AI, sub par performance in many areas, requires significant out of game tweaking to get running well, has issues with desktop gamma settings on NVidia cards, boring weapons, an uninspiring story, a lack of any form of significant characterization to create any form of draw, and a complete lack of any form of depth to the gameplay. The game is, to put it simply, often boring. Other than the graphics, there's nothing new, and I've played far too many games to let graphics make a game anymore. That is my opinion and what I feel about the game, and my right to state it.

You on the other hand, come off as rather self-involved with your denunciations, neglecting -- nay, rejecting and dismissing altogether the opinions of others.

I'm not even going to respond to that. I think it's pretty clear.

 

[Hamidxa]

40%? and you call that being taxed? the quad core is not even breaking sweat on crysis. 80's and 90 is when a cpu is getting taxed ona game not 40

What would you propose the remaining 59% do?

 

[Hamidxa]

Wrong. You quoted a place giving it GOTY as a reason why it's good, so I quoted several other places that choose ~not~ to give it the same honors to show that your belief that everyone thinks the way you do to be false.

I never stated that everyone thinks the way I do.
Why must you insist on putting words in my mouth?

Please quote where I stated that, or else cut out the BS.

Many people don't feel that Crysis is the GOTY and that there are better games out there - i'm not alone in my thinking/

Whereas many people feel that it is GOTY or at least a finalist for that honor amongst several other honors (graphics, atmosphere, shooter category, platform category).

http://kotaku.com/338226/kotakus-goty-finalists
http://www.gamespot.com/best-of/genreawards/index.html?page=4
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/12/23/151743.php
http://www.gamespot.com/best-of/gameoftheyear/index.html?page=2
http://bestof.ign.com/2007/pc/22.html
http://www.gamespot.com/best-of/platformawards/index.html?page=8
http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/gadgets_and_gaming/article3051314.ece

To name a few of the sites (didn't feel like digging through forums) that either gave GOTY honors to Crysis or nominated it.

Not really, no. It's an average game with great graphics - there are plenty of reviews on there that tend to agree.

Not really.
That is your opinion.
Saying it's an average game does not make it so.

Also, there are WAY WAY more reviews that contend that it is a GREAT game than there are reviews to the contrary.

Allow me to reference MetaCritic again:
Crysis = 91% average based on 39 review sites.
Most of those sites, 28 out of 39, gave it a score of 90 or higher.

So if it's a numbers game you want to play, then most people thought it was a good game, NOT an average game.

A good engine, but nothing special gameplay wise. COD4, Portal, etc all have higher reviews.

CoD4 has a 2% lead.
Portal however lags by 1%.

Your assessment is therefore not entirely true.

It only won one, from gamespy though Someone who has as much right as you to state and have their own opinion, that's who. I dislike the game, such is my right, and who are you to tell me that's wrong? Pot, meet Kettle.

That's more like it.
Stating an opinion is all that is required.
You however try to pass your opinion off as much more than that -- as if your opinion = fact.

It hasn't sold hundreds of thousands of copies...

It has sold over 100,000 though, and there are arguably just as many who have either downloaded it and/or played it over a friends house.

I gave my situation as an example.
5 of my buddies who have copies of the game didnt pay for it.
A handful of others actually played several hours worth of it over my place.
I certainly know that my experiences are not unique in this regard.

Liking something cannot have statistical data, buddy. Like is an opinion, based on a subjective, not quantitative, basis.

Of course it can.
Do you know anything, absolutely anything at all about statistics?
You can most definitely attribute quantitative values to likes and dislikes.

Have you never come across a survey that asks something along the lines of: "On a scale of 1 to 10, how would you rate your experience with Crysis in terms of X"

That X could be fun factor.
That X could be replay value.
That X could be a general like or dislike.

Almost ever single reviewer out there (let's use IGNPC as an example), will have a 100%-based scale which they will use to convert their qualitative experiences into quantitative ones:

http://pc.ign.com/articles/834/834614p3.html
Gameplay
Lasting Appeal
Presentation
Overall

Can all be converted from qualitative perceptions to quantitative scores.

Furthermore, sites such as MetaCritic exist to average out all of those qualitative -> (converted to) quantitative scores.

I dislike the game because it has piss poor AI, sub par performance in many areas, requires significant out of game tweaking to get running well, has issues with desktop gamma settings on NVidia cards, boring weapons, an uninspiring story, a lack of any form of significant characterization to create any form of draw, and a complete lack of any form of depth to the gameplay. The game is, to put it simply, often boring. Other than the graphics, there's nothing new, and I've played far too many games to let graphics make a game anymore. That is my opinion and what I feel about the game, and my right to state it.

Of course that's your opinion, and Im sure there are others who share it as well.
On the other hand, I disagree wholeheartedly with it, and there are others who can echo my sentiments as well.

They are all opinions at the end of the day.
You should just refrain from trying to state them as fact.

 

[lopoetve]

Hamixda, you're the first person in 3 years to make my ignore list. I've honestly stopped caring. You've failed yet again to read anything I was saying, and all you're doing is cluttering up this thread. It's my opinion that the game is average at best, and that's all I've ever claimed.

You should take your own advice and stop stating ~your~ opinion as facts.

I'm done here. I hope they get the patch out soon. My goal is to finish the last level I'm on and get the damned thing off my drive. I need the space back for better games.

 

[Hamidxa]

Hamixda, you're the first person in 3 years to make my ignore list. I've honestly stopped caring. You've failed yet again to read anything I was saying, and all you're doing is cluttering up this thread. It's my opinion that the game is average at best, and that's all I've ever claimed.

You should take your own advice and stop stating ~your~ opinion as facts.

I'm done here. I hope they get the patch out soon. My goal is to finish the last level I'm on and get the damned thing off my drive. I need the space back for better games.

The more noble thing to do would be to address the points I made in my rebuttal rather than resort to sophomoric antics such as ignoring them altogether, especially when they contained truths which contradicted your assertions.

Whatever pleases you though...

 

[theDreamer]

The more noble thing to do would be to address the points I made in my rebuttal rather than resort to sophomoric antics such as ignoring them altogether, especially when they contained truths which contradicted your assertions.

Whatever pleases you though...

The problem you are creating is nothing to even do with the original point of the thread. You took this thread and shit a brick on it about a completely different issue. Yes, what you are talking about is related but is not the issue.

 

[Hamidxa]

The problem you are creating is nothing to even do with the original point of the thread. You took this thread and shit a brick on it about a completely different issue. Yes, what you are talking about is related but is not the issue.

I'll continue to discuss it so long as others insist on perpetuating and propogating those points.

 

[theDreamer]

I'll continue to discuss it so long as others insist on perpetuating and propogating those points.

You do not get it do you...You baited them into going off topic, yes they did respond but you then escalated the approach and continued to do so. This thread, which was derailed by you, could have gone a completely different direction in discussion of when we might see a patch, what may be included in it, links to news about the patch, etc. Yet you chose to change that direction into a self fulfilling need to explain why the game is fine, but you are blinded in that you do not see it has no relevance here.

 

[Revenicus]

Yes, back on topic, you think the patch will fix this error?

 

[phide]

I'll continue to discuss it so long as others insist on perpetuating and propogating those points.

Or until the mods decide that the thread is no longer relevant and/or valuable and close it, not unlike what happened with that other Crysis-related thread (the thread you started, if I recall correctly).

Does anyone have any idea what errata the patch includes, by the way?

 

[Yoshiyuki Blade]

You do not get it do you...You baited them into going off topic, yes they did respond but you then escalated the approach and continued to do so. This thread, which was derailed by you, could have gone a completely different direction in discussion of when we might see a patch, what may be included in it, links to news about the patch, etc. Yet you chose to change that direction into a self fulfilling need to explain why the game is fine, but you are blinded in that you do not see it has no relevance here.

I think the thread derailed before he even started posting. The first few posts were mostly irrelevant to the topic, and very few people here have discussed it directly. I feel a bit guilty about keeping it derailed too, but there's really not much to discuss about regarding the patch O_O.

 

[Hamidxa]

You do not get it do you...You baited them into going off topic, yes they did respond but you then escalated the approach and continued to do so. This thread, which was derailed by you, could have gone a completely different direction in discussion of when we might see a patch, what may be included in it, links to news about the patch, etc. Yet you chose to change that direction into a self fulfilling need to explain why the game is fine, but you are blinded in that you do not see it has no relevance here.

What's there to discuss about the patch that isn't common knowledge already?

It was slated for a early December release, they encountered complications, had to basically go back to the drawing board, and now have an early-mid January release date in store.

They also indicated that they have 2 patches slated, one for game fixes, the other for content.

We already know everything there is to know until it's released, which is still anywhere from 1-3 weeks away most likely.

A couple of members decided to take it upon themselves early in this thread to go off-topic and I simply rebutted them.


The point being, just what is it that you plan on discussing that isn't common knowledge already about the patch?
Conjecture?

 

[Blubikins]

The point being, just what is it that you plan on discussing that isn't common knowledge already about the patch?
Conjecture?

My conjecture is that your retarded. I came to this conclusion from this equation :
annoying x 1 million + cheeseburger = you.

My hypothesis for your response is some long response that I will not read.

Back on subject, until the patch comes out I won't play crysis (which I really want to come out soon). For now, TF2!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Hamidxa]

My conjecture is that your retarded. I came to this conclusion from this equation :
annoying x 1 million + cheeseburger = you.

My hypothesis for your response is some long response that I will not read.

Back on subject, until the patch comes out I won't play crysis (which I really want to come out soon). For now, TF2!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Very constructive.
Now anyone care to actually address my inquiry rather than resorting to blatant idiocy / trolling?

I thought not, but I assumed as much.

 

[Blubikins]

Thanks for the compliment I thought it was constructive. I mean I did it guys! I really did it! I solved the 'conjecture'.

 

[N3mi5is]

I'm going to sum up this thread.

Majority of people are unhappy with this game and it's performance.

Hamidxa is perfectly fine with the need for ~2000$ worth of cards to run "maxed out" but without AA.

Therefore, majority of people are wrong and hamidxa (who has way too much time to go find specific quotes to cater to his arguments) is correct.

Will everyone just STFU!

When's the FREAKIN patch coming out? lol

EDIT: On a side note, back when fear came out, my 9800xt couldn't run it worth a damn, so later down the road when I upgraded, I played it maxed out. I will likely do the same thing with crysis, what exactly is the problem again? (I don't give a shit waht cevat or whatever his name said, a new highly demanding game will more than likely not run "maxed out" on current hardware. This has always been the case)

 

[Brahmzy]

I'm going to sum up this thread.

Majority of people are unhappy with this game and it's performance.

Hamidxa is perfectly fine with the need for ~2000$ worth of cards to run "maxed out" but without AA.

Therefore, majority of people are wrong and hamidxa (who has way too much time to go find specific quotes to cater to his arguments) is correct.

Will everyone just STFU!

When's the FREAKIN patch coming out? lol

EDIT: On a side note, back when fear came out, my 9800xt couldn't run it worth a damn, so later down the road when I upgraded, I played it maxed out. I will likely do the same thing with crysis, what exactly is the problem again? (I don't give a shit waht cevat or whatever his name said, a new highly demanding game will more than likely not run "maxed out" on current hardware. This has always been the case)

Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[Kreator]

I'm going to sum up this thread.

Majority of people are unhappy with this game and it's performance.

Hamidxa is perfectly fine with the need for ~2000$ worth of cards to run "maxed out" but without AA.

Therefore, majority of people are wrong and hamidxa (who has way too much time to go find specific quotes to cater to his arguments) is correct.

Will everyone just STFU!

When's the FREAKIN patch coming out? lol

EDIT: On a side note, back when fear came out, my 9800xt couldn't run it worth a damn, so later down the road when I upgraded, I played it maxed out. I will likely do the same thing with crysis, what exactly is the problem again? (I don't give a shit waht cevat or whatever his name said, a new highly demanding game will more than likely not run "maxed out" on current hardware. This has always been the case)

Agreed. I posted earlier saying something similar.

Hamidxa,

While you may bring up some good points and quotes and whatever the hell else your responding with, i spent a lot of my time sifting through your lengthy and pretty arrogant posts to get to people who were not so full of themselves and their opinion.

Just because you quote several sites saying its their GOTY doesn't make anyone else like it anymore..

Why do you care so much to post as much as you do about this game?

 

[phide]

Why do you care so much to post as much as you do about this game?

There's one theory in the wild about this:

Hamidxa - Do you work for Crytek?

Frankly, I don't think it's a far-fetched theory.

 

[Dethred]

Are you really that obtuse?

If sales speak for themselves, and Far Cry went on to sell over a million copies (which is a rarity for PC games and considered to be a majorly successful title on the PC platform), and Crysis is on pace to break that number comparatively speaking, then that should speak for itself.

Oh care to explain further? Launch month and it doesn't even break 100,000?
HA. You really do live in a parallel universe don't you. THOSE ARE TERRIBLE RESULTS.

I should not have to spell this out for you a second time.

Like for the 15th like I am about to do? Dumbass.

Secondly, quad cores do get taxed ~ 40% per core.

This is not Supreme Commander, a game that would require massive AI code to be handled by the CPU.

You are the dumbest motherfucker I have ever seen on this forum.

http://www.tomsgames.com/us/2007/11/16/crysis_demo_vs_full/page2.html

Read this you smart smart guy!

As for your friend who went out there and purchased a $2000 system for one game, based on GPU technology that is by now well over a year old, well he is an idiot, and you are an idiot for trying to justify his purchase.

CAN YOU FUCKING READ? HE DIDN'T BUY IT FOR THIS GAME. WHERE DID I SAY THAT? HE NEVER EVEN PLANNED ON PLAYING CRYSIS TILL HE HAD A CHANCE TO DOWNLOAD IT. THE ONLY IDIOT HERE IS PERPETUALLY YOU!!

Who goes out there and buys hardware without a definitive understanding of what it takes to explicitly run the game at the framerates, settings, and resolutions one would expect?

Well even though no one I know has bought hardware for Crysis, I think we've been over the whole "Cevat Yerli saying that SLI 8800 Ultras can max the game out at 1900x1200 and run playable". Lie.

Cevat never gave explicit and definitive resolutions, settings, and framerates that would justify your remarks.

So to your slightly retarded thought process "Seriously high end system AVAILABLE NOW" in response to "What would it take to play Crysis maxed out at 1900x1200 resolution?" isn't specific enough?

Hell, you can max out Crysis at 800x600 and run it at 70 FPS.
Tell your friend he should do that, if you and he are so fixated on not playing it at 30 FPS while maintaing that it should be able to be ran maxed out.

You can't possibly realize how stupid you are.

Which is rather preposterious in of itself.
Who the hell in their right mind expects to be able to max out Crysis with 1+ year old tech without investing heavily into dual and triple sli systems that would cost well over $2000?

Someone that read the article I mentioned in an earlier post! I believe someone's opinion on how a game performs is a factor of what is playable to them and what looks good while not running slowly. He didn't like the performance in that respect, and he said he hated the gameplay. Lets see what kind of mind fuck you can come up with in response to this?

It's just not going to happen until the next wave of cards come into the picture.
That's called common sense, discerning judgment, foresight, something you and your friend evidently lack in abudance!

Blah Blah blah. Read it all before from other asshats almost as obtuse as you.

Rather, the prudent thing for him to have done would be to wait until some previews came out which gauged performance, at the very least, before heavily investing cash so impetuously.

Imagine that, that was actually what he did. Actually I just lied. He was reminded of the game when he found someone willing to share with him, and decided to try it out without much thought, and hated it. Man, you just typed so much horse shit over nothing, its mind-blowing.

 

[Dethred]

Why do you insist on perpetuating more idiotic bullshit,
You were wrong about SLI not working, amongst other things, and you are wrong about this as well.

Oh really? SLI support was supported out of the box? People still aren't complaining about it over on incrysis.com all the time? Man, I didn't know that?

Back to reality, SLI wasn't supported out of the box as promised and tons of people are still having trouble getting it to work properly.

Where on earth did you get this ridiculous idea that you need to spend $300 to play Far Cry on medium/high settings?

http://www.tomsgames.com/us/2007/11/16/crysis_demo_vs_full/

Oh yeah, and happening to own an 8600GT and AMD X2 @2.9ghz on my fiance's computer. It struggles with a mix of medium/high settings, and incidentally Far Cry runs and looks better at the same framerate or performance level. Interesting how I have all this experience to back up my claims and you have reviews which I can counter with experience and other reviews.

You must live in some sort of fantasy world where numbers are just pulled capriciously from thin air to support your position, which is quite delusional.

Like saying Quad core support is there? Hey a few moments while I have been writing this all 4 cores have been above 15%!!!

FIREFOX SUPPORTS QUAD CORES!!! right?

Let me buy you a clue.
You could run Far Cry at 60+ FPS on the 6800 Ultra and X800XTPE, 3-4 months after it launched, at High settings, and at 1600x1200 resolution.

Ironically Far Cry could be maxed out on a budget, but Crysis needs 3 video cards and still can't get 60fps. HENCE MY POINT!!!

I was referring to Crysis needing an 8800GT to play the game at the same respective performance/quality level.

You can pick up those cards for ~ $100 these days.
What's this $300 nonsense?

Um, I'm sorry, I'll tell you right now my fiance's EVGA 8600GT at 600/1500mhz will not play Crysis at medium/low settings as well as my FX5600 256MB card did at medium/low settings with Far Cry. Hell that $100 PixelView FX5600 256MB card could play Farcry at all high settings 1280x1024 without too much lag.

Here is by far one of the most demanding levels in the entire game, which brought many a system down to its kneese back in 04, Volcano.

Not only is the res 1680x1050, but all in game options are maxed out, AA is cranking along at 4x, AF is set to 8x.

Are you going off on a tangent in your own mind? Are you trying to prove me right? I am not sure.

[/QUOTE]Pay attention very closely, and watch what an $80 card (after rebate, $100 before) does to Far Cry:

Not $300.
An $80 card for all intents and purposes is running the most demanding level of the game at the most demanding settings, and is achieving nearly 60 FPS average, 55 to be exact.[/QUOTE]


OH I GET IT. You think I am saying Far Cry takes a 300 dollar card to play today. Oh silly dumbass, relax, relax. I meant that when Far Cry was released I could play it well on medium/low settings with a $100 video card, but now with Crysis you need more than that.

Not $300, but $80.

Stop perpetuating your nonsensical bullshit.

I believe you're the graduate student get lost in an argument so badly that he can't figure out what he's talking about.

That wasnt taken by me.
The point of that pic was merely to illustrate that quads do get taxed ~ 40+ % per core.

Utter denial? If that link from tom's hardware doesn't shut you up about Quad Cores then you should seriously drop out of college to save money on food stamps later in life.

Yea, it was low. Once again, not the point.

That is the point to people with medium ranged cards that can play most other games with pretty much maxed detail and Crysis forces them to settle for FarCry-like detail.

 

[Dethred]

Of course that's your opinion, and Im sure there are others who share it as well.
On the other hand, I disagree wholeheartedly with it, and there are others who can echo my sentiments as well.

They are all opinions at the end of the day.
You should just refrain from trying to state them as fact.

Um, So you're saying that because review sites are giving good reviews that it is a good game as a fact? What the person you quoted said was pretty much all factual. Everything concerning the weapons in general, story, plot, etc has all been done before. Hell Far Cry had the same old formula. "Guy gets stuck on Pacific Island, has to find out stuff and then save a girl or two. Also must battle non-human characters that are part of an evil plot to destroy the world or whatever."

Its all been done before, the AI is pretty bad even when you figure the whole "they don't know that you can cloak" thing. Of course even my old argument about the KPA being confused by cloaking etc was blown away when the dumbest twist in Video game history occurred: The KPA have nanosuits as well. Of course we can all see that was a way of including nanosuits on both sides of the story for the shitty multiplayer aspect.

 

[TheInternet1980]

Yes, back on topic, you think the patch will fix this error?

That's so fucking cool. Even if it a glitch

 

[Darkatom]

Anyone else fing the aiming system completely random in this game ? Sometimes I empty enteire clips at the kpa's faces/chest but I still cant drop them. They just stand there doing their little "im getting shot in my grill but not dying dance" . This is the main issue that puts me off from playing crysis.

 

[cvinh]

Anyone else fing the aiming system completely random in this game ? Sometimes I empty enteire clips at the kpa's faces/chest but I still cant drop them. They just stand there doing their little "im getting shot in my grill but not dying dance" . This is the main issue that puts me off from playing crysis.

You mean recoil?

 

[Brahmzy]

Yes, back on topic, you think the patch will fix this error?

Definitely some spooky lookin' shiz right thar. I'd rather have that faceless thing than the aliens. That would've been awesome. Buncha friggin' eyeball guys comin' after me.

 

[Hamidxa]

Oh really? SLI support was supported out of the box? People still aren't complaining about it over on incrysis.com all the time? Man, I didn't know that?

Who said anything about SLI being supported out of the box or not?
Support was the onus of Nvidia, not Crysis.
NV made SLI support ready for Crysis within 10 days of its release.

I cited half a dozen sites which substantiate that, and now you change your story to "not supported out of the box" when you are caught in the middle of one of your vitriolic spiels.

Back to reality, SLI wasn't supported out of the box as promised and tons of people are still having trouble getting it to work properly.

SLI was supported by Crysis/Crytek out of *THEIR* box, but NV failed to provide a driver that would allow gamers to realize that until the 10th day or so.
The fact of the matter remains that SLI support has been there for weeks now, and site after site after site prove that.
Your inability or your sister's inability to capitalize on that is your problem, and quite frankly, is rather telling...

FIREFOX SUPPORTS QUAD CORES!!! right?

Now you are just being an ass.
FF utilizes less than 20% of a single core like 99% of the time.

Crysis on the other hand uses ~ 30-40% of 4 cores like 99% of the time.

Either you choose to be anal, or you are really obtuse.
Pick one.

Ironically Far Cry could be maxed out on a budget, but Crysis needs 3 video cards and still can't get 60fps. HENCE MY POINT!!!

Ironically maxed out on what budget?
What in the hell are you talking about?
You have NO clue of history.
Your post reeks of ignorance of history.

Far Cry launched in March of 2004.
There wasnt a single graphics card on the market that could play it maxed out at 1600x1200 at 30+ FPS when it launched.

NOT ONE.
NOT for another 3-4 months in fact.

Even then, the 6800 Ultra and X800XTPE were not readily available on shelves until August of 2004.

Add to that the fact that those cards each launched for $600 if you were lucky enough to find one in stock.

What the hell kind of budget hardware are you referring to?
The cost of a single X800XTPE in August of 2004 was at least $600.

Anyone here who purchased one of those cards for Far Cry back in the summer of 2004 can back me up on every single word I just stated.

OH I GET IT. You think I am saying Far Cry takes a 300 dollar card to play today. Oh silly dumbass, relax, relax. I meant that when Far Cry was released I could play it well on medium/low settings with a $100 video card, but now with Crysis you need more than that.

That's rich.
Learn how to construct coherent sentences which actually read the way you intend them to before impetuously shooting off at the mouth with disparagements.

Here are your exact words:

As for Farcry, I bought it second hand and played it once. I could, however, play it on a $100 GPU with reasonable performance. Now you have to spend around 300 just to make it playable at medium/high settings.

That is just one sloppy sentence.
Don't fault me for your inability to construct coherent sentences.
The direct object of your sentence, it, was the recepient of the actions "make it playable".
Not once did you state Crysis anywhere in that sentence. In fact, you began by stating "As for Far Cry....."

Anyone who reads that objectively will come to the same conclusion as I -- the insinuation that Far Cry needs a $300 GPU to run it maxed out with reasonable performance.

Utter denial? If that link from tom's hardware doesn't shut you up about Quad Cores then you should seriously drop out of college to save money on food stamps later in life.

What have they said that would negate any of my contentions?

You can't even answer a simple question, and have been dodging it since I raised it.

What would you propose that Crysis do with the extra CPU cycles?

The GPU handles the lion's share of the rendering, as in any PC game.

The CPU already tackles physics, AI, sound, network code, and some nominal rendering.

Just what do you feel that the CPU should be doing that it's not?
Please articulate your answer with specific recommendations and methodologies.
Don't waste my time by feeding me rhetorical BS such as: "IT'S N0T USING TEH HOLE THING! LOLZZ!!!!11!"
I am dying to hear detailed specifics since you seem to be so passionate about this subject, and feel cheated.




Oh and for what it's worth, I'll excuse your sloppy grammar / sentence structuring and address your ill-conceived point in light of my previous comment.

Far Cry could NOT be maxed out in any way, shape, or form, by hardware available during its launch at anywhere near 30+ FPS, especially not with AA set to even 2X and AF cranking along at 8-16X, at 1600x1200.

It simply was not possible on a 9800XT, which was the card of choice for it during the initial 3-4 months after its release until the 6800 Ulta and XTPE came out.

Therefore, your reasoning is both fallacious and misleading.
You can not impose upon Crysis expectations that are unreasonable in light of the fact that even Far Cry required ~ 4 months after its launched before it could be played at a higher setting.
Even the 6800 Ulta and XTPE could not truly max out Far Cry though and maintain respectable framerates (ever tried enabling HDR on those cards in addition to max settings), that came with the 7800 series and the X1800's.

 

[Yoshiyuki Blade]

Anyone else fing the aiming system completely random in this game ? Sometimes I empty enteire clips at the kpa's faces/chest but I still cant drop them. They just stand there doing their little "im getting shot in my grill but not dying dance" . This is the main issue that puts me off from playing crysis.

A straightforward headshot should drop them instantly, unless they have a helmet on and you hit the helmet first. Anything less than reflex sights (aka iron sights) and/or laser pointer will be hard to get accurate headshots in.

The only time I ever go for the body is if I get fed up with trying to headshot a dude that moves around too much. About 5-6 to the body is usually enough. Besides the pistols, rifles and SMG, pretty much any other weapon will kill them off really fast no matter where you aim.

 

[KillRoy X]

where is the patch

 

[TheRapture]

where is the patch

"When it's ready"

 

[N3mi5is]

The patch died along time ago along with this thread

 

[blade52x]

I meant that when Far Cry was released I could play it well on medium/low settings with a $100 video card, but now with Crysis you need more than that.

Everyone used lower resolutions back then too.

 

[Dethred]

Everyone used lower resolutions back then too.

Exactly, that was the standard. They used slower GPU's too, whats your point? Now days 1600x1200 and 1900x1200 is becoming standard. Incidentally a 5900U could max out Far Cry at 1600x1200 and get around 30fps (I don't consider that great but Hamidxa thinks its FANTASTIC). To Max out Crysis at 1900x1200 you need 3 $600 GPU's.

 

[LeviathanZERO]

Wow.
WTF happened to this thread??