• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Crysis Single Player Demo

System:

EVGA 8800GTX Superclocked
Core 2 Duo E6600 @ 3.5 Ghz
2GB DDR2 1000 RAM @ CAS 3
Silencer 750 Quad PSU

Windows Vista Home Premium
Forceware 169.01 (October 26, 2007)

Summary: Unplayable at 1680 x 1050. At this resolution, settings must be lowered to the point where the game is almost indistinguishable from its predecessor, Farcry. Anti-aliasing is simply not possible.

With shadows and textures set to medium, and everything else set to high, no-antialising this game hovers around 15FPS and in my opinion is simply not playable at 1680 x 1050. With EVERYTHING set to medium, the results are better, but the game starts looking more like Farcry and less like the demonstration videos.

The upshot is that at 1680 x 1050 I was unable to find any combination of settings that were playable and looked anything like the demonstration videos.

Note that the beta runs much better than this demo.

In conclusion, this game will be in the bargain bin by the time the hardware is out that can run it acceptably. At playable framerates, the game is subjectively ugly.

Gameplay wise, it is obviously a rehash of Farcry.
 
Damn!! Those numbers suck dude haha I don't even want to imagine what i'll get...Oh well, the new videocards from NV are coming out like next month so hopefully they will run crysis at acceptable frames.

I'm more interested in the gameplay though...nobody seems to be talking about it.
 
It was around 20fps @1280X1024 w/ everything set to high. I wasn't impressed with the graphics. They were really grainy for some reason. Perhaps I should try the beta drivers....
 
Downloaded the demo and I am displeased with the performance. Its terrible and totally unoptimized. Hopefully they would delay the game before anyone would fully experience it.
 
I can't get the x64 version to run. It just stop responding at the first warning screen but I did get the x86 to run.

Played around 20 minutes and my average FPS is 20. Resolution is 1280x1024, no AA and all settings at very high with the latest beta driver.

So please NVidia release the the G90 or whatever they want to call it because the 8800GTX is just not enough even at low res to play at the highest setting and no AA.

Circuitbreaker8 said:
Damn!! Those numbers suck dude haha I don't even want to imagine what i'll get...Oh well, the new videocards from NV are coming out like next month so hopefully they will run crysis at acceptable frames.

I'm more interested in the gameplay though...nobody seems to be talking about it.
Click to expand...

Well the gameplay is so far so good. The destructable enviroment can make it a little bit difficult to find cover. Hiding behind a shack against a mounted gun is no such a good idea.
 
I tried again, but this thing's unplayable even on the most basic settings. Just add Crysis to the ever expanding list of over-hyped 2007 games that's gonna fail to live up to expectations. And I'll be god-damned if I'm going to invest $500+ in a new video card so I can play a $50 game that's got an unplayable demo.
 
Just finished the demo with everything set on high, no AA @ 1920 x 1200. I was constantly at around the low 30s, but for some reason it was playable. During the action it never bogged down or lagged at all.
 
It has all the hallmarks of a game that simply exceeds the capabilities of today's machines. I've seen it a hundred times before, but it is the only one this cycle.

It is also the result of a brute force method of game development where realism takes priority over art style. There really is no art style, it is basically trying to imitate real life, so every setting you have to dial down has a much more significant impact than say, in Half-Life 2 or Team Fortress.

It can be made "playable" I suppose but you basically have to strip it down so it looks like Farcray to play it. It looks nothing like the demo videos. I'm perfectly willing to make compromises but when it gets to the point where you can't even use 4xaa or even 2xaa really, you have a situation where you are better off just waiting for the next wave of graphics cards. I don't understand how they could possibly claim this scales back two or three years because it barely scales back to the present.

Personally, when it comes to games that are outdoors and have tons of foliage like this, I think you have to wait a generation or two to really get it looking good.
 
Aint that the truth. This game was developed to stress hardware for the next few years, but I see it as a step in the right direction for game development.
 
meh, not impressed.
If it wont run decent on a $1,500 PC...then its not really worth my time. Sloppy coding. Feels more like a "get it done and on the shelves, we fix it later" kind of thing.
I know its just the demo, but beta testing was what? A week ago? And now a demo that preforms as bad as the beta...common.
IMHO, buying a $2,500 or $3,000 PC just to run Crysis isnt worth it...the game just isnt good enough to warrant such hardware demands.
 
7800gs overclocked with x2 3800@3.0ghz 2gb of ballistix. Running at 1024x768 with 4x aniso medium everything except water is on high and physics, post processing, and it runs at decent framerates but i think it could be way better in performance :). The demo was actually pretty fun to me :cool:. I wanted to fight more at the end then it cut off and said to buy the game lol. Hopefully the full version runs alittle better.

I might wait for next generation of videocards before upgrading it. When i cranked up the shaders to high it just made the fps dipped half of what i had so i kept it at medium.
 
This demo is a joke. It runs 10-20fps less then the beta. It is unplayable with the below rig.

I retract my above statement, I lowered Shader Detail to High from Very High and it was very playable.
 
But it isn't just that it stresses hardware. It doesn't scale that well. I mean I've got a 3.5GHz Core2Duo and an overclocked 8800GTX and I feel like I need a new computer!

It reminds me of the first time I played the Battlefield 1942 demo, and I realized my pentium 3 and TNT2 ultra card was not going to cut it anymore. That is exactly how I feel after running this demo. It has the same sort ugliness that 1942 had before I upgraded to the 9700pro and could finally add some anti-aliasing and some perks. It is rough looking or something.

I think the resolution is a big part of the problem. We expect to run in HD but in reality running Crysis in HD makes about as much sense as running Battfield 1942 at 1600 x 1200 with the 9700pro made in 2002. Back then 1680 x 1050 would have been considered excessive but now that we have these big screens and high native resolutions we consider it more of a necessity.
 
Mr. Wolf said:
I tried again, but this thing's unplayable even on the most basic settings. Just add Crysis to the ever expanding list of over-hyped 2007 games that's gonna fail to live up to expectations. And I'll be god-damned if I'm going to invest $500+ in a new video card so I can play a $50 game that's got an unplayable demo.
Click to expand...

Just curious are you running Windows Vista? Or using the beta drivers?

That IS terrible performance, but I just did a fraps run through two little village firefights (explosions, grenades, you know, all the good stuff. :) ) and my Fraps log was:

2007-10-26 17:12:50 - Crysis
Frames: 8378 - Time: 407280ms - Avg: 22.571 - Min: 10 - Max: 31 (only like 7 minutes of gameplay, but more happened then than normally during the game anyways. :p)

Which was very playable for me, (all settings high, 1680x1050 no AA) and I don't even have a GTX! So I wonder if DX10 is giving people framerate issues. :confused:
 
The below images are at 1920*1200 Medium settings. Settings had to be medium, otherwise the game was completely and utterly unplayable at that resolution.


Crysis1.jpg

Crysis2.jpg

Crysis3.jpg

Crysis4.jpg
 
I'm on WinXP and have tried several drivers, most recently the 169.01 version.

Nuthin', nuthin', nuthin'!! :mad:
 
It might be vista since i am running windows xp x64. Some of you guys are getting the same framerates as me in the game and i have a slower videocard. Try to run it in dx9 mode. It still looked great in it. It might be that the videocards now just can't do dx10 that great yet like the geforce fx cards with dx9. Not real sure though :). Most likely the code needs to be optimized more or nvidia needs to create better drivers. Both need to get involved more i think. Not sure, everyone even me can only play at medium on most of settings. Its like anything higher on all systems can't handle it.
 
I won't be surprised if I'm disappointed. I thought the beta, even considering it was beta, was pretty bad. No way it could make a 180 in a month. It could probably use a another quarter in development. I think they'll release it as-is and fix it with patches.
 
On medium settings it looks like Far Cry....which wasn't bad for it's time.....but if this does not run any better in the real game off the shelf, we are going to be in for a stunner...

Anyway, I am downloading it now, will report back as soon as it is done and installed....I have a feeling my 8800GTS is going to get bitch slapped.
 
Eagle156 said:
It was around 20fps @1280X1024 w/ everything set to high. I wasn't impressed with the graphics. They were really grainy for some reason. Perhaps I should try the beta drivers....
Click to expand...

Forget what I said. After I reran the game the graininess went away. I guess it was because I changed settings in the middle of the game...
Anyway this game looks amazing now and after I turned textures and objects down to medium and everything else on high it runs smooth. No AA but the game looks really good already. All of this @1280x1024 with a 320mb GTS overclocked to 621/999.
This really is the future of gaming. The destructible environments adds to the gameplay, the ai seemed very smart (they appeared to use their senses to locate you instead of instantly knowing where you are, and I died alot on the hardest difficulty settings), and the vehicles handle well. I haven't actually finished the demo yet because I keep reloading to try new ways of killing people.

BTW drivers are 163.71. Screenshots don't do this justice, you really have to see it to believe it.:D
 
Droc said:
meh, not impressed.
If it wont run decent on a $1,500 PC...then its not really worth my time. Sloppy coding. Feels more like a "get it done and on the shelves, we fix it later" kind of thing.
I know its just the demo, but beta testing was what? A week ago? And now a demo that preforms as bad as the beta...common.
IMHO, buying a $2,500 or $3,000 PC just to run Crysis isnt worth it...the game just isnt good enough to warrant such hardware demands.
Click to expand...

IMO it's not so much sloppy coding as the game it really pushing the envelope. Have you ever played a game that looks as good as Crysis on very high settings? Well I haven't.

The game is probably not as optimized as much as it could be but we just have to accept the fact that Crysis is far too demanding for our current hardware.

Heck I can only run it at 20 fps average at very high settings at 1280x1024. That's no where near high res by today standard and I have a pretty powerful rig.
 
Wow, my 7900GS needs a retirement. On low resolution and medium settings its laggy as hell.
 
Just finished the demo with the system in my sig at 1680x1050 res, 2x AA, everything on high. Definitely could have ran better, but it was always playable. That being said, I wasnt really that impressed with the graphics. Some things looked nice but there was something about it that didnt wow me like I had come to expect from the videos I've seen. Maybe its because its a demo i dunno. The gameplay is fun on the whole though. I enjoyed making use of the suit's abilities and taking out guys and stalking around in the jungle Predator style. I'd definitely like to see where the game goes after the end of the demo.
 
1920x1200 looks MUCH better. Hard to run though that is for sure. No aa but mostly high settings.
 
Runs great on a Q6600 + 8800 at 1920 x 1080 4xAA.

But the engine doesn't seems to be multi-threaded.

2 cores at 50% and 2 cores at 0%.
 
nobody can run it on very high. best I can manage is mostly high some medium and low water and game effects b/c I don't care about it.
 
Hilarious, at playable framerates, the game looks exactly like Farcry. Maybe I should have just reinstalled Farcry instead of downloading this demo.
 
You know what? I was thinking the same thing. HOWEVER, at high settings it looks crazy, crazy nice. So it is Farcry 2 the new benchmark graphics game. I like the direction of the game from a movie standpoint. Fun game I think. Pity very few will be able to really experience it now. Maybe next year.
 
I retract my previous statment....I tried the demo and had my AV running in the background.

On 1280*1024 autodetected to medium settings, the game ran as smooth as butter and still looked better then anything thus far.
Sorry bioshock fans, but Crysis'd "medium" blows your "high" away.

I turned it up to high and it instantly slowed down a tonn

but considering my stock clocked E6400, 2gb ram and 8800GTS 320mb could run it just fine on medium....Im satisfied. Prolly not optimized as much as it should, but the gameplay experience is totally fun....actually, its the most fun I have had in a long time.
 
PeeWeePee said:
game is scaled ahead just like farcry/doom3 was stop crying
Click to expand...
Ran Doom 3 when it came out at 12x10/High/2xAA/4xAF on my P4 3.0/6800 GT with fantastic frame rates. At the time, a system like that was comparable to an Opteron/8800 GTS system today in terms of how modern its components were. Looking at Crysis, and we're seeing that 16x10/NoAA is only somewhat playable on bleeding-edge systems.

To be blunt, I think that's a pretty silly comparison.
 
you gotta be in vista to get the very high, its dx10

I am seeing 45 and up on high and on very high well lets just say i am dissapointed lmao
 
An odd observation:

on my PC, forcing AA/AF in the nVidia control panel does nothing for Crysis (Using latests beta btw)

Turning on AA in the games menu - even 2x AA - cuts my FPS in more than half at any resolution. 1024x768 is unplayable with any level of AA set.

No AA what so ever runs pretty good though. 1680x1050 is ALMOST playable (25 to 60 fps). 1440x900 is playable.
 
I can't get DX10 mode to run. It keeps crashing on the second logo screen. DX9 mode runs fairly well with everything on high. I'm using the latest beta's...169.01.

Anyone have Vista 64 that can run in DX10 mode?
 
Sipster said:
I can't get DX10 mode to run. It keeps crashing on the second logo screen. DX9 mode runs fairly well with everything on high. I'm using the latest beta's...169.01.

Anyone have Vista 64 that can run in DX10 mode?
Click to expand...

Crysis x64 doesn't work. You need to manually run the x86 version from the installation folder.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top