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

wrangler said:
If the 3 most important settings have to be on medium then the game doesn't look as ADVERTISED it looks like any other game out there.
Click to expand...

Im sorry, but your system is better then mine and I can run Crysis fine with all settings on high and not a single game even comes close to looking remotely as good as Crysis does.
If your gonna piss and moan because its not what you saw in the commercials then find another group to complain to. Anyone who puts any faith in advertising is far to ignorant. And anyone who complains that Crysis forced them to go out and buy the top of the line hardware only to find it doesnt run the game at a bazillion fps should just stop breathing.

Show me how the game doesn't utilize multi core processors? It sure as shit does for me. I run it single core and its a snail, I run it dual and its fine. May not utilize 100% of the 2nd core, but its well over 70% and thats good enough for me. I run it on my work quad core and it takes significant load on all 4 cores.

DX10 looks better, and some have reported it to run better, but like DX9 vs DX8, DX10 to DX9 is a very small step, and at these early stages, it fallows the same troublesome trend as every single other version of DX.

The lack of SLi support is a shame, but thats nothing new with Sli.

Listen, we all knew from the start that Crysis was going to beat the best hardware to a bloody pulp.

Its a buyer beware world. If you believe everything you hear and go into everything expecting the best, your going to spend your life being disappointed. Face up to the reality that when it comes to computers and software, more often then not, most stuff falls short of initial speculation.

As I said in my previous post, Crysis runs as good if not better then any other technological milestone game in the past.
 
See my previous posts linking HardOCP reviews.

Aparently they don't know how to make the game run well either with top of the line hardware.:rolleyes: Only you and Hamidxa.

On medium, this game looks like any other game that has come out in the last couple years. On top of that, only the first 2/3rds is worth playing.
 
Hamidxa said:
So, why are PC games that actually do usher in an entirely new era for graphics, all of a sudden expected to be able to run at resolutions 2-2.5 times higher than games on systems that were promised across the board to support similar resolutions?
Click to expand...
Let me just say that I have no particular issue with Crysis performance. Runs fine for me; no big thing. I was just commenting that Droc was wrong about 16x12 being some sort of "standard" since the advent of accelerators. He's quite mistaken about that.

I think the first benchmark I saw at 1600x1200 was for Forsaken, which was one of those rare games that ran incredibly fast on practically all hardware when it was released. That was in 1998 -- so it probably pitted the TNT against the Voodoo 2, I guess.
 
Revenicus said:
30+ fps is unacceptable, when did we become so complacent about framerate as pc gamers? I remember not accepting less than 80.

seriously, we all need to step into a CRYochamber and wait a year or so till we have hardware that can run crysis adequately. Crysis was not meant to be released this early. Marty Mcfly must have driven his delorean to Crytek in an alternate time frame and done something that made crytek release crysis too soon, and now the whole world has gone to hell.
Click to expand...

They only changed one thing.. The intro says its the year 2020.. It was suppost to read "present day".
 
Crytek really needs to shove their PR guy into a broom closet as they managed to create this batch of pissed off users out of thin air.

Had they not given a firm quote on the first patch, nobody would have started complaining for at least another week or two. Having quoted "7-14 days" and then MISSING that date (by quite a margin so far), they look like idiots. They compounded their error by then releasing too little information to the community that is now waiting expectantly.
 
jaegertech said:
Crytek really needs to shove their PR guy into a broom closet as they managed to create this batch of pissed off users out of thin air.

Had they not given a firm quote on the first patch, nobody would have started complaining for at least another week or two. Having quoted "7-14 days" and then MISSING that date (by quite a margin so far), they look like idiots. They compounded their error by then releasing too little information to the community that is now waiting expectantly.
Click to expand...

QFT. They look like dumbasses for stating specific dates. "We're getting close" would have been good enough--still inaccurate IMO since it's been over a month, but far, far better than stating hard dates that turn out to be fabricated.

And by the way, I love the game. I'm not trying to pile on just because I'm not happy with the performance of my (non-existent) $500 graphics card or the MP or whatever.
 
Hamidxa said:
I still don't see how you can say that 30+ FPS average on HIGH with an 8800GT, GTX, Ultra at a res of 1600x1200 is anything but remarkable in a game that graphically makes everything else out there look 1-2 years dated. :confused::rolleyes:
Click to expand...

The Game doesn't look like what we were shown. In fact I can play with everything on Very High and get about 30fps average in XP. That is my complaint. Crytek basically tried to screw XP users out of better effects for NO REASON AT ALL. Also, even on Very high the graphics don't match up to what we were shown in videos.
 
Obviously not.

Here are Tweaktown's latest figures (highlighting the new 8800 GTS 512MB):

http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/1234/18/page_18_benchmarks_crysis/index.html

HIGH (in yellow) 1280x1024
88gtsg92g22pt3.gif


HIGH (in yellow) 1920x1200
88gtsg92g23bj0.gif


Hell, it's still smooth at 1920x1200 on HIGH with a single card. :eek:


Also, while not HIGH, but MED at 1920x1200 with 4xAA, here are some more figures:
Crysis
The final game test up for the XFX 8800 GTS 512MB XXX was Crysis. This is a new addition to me test regime and is replacing Fear. Fear is still a great game, but recently Fear has become less and less of a challenge for video cards. Crysis on the other hand is the most demanding game on the market currently. I ran Crysis at a screen resolution of 1920 x 1200 with all settings on medium and with 4x AA. I used Fraps to record frame rate data from the beginning beach insertion until defeating the enemies on the first beach. Fraps recorded the following frame rate data:

* Min- 37 fps
* Avg- 54.546 fps
* Max- 72 fps
Click to expand...
http://www.i4u.com/full-review-344.html
 
Hamidxa said:
The patch is for people who feel like they need it.

I don't need it quite frankly.

It works as promised on release for me.

Only people whose systems aren't up to speed or those clueless masses who can't configure their systems/this game to match their systems are the ones who feel deceived.

Why would I feel deceived on the other hand when I get:
30+ FPS throughout on HIGH, with AA set to 2x via system.cfg file, 16xAF, sunshafts even enabled, all at 1600x1200, on an 8800GT at 700MHz.

It is undoubtedly remarkable what they have managed to achieve.
A game that makes everything else look years dated and still run this good on hardware that is for all intents and purposes 1+ year old.

And yet, if you still must bitch, then by all means Bitch at ATI/NV for selling us rehashes of the same chips for the last 13 months, not Crytek.
The 9800GTX should have been launching around this time of year instead of the 8800GT.
Then of course, if ATI/AMD were even at all competitive with NV, then NV would have launched their 9800GTX by now, but they are holding back because ATI is giving them no reason to release the new 9-series.

Nevertheless, it still runs far more than acceptable for me from beginning to end.
If it doesn't for you guys, tough luck.
As for me, I've posted screenshots already substantiating my claims, so my assertions are far from fabrications.

I've been enjoying it on High at 30+ FPS while you guys can bitch and moan about a patch to help your GTS's or 2900XT's out.

You do know, you could go out there and just purchase a better card right?
Or, if you are really determined to get even more out of this game, just wait for the 9-series cards to come out in like 3 months.
Click to expand...

Quad core support out of the box? SLI support out of the box? CPU limited? HOW WERE WE NOT LIED TO?
 
Hamidxa said:
Obviously not.

Here are Tweaktown's latest figures (highlighting the new 8800 GTS 512MB):

Hell, it's still smooth at 1920x1200 on HIGH with a single card. :eek:
Click to expand...

All High isn't even the highest DX9 graphics. No 3d waves, etc. Reviews that show only High can suck it, that is not the goal for most people (graphically). Medium looks no better than some games out today and it barely scratches 50fps.
 
Dethred said:
All High isn't even the highest DX9 graphics. No 3d waves, etc. Reviews that show only High can suck it, that is not the goal for most people (graphically). Medium looks no better than some games out today and it barely scratches 50fps.
Click to expand...

Medium looks better than any game out today.
Stop fooling yourself.

High however looks vastly superior to anything today, even in DX9, nothing comes close to touching it.

Besides, you can always do as I do, enable 2x edgee AA through a system.cfg file, and enable sunshafts as well. That in turn will also enable rays underwater too, hence adding another DX10 feature to your DX9 experience.

Furthermore, you can enable a 64 bit feature by increasing the XY_view_distance to 4096 which makes the game look even better for ~ 0.5 FPS hit, if that.

All of the aforementioned tweaks I mentioned, when enabled, make the game look noticably better, yes even better, but at the expense of a mere 2-3 FPS, if that.

So go ahead and tack on another 2-3 FPS drop to the benchmarks I referenced.
It still doesn't change everything I have stated. :eek: :eek:


Oh, and if your goal is Very High with stable framerates on todays hardware, then wake the hell up.
What are you, senile? Delusional? Trying to ward of dementia?

Whatever it is, you are asking for the impossible.
Today's hardware is 14 months old.
This game and its' engine however are programmed to take advantage of hardware that hasn't even hit the shelves yet, and yet here you are expecting to run it maxed out on 14 month old, dated, rehashed, hardware.

That's absurd.
 
Your reasoning is so fucked it hurts my brain! STOP SHOWING BENCHMARK CHARTS! We could argue about performance all day but that isn't the issue. The issue is that the patch was promised to be released 14-21 days AGO. You can make all the excuses in the world but guess what? You have changed no one's mind in any of your arguments.

jaegertech said:
Crytek really needs to shove their PR guy into a broom closet as they managed to create this batch of pissed off users out of thin air.

Had they not given a firm quote on the first patch, nobody would have started complaining for at least another week or two. Having quoted "7-14 days" and then MISSING that date (by quite a margin so far), they look like idiots. They compounded their error by then releasing too little information to the community that is now waiting expectantly.
Click to expand...

That would be Cevat Yerli. The man is really a compulsive liar more than anything. I blame his dishonesty on the stress of having to hype a game for years without being able to give too much info on when the game was to be released, so he had to make shit up.
 
Hamidxa said:
Medium looks better than any game out today.
Stop fooling yourself.

High however looks vastly superior to anything today, even in DX9, nothing comes close to touching it.

Besides, you can always do as I do, enable 2x edgee AA through a system.cfg file, and enable sunshafts as well. That in turn will also enable rays underwater too, hence adding another DX10 feature to your DX9 experience.

Furthermore, you can enable a 64 bit feature by increasing the XY_view_distance to 4096 which makes the game look even better for ~ 0.5 FPS hit, if that.

All of the aforementioned tweaks I mentioned, when enabled, make the game look noticably better, yes even better, but at the expense of a mere 2-3 FPS, if that.

So go ahead and tack on another 2-3 FPS drop to the benchmarks I referenced.
It still doesn't change everything I have stated. :eek: :eek:


Oh, and if your goal is Very High with stable framerates on todays hardware, then wake the hell up.
What are you, senile? Delusional? Trying to ward of dementia?

Whatever it is, you are asking for the impossible.
Today's hardware is 14 months old.
This game and its' engine however are programmed to take advantage of hardware that hasn't even hit the shelves yet, and yet here you are expecting to run it maxed out on 14 month old, dated, rehashed, hardware.

That's absurd.
Click to expand...

My suggestion to you is quit your job at Crytek or EA before the sinking boat goes down.

I stopped reading your asinine ranting at "hence adding another DX10 feature to your DX9 experience."

If you can't immediately understand how you just proved everyone's point about the game, then you need to give up on your argument.

PS: There are no truly DX10 features in the game. I have even read that some people are getting motion blur to work in DX9.

PPS: I don't even like COD4, but I guarantee if you get Crysis to the same framerate as COD4 (you pick the settings for each) and COD4 will look better every time. Crysis has more potential, but you can't get there just yet.

PPPS: No wonder the game is a failure in sales, you have to wait an estimated 18 months just to play it the way we were shown in tech videos.
 
This thread seems to keep trying to be side tracked by a non-issue, the ability of the game to run X resolution is not the issue at all. The issue is that Crysis has not had a patch that was suppose to be released after two weeks (approximately) of said interview. They have failed to provide and such now have a black mark on their record. Performance may be good or bad, but when you say you are patching the game, even if for security, you deliver.
 
theDreamer said:
This thread seems to keep trying to be side tracked by a non-issue, the ability of the game to run X resolution is not the issue at all. The issue is that Crysis has not had a patch that was suppose to be released after two weeks (approximately) of said interview. They have failed to provide and such now have a black mark on their record. Performance may be good or bad, but when you say you are patching the game, even if for security, you deliver.
Click to expand...

Well...........the reason people are screaming for the patch is mainly performance.

I want my quad core to run the game better than a dual core.
I want my 8800 series graphics card to run the game on all high 1280 DX10.
I want my 64bit OS to run the game better than a 32bit OS.
I want Sli to work.

Cevat said this is the way it would be.
Make it so.
 
Dethred said:
Your reasoning is so fucked it hurts my brain! STOP SHOWING BENCHMARK CHARTS! We could argue about performance all day but that isn't the issue. The issue is that the patch was promised to be released 14-21 days AGO. You can make all the excuses in the world but guess what? You have changed no one's mind in any of your arguments.



That would be Cevat Yerli. The man is really a compulsive liar more than anything. I blame his dishonesty on the stress of having to hype a game for years without being able to give too much info on when the game was to be released, so he had to make shit up.
Click to expand...

My reasoning is fucked? :confused:

You are the one making retarded arguments. :rolleyes:


"BUT THEY PROMASSED US TEH PACH 2 WEAKS AG0 AND THEY LYYED 2 US BECOZ WE HAVZ N0 PACHT! OMHWTFBBQGRASS!!!111"

You sound like an idiot.

The reason I am saying that and posting benchmarks is because of the very argument people like you make:

"WE NEED A PATCH TO MAKE THIS GAME RUN GOOD! WITHOUT IT, IT RUNS LIKE COMPLETE ASS!"

No, no it doesn't.

My benchmarks that I have personally posted as well as the ones that I am referencing from other reputable sites out there corroborating all of the assertions that I have made about the performance in this game prove otherwise.

Why else would you be so vitriolic about no patch being released?
Well, duh, because you complain about poor performance.

It's common sense, it's like connecting dots, a child could see the logic in this.

Therefore on that note, I am posting those figures once more to highlight the fact that a patch is not necessarily needed for that reason if you are an owner of an 8800GT, GTX, Ultra, or the newly released 512MB GTS, which is what I have been stating all along.

It's common sense why you argue the need for a patch (which is mostly in your head), and why I am arguing that the need for it is not as desperate as some people such as yourself make it out to be. :rolleyes:


I.E. Only an absolute idiot or someone entirely ignorant of history would be complaining about performance in this game on HIGH with 30+ FPS average at 1600x1200 res on 1 year old hardware.
My question to you is, are you that idiot?
 
wrangler said:
Well...........the reason people are screaming for the patch is mainly performance.

I want my quad core to run the game better than a dual core.
I want my 8800 series graphics card to run the game on all high 1280 DX10.
I want my 64bit OS to run the game better than a 32bit OS.
I want Sli to work.

Cevat said this is the way it would be.
Make it so.
Click to expand...

And if I recall correctly, I believe Crysis was to support and perform (or take better advantage) better with quad core systems. I am unaware directly on how an 8800 upper end series was meant to perform versus a lower end, but I would assume that a GTX would be better (capable of greater resolutions & settings) than a GTS or GT. Also for a game that is meant to crush the standards on both game play, graphics, physics, AI, etc. I would think they would want these things, especially SLi since better performance means better graphics.
 
Im wondering who the hell thinks 15-20 fps is a good thing.
To me thats unacceptable.

here, buy our game, the latest hardware$, spend hours tweaking a bunch of shit, and you will get 20fps.

Umm, fuck no?
 
Hamidxa said:
*Snip*
Click to expand...

Hate to be rude, but you just quoted him and ripped his own words and dumbed them down to a standard much lower than what he was arguing. Yes he capitalized to emphasize a point, but he is arguing not about performance at all but on the honesty & integrity of a company. They failed to provide what they stated they could and now people are upset, this is how it will be with anything; if you promise something and fail to provide or screw up what you promised (which is worse I do not know) then people are going to be mad.

Your last comment in bold is out of line and just rude.
 
Monkey God said:
Im wondering who the hell thinks 15-20 fps is a good thing.
To me thats unacceptable.

here, buy our game, the latest hardware$, spend hours tweaking a bunch of shit, and you will get 20fps.

Umm, fuck no?
Click to expand...

Where do you see that?

Do some of you people choose to ignore the figures I have posted?

Are you myopic? Suffer from any sort of ailments which would impair your vision perhaps?

In fact, on a mere $240 card, an 8800GT, the MINIMUM FPS is higher than the high fps you alluded to.

An 8800GT averages well over 30 FPS in most resolutions (excluding 1920x1200 and above) on HIGH settings, while rarely dipping into the low 20s.

Sophistry and hyperbole.
 
As soon as SLI gets to working well, all of these performance issues will be null and void.. A $500 8800GT SLI rig will run everything near max I figure.
 
Hamidxa said:
"BUT THEY PROMASSED US TEH PACH 2 WEAKS AG0 AND THEY LYYED 2 US BECOZ WE HAVZ N0 PACHT! OMHWTFBBQGRASS!!!111"...You sound like an idiot.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you should consider why many of your fellow peers are calling you a shill. It's not because we're crazy, blind with rage, nor is it that we jump to asinine conclusions. In reality, we "connect the dots" quite well. We say that Cevat lied, in quite a polite manner, really, and you counter that by saying that those who need the patch might be "a little put off" about having been misled. "A little put off"?

I don't know what to say here. This seems quite obvious.
 
PPS: I don't even like COD4, but I guarantee if you get Crysis to the same framerate as COD4 (you pick the settings for each) and COD4 will look better every time. Crysis has more potential, but you can't get there just yet.
Click to expand...

This is an absurd comparison. Of course if you turn down the settings down in Crysis (a game that pays detail many more times the attention that COD4 does) it's going to have to look like shit to get the same framerate. That comes with the ballgame. When you set out to create a game that has unparalleled attention to detail and graphical quality that is almost photo-realistic, it's not going to run as well real-time as a polished up arcade style shooter. You know we could just flip the coin to the other side here as well;

I guarantee if you set COD4 to the same settings as Crysis (both on high/very high, you pick the settings) Crysis will look better every time. COD4 will have the higher framerate, but just can't rival the graphical quality.
 
theDreamer said:
And if I recall correctly, I believe Crysis was to support and perform (or take better advantage) better with quad core systems. I am unaware directly on how an 8800 upper end series was meant to perform versus a lower end, but I would assume that a GTX would be better (capable of greater resolutions & settings) than a GTS or GT. Also for a game that is meant to crush the standards on both game play, graphics, physics, AI, etc. I would think they would want these things, especially SLi since better performance means better graphics.
Click to expand...

Cevat said 8800 with C2D would run the game DX10 1280 all on high.

NOT
 
phide said:
Perhaps you should consider why many of your fellow peers are calling you a shill. It's not because we're crazy, blind with rage, nor is it that we jump to asinine conclusions. In reality, we "connect the dots" quite well. We say that Cevat lied, in quite a polite manner, really, and you counter that by saying that those who need the patch might be "a little put off" about having been misled. "A little put off"?

I don't know what to say here. This seems quite obvious.
Click to expand...

The point of feeling mislead is because they felt that they were due a performance upgrade or else the game would run like shit no matter what.
That is the argument some of my "peers" are making.

That there is nothing short of God Himself, or perhaps an SGI render farm that could run this game properly, so we need a patch to resolve this alleged predicament.

Then, when I post benchmarks to the contrary, they act like the issue here is just a promise to release a patch, and nothing else matters but the promise itself.

O.K. so hypothetically.
Let's say they release a patch that doesn't fix performance for these people at all.

What then?
You aren't so naive as to think that they would stop complaining right?
You sound like a very intelligent guy, so surely you should know that:

It's not merely about a promise.
It's about performance.

That's what they care about, not that Cevat didn't honor his word to release a patch.
He could have done that in 2 days, not 2 weeks, but it's performance once again that these people want.

A patch isn't just a patch, and a promise isn't just a promise, it's performance.
 
wrangler said:
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTQzMSwzLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==

Latest card from Nvidia. The 128sp 512mb Geforce 8800GTS.

CAN NOT RUN CRYSIS AT 1280 ALL ON HIGH.

As a matter of fact, it is the most important settings meant to differentiate this game from the crowd that must be set to medium thus rendering it's all powerful graphical prowess neutered.

I'm looking for the article where he said that but heres this.
Click to expand...

False.

http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?p=1031815275&posted=1#post1031815275

It can run it MORE than adequately -- very respectably in fact.

Furthermore, I asked you for a source on Cevat's alleged comment.

Oh, and that is a DX10 benchmark you posted.
Blame NV and their driver team, not Crytek for NV failing to get their DX10 drivers up to the DX9 standards. :eek:

Secondly, even then it's average ~ 30FPS in DX10.

VERY RESPECTABLE Indeed!
Thanks for proving my point.
 
I went out and bought crysis opening day and that was a mistake. I have a Q6600, 8800 gt, 4 gigs of ram and although its playable and pretty, I personally prefer SMOOTH. I only play at 1680x1050 and I have to crank the settings down to medium which wouldn't be so terrable if the textures didn't suck at that level. Maybe it's the years of Counter Strike at 120+ fps but even with the motion blurring I can feel the stutering.

On top of that I found the gameplay to be pretty meh once the new shine wore off, much of the game your able to run right past without engaging and single enemey with no consequence. The mutliplayer I have tried twice and both times came away with a horrable distaste in my mouth. So not only is it the graphics the game in general just in no way lived up to the hype.

Contrary to this I went out and bought COD4 which has an amazing single and multiplayer and is the best looking game I have ever seen when you factor in it not being jerky.

So I admit I got caught up in the cyrisis hype and ended up with a lack luster, unoptimized EA(/sigh) game, with the worst cd skipping drm I have ever seen(Having to download a no cd crack for a retail game ftw), atleast I redemed myself by picking up COD4 which has game of the year written all of it.
 
Hamidxa said:
False.

http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?p=1031815275&posted=1#post1031815275

It can run it MORE than adequately -- very respectably in fact.

Furthermore, I asked you for a source on Cevat's alleged comment.

Oh, and that is a DX10 benchmark you posted.
Blame NV and their driver team, not Crytek for NV failing to get their DX10 drivers up to the DX9 standards. :eek:
Click to expand...

Well, I'm almost speechless. I've just showed you the HardOCP review proving that Crysis cannot be run on all high @ 1280 with latest 8800 series card and you say false. :confused:

October MaximumPC interview for sure he said that but I'm trying to find a place I can link without pissing anybody off.

How can you say the HardOCP review is false?
 
wrangler said:
How can you say the HardOCP review is false?
Click to expand...
He seems to be of the opinion that TweakTown & BitTech's reviews of the DEMO are more reliable/applicable than [H]'s review of the retail.
This despite the fact that they used the demo, provided no real information as to what settings they were using, much less providing numbers of min. FPS or a chart of their play.

I shouldn't have to reiterate the fact that the retail version runs slower than the demo in many peoples' experiences, and also includes maps that are far more graphically intensive than what we saw in the demo.
As was pointed out in the [H]ardOCP article, the maps in the retail version become progressively more demanding on hardware - playable settings for the first area become a slide show by the time you reach final boss.
 
this discussion isn't getting anywhere because there are too many subjective terms floating around. 'adequate', 'smooth', 'respectable'. These mean totally different things to different people, which is why no one can agree.

we can at least agree that many people don't consider 30fps to be acceptable. I for one care about my minimum framerate the most. dipping down to 20fps contrasting with a constant 40fps or 50fps isn't very fun
 
wtf...how can you not take an [H] review over anything else? they ACTUALLY PLAY THE GAME and find the best settings that make it PLAYABLE.

moral of the story: if its from EA and it looks too good to be true, it most likely is.
 
FrozenLiquidity said:
This is an absurd comparison. Of course if you turn down the settings down in Crysis (a game that pays detail many more times the attention that COD4 does) it's going to have to look like shit to get the same framerate. That comes with the ballgame. When you set out to create a game that has unparalleled attention to detail and graphical quality that is almost photo-realistic, it's not going to run as well real-time as a polished up arcade style shooter. You know we could just flip the coin to the other side here as well;

I guarantee if you set COD4 to the same settings as Crysis (both on high/very high, you pick the settings) Crysis will look better every time. COD4 will have the higher framerate, but just can't rival the graphical quality.
Click to expand...

I don't care. I want to PLAY THE FUCKING GAME. If that means setting Crysis to medium at a decent resolution to get 60fps average, then no thank you, I don't like having sub-advertised visuals for playability. I can play COD4 at 1680x1050 maxed out to look better than Crysis and with smoother framerates. I can't stand the bland gameplay of COD4 but I can't stand the lag and stuttering in Crysis, so I am back to Battlefield once again.:rolleyes:
 
Hamidxa said:
I have a Quad Core and an 8800GT.

I don't feel like I was lied to. :rolleyes:

It's by far the best looking game ever released, and it runs great on my machine.
30+ FPS average with mostly HIGH settings, AF maxed out, AA set to 2X via the system.cfg and even a few DX10 features enabled.

The hyperbole and sensationalism regarding this games performance are the lies.

Admittedly, to get good performance out of this game, you will need either an 8800GT, GTX, Ultra.
A GTS or anything below, will NOT cut it.

If you have one of the aforementioned cards (GT,GTX,Ultra) then you have no reason to complain about performance if you even have a modicum of technical know-how, and can read.
There are tweak guides peppered across the entire net now on how to maximize performance and looks.

There is no excuse if you are a GT,GTX,Ultra owner once again.
Click to expand...

I've got the lowest end EVGA 8800GTS, OCed to 700/2000ish, and Crysis played beautifully for me. 40-50fps at 1920/1200 with about 80% High settings.

I finished the single player in about three days of playing and thought it was a very impressive game. The time weightless in the core was pretty cool, and the graphics were out of this world.

All in all, I still liked COD4 better. Infinity Ward just took all the wind out of Crysis' sails. If they had released at different times, I think the Crysis takes would have been more positive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top