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

If anyone says they could max out Far Cry at 1600x1200 when it came out on ANY system - especially at 60fps - they're misinformed or lying. Far Cry, CoD2, Oblivion, etc. could not be played well at 1600x1200 when they came out with max settings even without any AA and AF. Even with a $600+ video card and $1000+ CPU at the time you could not do it.

I had played Far Cry with a 9800 Pro and 6800GT OC around the time those cards were about the best around (the 9800 Pro was $550 + tax when I bought it) and I could barely get 30+ fps at 1024x768 with an Athlon 64 4000+ which cost $800 when I bought it. I'm sorry but that was long after Far Cry was released and even then no one could get 60fps at 1600x1200. Also, no one USED 1600x1200 in new games. Simple as that. Even today the vast majority of people use 1280x960 and 1024x768 in their games (steam surveys) so expecting new games to run well at 16x12 is just stupid.

When Quake 1 came out did we play it at 1600x1200? No, we played it at 320x240 and no one fucking bitched about it. From one year to the next stores stop selling CRTs and go LCD-only and everyone suddenly expects new games to perform the same at 1680x1050 or 1920x1080 as they did at 1024x768 a few months ago. I'm sorry but you're a bunch of dumbasses if you expect that. Is this your first time playing games?

Video cards haven't gotten faster in over a year and yet you expect them to perform as fast as ever when pushing 2-4 times the amount of pixels? What are you people smoking? Also, when Far Cry has all the physics, shaders and polygon counts as Crysis, that's when you should compare performance at the same visual level. Until then, they're different games and even when they look the same, they won't perform the same.
 
Does anybody think the patch will allow me to play the game at something other than 800x600 on all Low Settings on my system.

Oh wait, 'scuse me,

I set physics to medium.

My apologies.

(cough)


:D



For 'realz' though, I got a free copy of it and installed it purely for shits and grins. Stretched from 800x600 on a 24" monitor it's absolutely the shittiest looking thing ever, aside from the character models. I do feel that the characters hold their heads at slightly unnatural angles in the scripted scenes sometimes, they look like dogs cocking their heads to hear a far away noise.

Anyhow, I'll chime back in a year or so from now after I've built a new system that doesn't use hamsters to power it's GPU.
 
Big D. said:
If anyone says they could max out Far Cry at 1600x1200 when it came out on ANY system - especially at 60fps - they're misinformed or lying. Far Cry, CoD2, Oblivion, etc. could not be played well at 1600x1200 when they came out with max settings even without any AA and AF. Even with a $600+ video card and $1000+ CPU at the time you could not do it.

I had played Far Cry with a 9800 Pro and 6800GT OC around the time those cards were about the best around (the 9800 Pro was $550 + tax when I bought it) and I could barely get 30+ fps at 1024x768 with an Athlon 64 4000+ which cost $800 when I bought it. I'm sorry but that was long after Far Cry was released and even then no one could get 60fps at 1600x1200. Also, no one USED 1600x1200 in new games. Simple as that. Even today the vast majority of people use 1280x960 and 1024x768 in their games (steam surveys) so expecting new games to run well at 16x12 is just stupid.

When Quake 1 came out did we play it at 1600x1200? No, we played it at 320x240 and no one fucking bitched about it. From one year to the next stores stop selling CRTs and go LCD-only and everyone suddenly expects new games to perform the same at 1680x1050 or 1920x1080 as they did at 1024x768 a few months ago. I'm sorry but you're a bunch of dumbasses if you expect that. Is this your first time playing games?

Video cards haven't gotten faster in over a year and yet you expect them to perform as fast as ever when pushing 2-4 times the amount of pixels? What are you people smoking? Also, when Far Cry has all the physics, shaders and polygon counts as Crysis, that's when you should compare performance at the same visual level. Until then, they're different games and even when they look the same, they won't perform the same.
Click to expand...


Amen.
A beacon of common sense.

I was beginning to think that I was either one of the rare few on this board who actually had a vivid recollection of the last 15 years of hardware/gaming, or part of a not so vocal majority.
At any rate, well said.
 
Big D. said:
If anyone says they could max out Far Cry at 1600x1200 when it came out on ANY system - especially at 60fps - they're misinformed or lying. Far Cry, CoD2, Oblivion, etc. could not be played well at 1600x1200 when they came out with max settings even without any AA and AF. Even with a $600+ video card and $1000+ CPU at the time you could not do it.

I had played Far Cry with a 9800 Pro and 6800GT OC around the time those cards were about the best around (the 9800 Pro was $550 + tax when I bought it) and I could barely get 30+ fps at 1024x768 with an Athlon 64 4000+ which cost $800 when I bought it. I'm sorry but that was long after Far Cry was released and even then no one could get 60fps at 1600x1200. Also, no one USED 1600x1200 in new games. Simple as that. Even today the vast majority of people use 1280x960 and 1024x768 in their games (steam surveys) so expecting new games to run well at 16x12 is just stupid.

When Quake 1 came out did we play it at 1600x1200? No, we played it at 320x240 and no one fucking bitched about it. From one year to the next stores stop selling CRTs and go LCD-only and everyone suddenly expects new games to perform the same at 1680x1050 or 1920x1080 as they did at 1024x768 a few months ago. I'm sorry but you're a bunch of dumbasses if you expect that. Is this your first time playing games?

Video cards haven't gotten faster in over a year and yet you expect them to perform as fast as ever when pushing 2-4 times the amount of pixels? What are you people smoking? Also, when Far Cry has all the physics, shaders and polygon counts as Crysis, that's when you should compare performance at the same visual level. Until then, they're different games and even when they look the same, they won't perform the same.
Click to expand...
U made some good points bt we have been gaming on 1680 res for 2 years nw.whr u got that impression dat we only bin 6months is behond me
 
Most people know the history of cutting edge PC gaming peformance and how things tend to evolve. I think why some people are still pissed off this time around is because its getting old. It's getting old in a time where we have consoles that are churning out great looking games that are not dwarfed by the newest pc tech, and they can run well on a $400 piece of equipment that came out years ago.
 
This whole thread just makes me feel old. Its laughable that people expect new tech to perform at 60+ fps at 1600x1200 resolution. A lot of people here are new to the way things work. Back in the day I upgraded based on Epic/iD engines. Majority of games licensed their tech so if your card could handle those you could handle the next 1-2 years of games. Carmack and iD have chilled since the Doom3 engine. Unreal3 engine has been out for a long while. The cards out today have had plenty of time to improve and crush those engines. Not so much for Crysis. If you have a 8800 card you should be doing pretty decently. If not and you find <50 fps on highest settings at 1600x1200 unacceptable then wait for the 9000 series in Feb-Mar.
 
The discussion isn't if you can get 30fps on nnnnxnnnn or not. Its about Crysis not looking like promised on E3 even at 800x600 or with any settings.

Its a half baked cheap substitute to the one showcased.
 
Revenicus said:
Most people know the history of cutting edge PC gaming peformance and how things tend to evolve. I think why some people are still pissed off this time around is because its getting old. It's getting old in a time where we have consoles that are churning out great looking games that are not dwarfed by the newest pc tech, and they can run well on a $400 piece of equipment that came out years ago.
Click to expand...

Totally agree!!!
I just picked up my 8800GT and I could finally play the Crysis demo now while it did look good it doesn't completely blow away alot of games on the consoles being that folks can't run it well in all it's DX10 glory. While I personally believe Crysis is cutting edge and does out class most games even in DX9 I believe some are just plain tired of upgrading. Now it is nothing wrong with that and I whole heartily agree that my upgrades have their limits but you gotta understand that the 8800 series is year old tech the 1st gen of these DX10 cards it's bound to run into problems like this. I mainly bought my card to play my older DX9 games better actually I play to jump completely to the next series of cards when i build my new PC.
 
I just want the !%@%! patch to come so I can finish the game. I've got a bugged rocket launcher: It's got 3 rounds, but will ~not~ fire, so the giant creature on deck is impossible to beat (especially since all the ammo that is supposed to be on deck is, well... not there).

I want this game done and off my system, and I can't finish it because it's bugged.
 
mc-fine said:
This whole thread just makes me feel old. Its laughable that people expect new tech to perform at 60+ fps at 1600x1200 resolution. A lot of people here are new to the way things work. Back in the day I upgraded based on Epic/iD engines. Majority of games licensed their tech so if your card could handle those you could handle the next 1-2 years of games. Carmack and iD have chilled since the Doom3 engine. Unreal3 engine has been out for a long while. The cards out today have had plenty of time to improve and crush those engines. Not so much for Crysis. If you have a 8800 card you should be doing pretty decently. If not and you find <50 fps on highest settings at 1600x1200 unacceptable then wait for the 9000 series in Feb-Mar.
Click to expand...

I find 20 fps at 1024x768 all settings medium unacceptable, and that's what the default DX10 speeds are.
 
crysis should let you run at 320x200 and let you shrink the screen down to a 2 inch window like the games of old. I remember doing that in doom and marveling at how many FPS I was getting. :D
 
Hamidxa said:
I'll continue to discuss it so long as others insist on perpetuating and propogating those points.
Click to expand...

the points are TRUE for some of us, and that's why we state them.

I'm glad crysis worked for you. It did ~not~ for me, or many others. You keep ignoring the fact that many of us have had exceptionally sub-par experiences with this game, and can't seem to accept the fact that we might feel differently about it than you do, and wish to express that fact! Instead, you attack us for feeling different and disliking it, as if such was some kind of crime.
 
Revenicus said:
crysis should let you run at 320x200 and let you shrink the screen down to a 2 inch window like the games of old. I remember doing that in doom and marveling at how many FPS I was getting. :D
Click to expand...

you HAD to do that with the 3DO version of doom: Performance was so poor, that's the only way it ran. Sad, for a console!
 
[ T ] A C O;1031860745 said:
Keep PW u will be [H]ard|Gawd in no time. :rolleyes::eek::rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Oh don't worry, I will. ;)

Edit: And lookie there, with this post I am finally [H]ard!

I will shut up and not spam anymore, please do not ban me!
 
silent-circuit said:
...that was more than a little sad.
Click to expand...

I'll tell YOU whats sad.

WW2 & China.

Edit: Oh ya and you commenting on how sad this whole thing was. Let me tell you one thing: you are arguing/insulting someone over the internet. Sitting behind my 19" LCD monitor, I do not care at all.

On a side note: this thread has gone off topic so quick its not even funny. And as much as I love being in the limelight I think we should all shut up. (About me posting mindless little crap or the two lovebirds above bickering like an old couple.)
 
CptFalcon said:
I'll tell YOU whats sad.

WW2 & China.
Click to expand...

... and the part in the movie "The Wizard" where the little boy leaves his sister's stuff at that dinosaur theme park. If he only knew how to swim.... :(

Slightly more OT: I really wish my computer could run this game. I may do an upgrade just so I can see what all the hype is about. :)
 
crytek should have made a deal with nvidia and had like $50 or $100 coupons Toward a next gen card.

better than crytek AND nvidia losing a sale to a gamer.
 
Wow, what a hopeless clusterf@#k this thread became.

Anyways, I love the game and runs great on my new system...in between random freezes, crashes, BSODs, and restarts of my machine out of nowhere.

Hardware:
Intel q9650
4GB Corsair PC8500
Raptor
8800GT
Asus Maximus Formula motherboard
Vista 64 Home Premium

Latest Bioses, drivers, patches, for everything.

Like it matters. It obviously doesn't matter at all what hardware anyone's running for this beta product of a game they put out. Utterly ridiculous.

As of today I have 52 problems with no solutions in my Vista Problems area and they're virtually all Crysis related.

I really wouldn't have any Vista problems beyond the occasional control panel not showing up that I have to work around real quick were it not for Crysis.

I wish there were some lemon laws or some kind of response we as consumers could have for something like this. It's really unacceptable and there should be consequences for it.
 
Your video card overheats or your computer crashes because of HARDWARE problems and you assume the game is buggy? The game never crashed once for me, anyone else I know or anyone on the gaming forums I visit. Check your video card temperature (if it overheats it'll restart your computer automatically so your card doesn't fry) and check your voltage settings for your RAM if you've overclocked it or changed its CAS latency. Don't blame games for your hardware problems. It has plenty of little bugs, like every game, but it will not make your computer freeze or restart unless you have a hardware problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top