After trying crysis demo....What do you think?!

Hi

As you see Crysis demo has been released

Most of you tried it

NOW....what do you think about it?!

For me the game is Awesome........very unique game play, and the story is good in my opinion

the only problem is that the game is not that much optimized

Yes i know the game runs OK on medium settings.......

But for a game which was overhyped.....i think it should have benn better

remember that i said the game looks good and plays very well

But it should be better

I wish that hte full game would more optimized when it is released....

What do you think...

 

Without playing the game I can say that it's not that great.
After playing the came I could say I like the graphics, but didn't feel the magic at all.

 

I love the gameplay. Playing around with your special powers in combination with the physics makes just exploring the island alot of fun. I really like how you can instantly change your tactics by adjusting your suit. And the graphics are the icing on the cake of course. Stunning.

 

Graphics were good but gameplay was nothing special. Pretty much what Fade to Black said. As FTB said no "magic" for me either.

 

Dude there is like tons of discussion on Crysis here. We all talked about it after the demo came out. Go check out the other post.

 

The gameplay is nothing special, and the graphics may be the greatest in the world on max, but not owning dual 2.5GHz Barcelona quad-cores and SLI 8800 Ultras with 16GB of RAM, I wouldn't know. This game is just insane. Who is the target audience? People who bathe in money? My desktop can poke along pretty well (eg, 25+ FPS most of the time) at 1680x1050, medium settings. That's with a 640MB 8800GTS! I've seen on other forums where the demo falters at 1680x1050 on high settings on the 8800GTX with a Core 2 Quad. 1920x1200 at high was totally unplayable on SLI 8800GTXs with a Core 2 Extreme QX6700. What the hell? Seriously Crytek, get your act together. It's hard to sell a game that doesn't run on anybody's computers. Even for all the complaining people did at the time, Doom 3 ran fine on two-and-half year-old low-mid range hardware at 1024x768 medium settings. I can't see a Pentium 4, 1GB of RAM, and a GeForce 6600 cutting it for Crysis above (if you're lucky) 800x600, minimum detail. That's just insane.

 

I love this game,sucked me in from first second.

 

Not this optimization bull-plop again.

People who say they can't run Crysis well with a 8800 GTX are either
1) Incoherently stupid and/or have serious hardware problems
2) LYING

I'm running at 1680x1050 at everything very high with the exception of shaders/shadows on high, and I get 25+ FPS. VERY playable, especially with the motion blur. Mind you this is on a single GTX at STOCK clocks.

There is no such thing as "optimizing" a game to run perfectly on all hardware. I'm tired of the retards not recognizing why they LET you choose your graphics settings in the first place. Guess what, if everything on high on ridiculous resolutions is taxing on your GPU, that's when you turn the settings down. Not rocket-science right? As I stated on another thread concerning this, Crysis on medium looks better than pretty much every other game out there. On top of that, Crysis on high on a reasonable resolution is easily supportable by virtually any enthusiast level card released in the last two years. Any midrange card in the last two years will support it on low/medium. That's more than acceptable for a game that had one of it's primary selling points as "revolutionary graphics."

The game "is" optimized. Do you seriously think one of the most hyped video-games ever that spent years in development with thousands of new innovations somehow "forgot" to optimize their game? People love to throw the word "optimize" around as if they knew what the hell it even meant. Hardware limitations are hardware limitations, you can't pull optimizations out of nowhere and change that. If I gave you ten years and a crack team of coders, and told you to optimize Crysis so it could be played on medium settings on a Playstation 2, I guarantee that you'd find it to be an impossible task. So for the love of god, cut this optimization nonsense out.

 

NO!!!! Magic for me too.....

 

No, little to do with optimization but like I said crytek was tryint to push the envelope too far simple as that. Scalable to 3 years hardware? Hardly. The latest hardware are struggling.

 

People fail to see that level of immersion that this game offers, first it looks better then any other game even on medium settings. Second taking away the graphics there is more going on then any other game to date. The AI is outstanding, the physics are rather impressive, the enviroments are completely distructable. If people just set the game to med setting in dx9 mode and actually enjoyed the game you'd realize that the overall game experience is great. So while it may not be the perfect game for everyone, personally I like a game less realistic (tf2), but none the less they're accomplished everything they said they would!

 

Except that it is scalable to three years hardware. Scalable to three years means that it's playable on three year old hardware. A 6800 GTX can play this game on low settings. Guess what, it's three years old. You didn't seriously expect them to be talking about three year old integrated graphics did you? The latest hardware are struggling? Define struggling. My year old 8800 GTX is playing it on 1680x1050 (which is arguably higher than the norm) at almost all "Very High" settings at over 25 fps+. I don't call that "struggling."

Everyone seems to forget that they stated they wanted Crysis to be "future-proof" for at least two years. If a single 8800 GTX was able to max out every setting and get 60 fps on 1080p resolution, would you call that "futureproof?"

As far as I'm concerned, Crytek delivered on their promises because they were VERY explicit about what they were going to be delivering.

1) Scalable three years back - Check.
2) Playable on High settings at a high resolution on a single GTX - Check
3) Playable on fairly high settings using a 7800 GTX - Check
4) Future-proof to an extent - Check

Seems good to me. Let me just say this. If all you notebook users with relatively weak (from a desktop point of view) 8600M GTs were able to run Crysis at 1680x1050 at Ultra High settings, it wouldn't mean that it was "optimized well," it would simply mean that Crysis fell extremely short in terms of the graphical expectations.

 

I'm sorry but even at 1280 x 1024 with everything high and medium tweaked shaders the game still doesn't look great. It looks good but there is tons of jaggies everywhere and putting AA on takes a HUGE hit on performance. Theres a difference between being scalable and being enjoyable. The way crytek and yarvil were touting about was that playing the game at decent settings on 3 year old hardware would be possible. Anything below 1024 x 768 is not an acceptable resolution.

Latest hardware yes which also includes the most powerful gpu for a 15.4 inch struggling to play with it on all high even at 1024 x 768. Only reason I can play it well at 1280 x 1024 is because I have shadows on low. Also because I used alot of game tweaks to enhance the visuals without a major hit on performance and also because I have overclocked my gpu to its absolute limit.

Also I don't know where you got your info from but I have read almsot every interview with them and their video intereviews as well as presentations and they never mentioned your 2nd or 3rd fact. They always used the terms scalable and never made a reference to what card they meant or what hardware.

Also your year old 8800 gtx? The most powerful desktop gpu plays it well congratulations but what about the rest of the consumer market? All my settings are on dx9 too, on dx10 its not playable with high settings till I scale back the resolution. Your stating the fact that the most powerful gpu playing a game at 25+ fps with max settings is an achievement. So is that the way games should progress, causing the most powerful gpu available to buckle under its weight at max settings and resolutions?

You minsterpret what I'm saying. I'm not complaining about optimization but just the fact that they are pushing the hardware too much. I'm not complaining in terms of claiming that I hate the game because I half expected this but I do understand where some of the complaints from people are coming from. Regardless, I don't find the gameplay that great so its a moot point whether it runs well for me or not.

 

lol the game made me feel like terminator. I just went invis and ran around punching people then ran back to cover and waited till energy was back up to 100, which takes like 6 seconds if you find good cover.

 

We have conclusive proof that games can look good and still run on reasonable hardware. Take Call of Duty 4 for example, which arguably looks better, and runs at 1680x1050, full settings and maximum anti-aliansing. My 640MB 8800GTS, 4GB of RAM, and X2 4200+ with XP x64 and the 169.01 driver set (installed after a complete uninstall/driver cleaner/temp file sweep) can barely push out playable framerates at medium settings, no AA, at 1680x1050, which is hardly "above the average" for modern desktop LCDs. The fact is that nothing should slow down a 640MB 8800GTS at high settings, much less at medium. And nothing else does. I run Oblivion with 8xQ anti-aliasing and maximum settings, with extra texture packs installed. Never dips below 23-25 FPS, averages about 50.

There is no 6800GTX, by the way. And I really doubt the 6800 can handle Crysis above bare minimum. It has what, 1/8th (at most) the power of the 8800GTS? Not going to happen.

The fact is the game doesn't look good enough to justify the massive performance overhead.

 

I don't think that's how games are going to progress in the future. Just Crytek (the developer). They want to raise the bar and implement the latest hardware features available. This is what they did with FarCry and now with Crysis. If that means alot of people are can't play it maxed out, so be it. A few years from now, the game will still look great when you finally have the hardware to play it like it was meant to be played. And guess what, by that time you can get the game for only 10 bucks

 

Seriously, you either expect too much from your 8800GTS, or it's just plain broken. I can play at 1280x800 with some high and some medium settings on a laptop 8600 GT with 256MB. And that's playable at about 24 fps.

 

Crysis is eh...

Was fun to complete the demo but i was not sucked in like a lot of games normally get me. Im not even sure if ill buy it when the release comes out.

I dled UT3 the other day, ive been playing online CTF whenever i get free time. A lot more fun of a game.

 

Thank you cinner. What I was saying in the first place.

Hover Board FTW!

 

I thought it was good.

I have to run the game at 1024 x 768 on all low settings on my system and yet the graphics didn't immerse me in the game as much as the storyline did.

 

I have an old inspiron 9300 with a geforce 6800 card and i'm very surprised that this game ran well at low settings. Splinter Cell double agent run horrific on this computer at 640,480 on low settings and that game is almost 2 years old now.

 

The developers stated they were trying to make a very well scalable and optimized game.

 

My 7800GTX can play this on all low at 1920x1200 without any problems. But do the game look good on low? Hell now, it looks like ass compared to other games. At Medium the game doesn´t look any better than what Far Cry does at very high settings. Now I don´t play the game on my laptop but instead on my 8800GTX and do I expect too much out of my kick ass 8800GTX? Don´t think so but this game brings it down to it´s knees. For me 25+ isn´t playable, I need at least 35+ to really enjoy the game no matter how good it looks.

Now hopefully the retail game will run better and after a few patches and drivers. The game do run a little better now with the latest beta drivers. But I´m running the game at 1440x900 and it struggles. If I lower to 1280x1024 no difference in FPS.

Still I play the game pretty smooth now with shaders on Very High, Water Very high, Textures very high, game effects very high, rest high. Try out the newest drivers, they did increase my performance.

 

love the gameplay. the suit is a cool feature, gunfights seem to be well done. basically, i see it as a massive extension of what they played around with in far cry.

poor optimization. call of duty 4 is an excellent example someone above gave. crysis is not leaps and bounds better graphically, yet COD4 runs so much better.

still, crysis runs very well for me in dx9 mode (hoping ati drivers will make dx10 better at some point), and it looks and feels fabulous. thats on a hd2600xt

im very much looking forward to the game. COD4 is out soon too, so should be good to see which is better. but yeah, with crysis being so overhyped, it will be difficult for it to meet expectations either graphically or gameplay wise

 

And as stated, it does. Look 4 posts above mine, and you'll see someone who states that it "ran well on low settings on my old 6800." It DID scale successfully, end of discussion. Add to that the fact that he said it was on his Inspiron 9300, so the laptop version of a 3 year old card ran it well on low, which presumably means that the desktop version would run it even better.

You make "most powerful GPU for a 15.4 inch laptop" sound like a big deal. What next, are people with XPS 1330s gonna say, "I have the most powerful GPU available for 13.3 inch laptops and I can't play it all on high!." 15.4 inches is NOT the prime system for running games, it's a size level that BALANCES portability and gaming ability. You say you're playing it well on 1280x1024, and it's not that surprising for a laptop of that form-factor. If you thought you were going to play it on max at 1680x1050, you were just kidding yourself.

Then you have to look more. A long time before they released the playable demo they allowed people to play a beta version during gaming events, on which the system used a Q6600 with a single GTX and ran well. In addition, A Crytek rep explicitly stated that a single 7800 GTX would run the game fairly well. A cursory glance at the huge topic on the crysis forums about "how will my system run Crysis" would reveal this information.

So now you're changing your argument? Before you were saying Crysis was ridiculous because it was bringing even the most powerful system to its knees, now you're changing it to, "Well, you have the best GPU of course it runs fine!" As for "What about the rest of the consumer market," the fact of the matter is that it DOES run well, just not on MAX SETTINGS. What the hell is wrong with you people and max settings, if you want it SHELL OUT FOR BETTER HARDWARE. If you buy a 15.4 inch laptop and expect to run the latest game incorporating the newest graphical features on maximum settings you don't really have a clue. And YES, that IS the way games should progress, because if they don't the video game industry will become stagnant on a technological level.

You're absolutely ridiculous. You're upset that they're "pushing the hardware too much?" Well they must feel awful, perhaps they should have designed a system that could be played on a 800 MHZ Celeron, just in case those people couldn't afford a new system by now. I think the guys who invented cars "pushed the envelope" a little too much, I mean horses were enough. Jesus christ, we live in a technologically driven era where someone could and SHOULD push technology to its limits. Guess what the release of Crysis will foster. It will instigate competitors to attempt to capitalize on the market for extremely graphics intensive games that Crysis has clearly shown exists. If anyone thought the primary selling point of Crysis was gameplay, they're just plain stupid. People wanted Crysis before they even knew what the game was about, solely based on screenshots depicting the supposedly extraordinary "DX10" graphics. People just assumed that the gameplay would be good because of the immense hype, and they were right. How many people bought entirely new rigs SOLELY to play Crysis on high settings? Hell, one of the moderators here started a topic in which he stated he was purchasing a new desktop just to play it. Games like Crysis are CRUCIAL, because they facilitate the widespread distribution of high-end hardware that allows other game publishers to design games without worrying about hardware limitations. I wouldn't be surprised if anticipation for Crysis single-handedly facilitated the sales of over half a million 8800s.

I'm just going to be candid here. You're just mad because your dinky little 15.4 inch laptop can't crank out maximum settings on max resolutions on what is unarguably the most hardware-intensive game ever released. You can't contest the fact that it is PLAYABLE on lower settings. So what are you whining about? 1) Your system clearly wasn't going to run it on the highest settings. 2) Your system can play it very capably on lower settings. These two realities should have been obvious to you from the start.

I still can't believe that someone would get mad at a company for "pushing hardware too much." Good grief. Do you hate people trying to find alternative fuel sources too for "pushing alternative energy too much?" How the hell can someone hate innovation.

 

@ Concepticle
Really what's your problem? Ever thought of a pre-release demo as a unfinished product?
The game is not completly optimiced/finished!
Or how would you explain that I can't play it at 1280x800 on medium with a C2D 2ghz, 7950gtx, 4gb Ram. Seriously it looks like crap on those settings and I still get less than 20 fps while I can play any other game fine. And if that really should be the way the game is going to be released I won't touch it...

 

Ever thought that the demo was released on October 26 and the final product is due November 16? Ever thought that a game can't go gold on the DAY OF RELEASE? Ever thought that any reputable game publisher will ask for silver proofs off the gold to pass Q/A testing? This process will take at the BARE minimum 4 days, realistically longer.

Is it possible that the final product will be more "optimized?" Absolutely. Is it possible that the optimizations over the course of two weeks will be so amazing that it will change from a completely unplayable experience to one in which everyone can play it on max settings? Quite frankly, "lol."

It's optimized geniuses. Why do you think the demo was delayed in the first place? It's because Crytek KNEW that people were going to use the demo as a benchmark as to whether they would purchase the game or not, and made sure to get it as optimized as possible to prove to the customer base that it would indeed be playable on their rigs. Do you think they'd be stupid enough to release an absolutely unplayable demo to its fanbase despite knowing full well that these customers would be using the performance of the demo to justify the purchase of the final product?

Common sennnseee pleaseee.

Edit: As for you not being able to play on a rig with those specifications, quite frankly there's either something horribly wrong with your hardware or you have to update your drivers. I have a friend running on a rig slightly worse than yours (2 gigs vs 4, otherwise comparable) and he's playing the game quite well.

 

Don't feel like quoting. First of all no need for rude language since we are essentially debating not arguing (I presume). Throwing the word hell around is not really contributing to your agument.

1. Yes and if you read what I wrote, I was saying yerli and his crew were saying well scalable meaning well. His connotations were of playing it decently because he did use the word well whenever he mentioned it. I suppose you can debate its semantics but I hardly believe he considers 1024 x 768 at low or medium well.

2. Sigh, in case you didn't notice most of the gamers in the world fall into the casual genre with the hardcore gamers making up a small portion. So yes I would say that the newest and most powerful card for a 15.4 which is the base laptop size is a big deal. Again I never mentioned maxing out Crysis or playing it at 1680 x 1050, did I? I said I suspected this would be somewhat the case. I didn't figure I wouldn't be able to run with everything at high at 1280 x 1024 all at high like Bioshock. Also like I said I am overclocking my gpu to its limit (which most people won't do) and tweaking the demo (which most people won't do) and then achieving these results. THe framerates are still in the lower to mid range 20s. Bioshock I didnt expect to run at 1680 x 1050 but it ran great at 1280 x 1024.

3. Again like I said I'm talking about the direct interviews and presentations on IGN and such related sites and they didn't mention a single piece of hardware once. I did remmeber the quadcore and gtx beta but that doesn't tell me anything because they were just using top of the line hardware to show off the visuals and I doubt they said you need these to play the game well (they mentioned these in the last few weeks.) I never heard the 7800 gtx comment directly from the crytek team and I didn't search through their forums. THe point being they used words like "fairly well" and "scalable" which were hardly specific. Its part of marketing also, if they did mention those recommended requirements they released I believe the hype would have died down due to those steep recommend requirements.

3. DUH! THats my point?!?! Who expects basicall the most powerful (consumer) gpu to not be able to max out a game? A card that very few people have and very few people are able to afford or willing to shell out for. How did I change my argument? Hmm I ran Stalker, COD4, and Bioshock well without any tweaking, overclocking, and playing on max settings at a resolution.

Also find it funny how you put words in my mouth about me saying Crysis is ridicoulous. I said nothing of the sort and I said the opposite I. I half expected this but just not to this degree.

4. Sigh. Just sigh. Ok in case you didn't know, the hardware is what allows the software to run not the other way around. Its a supply and demand relationship, you can't produce software that bring the most powerful product available to mediocre results. Its like a gar that gets 2 mpg but has enormous speed and power, if very few people can afford to keep it running it won't sell well. Crude example I know but it reflects the situation.

"If anyone thought the primary selling point was gameplay, they're just plain stupid." Well hmmm I guess most of us are stupid for assuming a game would have good gameplay to backup its incredible visuals. Yep I'ms ure plenty of people are going I have crysis sure it sucks to play, but I just like walking around on the beautiful beach just so I have something to look at. Super Mario 3D was considered revolutionary because of its visuals and it had the gameplay to back it up and thats why its one of the best selling games of all time.

I find your point about facilitating sales to be valid but it flawed. Designers who don't care about hardware limitations? I don't think any game designer, says "team lets make a game without any regard for hardware limitations." Its just not gonna happen. Look at other games such as Gears of War with very low hardware requirements or the Orange box games. Half life 2 episode 2 definitely looks better than crysis on medium and low settings and it does not have nowhere near the same hardware requirements.

5. THis paragraph made me laugh. When did I complain or whine? The worst I said about the game was that the gameplay was bland. I actually didn't make any comments until you made your first post.

6. I hardly consider pushing the hardware to its limits as innovation. Valve is using innovation with their engine because it provides great visuals with very scalable hardware requirements. Not to take away from crytek or anything but even if valve made crytek the same way I would say thats not innovation either. Innovation is new ideas and technologies. I would say most of the best game developers can make a game that will produce the same requirements as crysis so does that make them innovators? New technology such as HDR lighting was innovation. Though crytek has some niceities none of its tech is anything new.

Lastly I realize that your not very good at discussing/debating. Putting words into my mouth and saying phrases like "your just mad" is just pathetic. So I'll just agree to disagree because I feel this discussion is gonna get me (or anyone else) anywhere.

Also this made absolutely no sense "Do you hate people trying to find alternative fuel sources too for pushing alternative energy too much?" I mean I know what your trying to say but is has no logical bearings to your argument or any logical bearings at all because well... it makes no damn sense.

Edit Just read your reply to hackman and for your information the game has already gone gold. So I doubt they did much optimization and used feedback from the demo in a week or less.

 

I dunno... there is something awesome about jumping out of a car just before it runs into another car, blowing up all your foes nearby, then running off into the woods cloaked, ready for the next strike. I don't mind playing at 1024x768. even on medium settings the game is probably the best one I've ever seen, with exception of Unreal engine 3 games.

 

I'm sorry to say, but it seems that you are the ridiculous one here.

This is a laptop forum. Do you understand? A laptop forum.

Of course you can come on this board, and say that your desktop (with the best graphics card out there) runs Crysis well. What else would you expect? Sure, you can get good framerates with your 8800GTX, congratulations. I wish you a happy gaming experience.

You've got to realise, that people with top-tier gaming systems make up less than 1% of the consumer market. Probably even less than that. ALL developers benefit greatly from optimization, and as has been said before, games like CoD4 and UT3 have similar graphics, yet have much better FPS performance.

People game on their laptops for many reasons, e.g. they are college students, they move around a lot, etc etc. Sure, we could have used the money to buy a good gaming rig, but many of us don't have that option.

Only hardcore gamers with powerful rigs will be ecstatic with the performance. The rest of the population might be a little dissapointed, but they have the right to their opinions.

 

Forerunner, you'll find that the vast majority of the answers to your "counterpoints" were already contained in my original statement. Reading comprehension ftw.

And you keep going back to generalities that just AREN'T true. I'll list a few.

1) The Best currently available graphics card will always be able to max out any game on the market.
-This hasn't been true for a LONG time, Crysis isn't the first to do this. I don't recall people maxing out FEAR on their 7900 GTXs at 1920x1080 and getting 60 fps. Sorry bro.

2)Pushing hardware to the limits isn't innovation.
-This is just a dumb comment. Look up the word innovation, and you'll see why pushing hardware qualifies.

Your counter-statements have so many contradictions, assumptions, and a general lack of capacity to understand my original comments so I'm not going to bother outlining how wrong you are.

I'm sure Crytek will make a public announcement in a month apologizing for being unable to make Crysis playable on max settings for your 15.4" laptop. Yup...

 

Open Crysis ---> System Settings ----> Lower Settings ----> PLAYABLE EXPERIENCE!!

I don't recall stating that a notebook will perform on par with a desktop. What I AM saying, is that notebook users should NOT expect performance on par with a desktop, and stop stating that Crytek failed miserably because they are not getting performance on par with a desktop. Sorry to break the news (because it does seem to be news to some people) but a 8600GT is a midrange card. Expect midrange level performance. Enough said.

 

Crytek failed miserably!

 

Yes I was redundant mainly because your being a hyprocrite and you did the same thing you claim I am doing. Your counterpoints were ignoring my original post. Like I said this discussion is getting us nowhere.

I bet everyone finds your sarcasm and egotisitcal view charming huh? Questioning my intelligence and your remarks are just rude so as you can't handle a formal discussion, I declare you the winner.

I see this game means alot more to you than it does to me. I rather would not claim to be more intelligent or have a higher level of comprehension than someone (even if it is on a forum) just for the sake of a discussion of a game especially when someone was respectful to me.

Also just find your "end of disscussion" and "enough said" comments funny.

I'm done.

 

I find this game to be kind of bad. Its not exciting to me. I want a real interesting one, like COD4, which I'll most likely get

 

I thought the demo was great. No, I don't think it was the best looking thing I've ever played, but that doesn't bother me. I really enjoyed the game play and can't wait for the release.

 

I think Call of Duty 4 sucked, and looked pretty crappy compared to Crysis on the highest settings on my desktop. I also though UT3 was worse gameplay wise than UT2K4, and looks worse than Crysis.

Should anyone care? Not really, it's my personal opinion and I'm just saying as much. I know from my own experience that a lot of the stuff I've seen all over the net about the Crysis demo is complete nonsense, especially since I've been in the beta forever now.

And I would like to point out that Crytek was never aiming at the Casual or Mid-level point, but always the High, Enthusiast level. It makes sense to me that my E6600 and 8800GTS 640mb can't play the game at a constant 60FPS at 1680x1050 on all high. It makes sense to me that my 8600mGT doesn't played it on all Med on 1280x800.


Games are like anything else in most cases, and based on your opinion. If you let your opinion be taken over by hype, that is your own problem. If you are simply comparing it, then there it is. I went back and looked for Jaggies, and I never found them, im nothing but graphical comparison I don't own a game that looks better, and I own a lot of games.


Gameplay wise, I do own games I've had more fun with, but I don't own game exactly like Crysis, so in itself the graphics compliment my own opinion about what is enjoyable about the game. When was the last time you could grab a dude by the throat and throw him into a tree?

 

bah truth of the matter is, is that crysis is pretty much just graphics, gameplay is not really special. Nano-suit excluded. And if you have to turn the shaders OFF to run it, then sorry but in my opinion its not really worth playing.

 

Gameplay isnt anything to break the mold, all very "normal" and not particularly exciting (i prefer Farcry which is a few years old now!).
On my Dell 9400 with 7800go, 2Gb RAM and 1.86GHz Core Duo it pretty much needs 1280x800 on low settings all round to run and IMO it doesnt look anything special at this setting (as u can expect).
Tried 1280x800 on medium and it was unplayable, it defaults to 800x600 with low settings when auto setting the graphics.
I much prefer TF2!

 

What is the sense of playing crisys on lower settings(commodore 64 looking) when far cry at highest settings + hdr + 8x AA + AF 16x looks more next-gen?
Sure the demo is no optimized but comparing desktop vs laptops video cards is very stupid...
But there are also some demo that are very well optimized like bioshock,unreal tournament 3 and call of duty 4 (better than crisys in my opinion,not for graphics but for immersion and realism) that run well on single core pc's...

For me innovation is AI,phisics(crisys have it),ambient interaction,actions and reactions that change dinamically...something that is not a Operation Wolf (old ega game in wich camera is moving by pc and you must only point and shoot) pumped clone...

At this point crisys for me is a good shooter with awesome graphics and nothing special,but when F.E.A.R. 2 (Project Origin) will be out i'll use the crysis dvd as a freesbee...

 

Couldnt agree more...

Just tell me

WHY THE HELL DOES UNREAL RUNS MUCH MUCH BETTER THAN CRYSIS

belive it or not i can play unreal at max res + details (no vsync noAA) while for crysis all to mid & 1024*640 just to get good fps

Also if you say crysis at mid is good (which ican play at) then you should know that unreal looks much much better than crysis on max setting (which i can play at also)

Is the wrong from my laptop???.....I dont think so

All i can tell you that unreal engine is much better than crytic engine + OPTIMIZED

CRYSIS IS OVERHYPED (like halo3 & others)

And Remember this is a laptop forum...

I couldnt agree more!!!

And as you said (What is the sense of playing crysis on lower settings)

 

I like Crysis and like other FPS games too, it is my favourite genre. But I must say I own a desktop myself an E6600 at 2.93GHz and an 8800GTX oveclocked to 630/1200 and I do also own a XPS M170 and a Fujitsu Siemens Amilo Si1520.

Now my overclocked go 7800GTX can not run this game any good at medium, I get around 23-25fps but it feels slower than that.

On the other hand my 8800GTX can´t push out 35+ when running the settings I do and my computer is up to snuff with latest drivers, I have optimized hell out of my desktop.

Crysis is a good game as said but just another general shooter, nothing innovative here gameplay wise. Graphics wise the game looks awesome but hell it could be better optimized for sure.

Running Crysis at medium looks like ass compared to Far Cry running at highest settings. Medium settings in Crysi´s can´t compete with Cod 4, UT3 or Bioshock.

Now Crysis is more open ended and people claim so much is going on. Now with Oblivion you have much more going on in the background and Oblivion coupled with texture mods looks 3 x better than Crysis at medium settings and my Oblivion runs at 50+, people said that Oblivion was unoptimized, but hell Crysis is far more unoptimized.

Now all those videos they claimed Crysis ran at 60 fps on a 8800GTX, I would like to see that version of Crysis. It could for sure as hell not be DX10 they ran in.

 

I don't care if I have to run it on low settings, I still like the game.

 

I own a Toshiba X200 with 8700gt and a 7700 cpu and the game looks bad ... like far cry and I had to do a lot of tricks to make it playable.
So I have to say that I'm not impressed at all (only the suit killed me ) )

 

Guys a reminder, keep posts civilized and no throwing insults around like insulting each others intellegence. Thank you!

-Niki

 

The craziest thing is that marketing of new games has overcome their real value...so some people believe a title is a masterpiece before its release...an example was halo 3 as Ahmed_p800 said...

Press and tg news talk about halo 3 as it is the best fps ever...but no one says it's a crap game compare to the old half life 2
Another one was doom 3 in which you have a rocket launcher but you can't destroy a paperboard box even with a grenade,what a tough enemy...

Idiot internet websites assign high votes at those hyped games (es.ign gave pes 2008 a 9...with thousand of bugs! konami has a new politic:every buyer of his game is a beta tester for next year release)so advertising lead some people's mind towards what they will bought...

 

I enjoyed it, but I wish the AI was smarter.

And I wish I could switch my powers with a button press, not the middle mouse thing - it doesn't work well for me. And I wish I could get a better aiming system with the vehicles. Still, strength-throwing a motorboat engine at some poor KPA sap is hilarious.

Doubly so if you strength-throw his corpse afterwards.

 

The COD4 had drastically reduced texures. Thats why the demo was so small. If you compare in game video from trailers to the demo textures and graphics the difference is obvious.
The multiplayer looks fun because of the special abilities you can assign.

 

I like it. I'll buy it.
Though system requirements are high and I cannot experience it in full glory with my year old laptop...

 

I like the gameplay, which is pretty similar to Farcy (a game that I enjoyed a lot) with lots of enhancements, and many new ideas in the game. But I have to say the graphics are absolutely horrible unless you have highest end card (~Go7950 GTX/8700M GT/2600HD XT). Here are my results: http://forum.notebookreview.com/showpost.php?p=2621838&postcount=363

There are lots of games that look and run A LOT better on my system than Crysis demo. I hope they will make a lot more optimizations, making the engine more scalable, to the final release, so that those with mid-range cards can also enjoy atleast some of the visuals the game should be capable of. I would propably play it anyway but then certainly not because of it's looks, but because of gameplay and nice ideas (suit, weapons, AI...)