Crysis
-
StangerBanger96;195359 wrote:
Wow...this game looks like it will rock...No Graphics card/computer combo on the market can handle the game on full settings yet...
Not cut-scene images either, actual game play images.
well then how did they make it? if no computer can handle it?
-
DrifterExtreme;195392 wrote:
well then how did they make it? if no computer can handle it?A top of the line computer will run it at about 5fps...it's playable...barely.
Smartass
-
If an Xbox360 can play it i think a computer would be able to easily... I bet if you got dual vid cards they now make quad core processers and enough ram there ain't anything going to stop that.
Good website http://www.ea.com/crysis/info.jsp
-
Used;195405 wrote:
If an Xbox360 can play it i think a computer would be able to easily... I bet if you got dual vid cards a killer processer and enough ram there aint anything going to stop that.It's not available for 360...PC only game. There were rumors it was going to be available for the 360 but the developers said it won't be.
People used to say we'd never fill up 10mb hard drives either...look how accurate their predictions turned out to be.
-
Your right they are not out now but
Next Generation Real-Time Renderer
Our renderer provides seamless support for both indoor and outdoor environments on DirectX9 and 10, as well as support for next generation consoles such as the Xbox360 and PS3 (under development).
-
Here's the funny thing about crysis. There are articles all over the place about it. It all basically comes down to advertising. When people say 'oh this game has huge hardware requirements, my brand new computer would run this like shit, it must be good! techdrool' that makes people buy games. The reality is that there is no reason whatsoever that this game shouldn't be able to run at full settings on a high end machine at an acceptable frame rate. No reason at all. It's been gone over and over and no one can figure out what makes this game run so poorly, except one thing. IT IS NOT OPTIMIZED FOR SHIT. You see, after you write a game you are supposed to shrink it down, make multiple lines of code into single functions, write apps to aid the video hardware in doing what your game requires it to do, all that. Basically they did non of that. So basically what you are getting is a non optimized build of he game running on standard instructions, taking the long way around for everything. The excuse for this is that the couldn't optimize because of the different hardware availible for a PC. Bullshit, they've been optimizing for years. It's what DirectX and OpenGL were invented for. To give a standard set of instructions that work on any hardware and then you go from there. I think it's just marketing personally. Why the hell else would they even release a game that performs so poorly? Most people call that BROKEN!There are games out there running just as nice of graphics, with much more shit to keep track of, at a much higher frame rate, at lower system specs. Oh but DX10. That is a poor fucking excuse. DX10 improves on the DX9 instruction set, so it should actually do those functions faster. Malarky. BTW, the game itself is mediocre. It's a friggen tech demo like Doom3, only with lazyer programmers. Broken game = sales? Also GOOD LORD THE LIGHT BLOOM!! (or is that wood next to the shack just CRAZY luminecent?)
-
Garuntee my PC I just sold would run this game like cake.
Intel Quad Core Kentsfield 2.66 ghz
4gb RAM
SLI 8800 GTX Vid Cards
2x 500GB RAID hd'sCPU was overclocked to 3.3 on watercooling
vid cards were also OC'd (not to much tho)There wasnt a game out at the time that i got rid of this PC that made a noticable difference when I ran it on high settings.
I can garuntee you that this game would be very easy to run on high settings by someone with half a brain and a PC that wasn't build in 1902.
-
StangerBanger96;195400 wrote:
A top of the line computer will run it at about 5fps...it's playable...barely.Smartass
Simple, they have an optimized build, see how that works? They have to be able to test it at full settings to see if thier engine is able to perform the functions under the load. Once they know that the engine is cable of performing at that level, then they can use the unoptimized code for the release, knowing that although the hardware requirements will be stupid, it will run. you didn't think they just couldn't test it, or that they would run it at 10fps in house did you?
-
JohnW;195442 wrote:
Here's the funny thing about crysis. There are articles all over the place about it. It all basically comes down to advertising. When people say 'oh this game has huge hardware requirements, my brand new computer would run this like shit, it must be good! techdrool' that makes people buy games. The reality is that there is no reason whatsoever that this game shouldn't be able to run at full settings on a high end machine at an acceptable frame rate. No reason at all. It's been gone over and over and no one can figure out what makes this game run so poorly, except one thing. IT IS NOT OPTIMIZED FOR SHIT. You see, after you write a game you are supposed to shrink it down, make multiple lines of code into single functions, write apps to aid the video hardware in doing what your game requires it to do, all that. Basically they did non of that. So basically what you are getting is a non optimized build of he game running on standard instructions, taking the long way around for everything. The excuse for this is that the couldn't optimize because of the different hardware availible for a PC. Bullshit, they've been optimizing for years. It's what DirectX and OpenGL were invented for. To give a standard set of instructions that work on any hardware and then you go from there. I think it's just marketing personally. Why the hell else would they even release a game that performs so poorly? Most people call that BROKEN!There are games out there running just as nice of graphics, with much more shit to keep track of, at a much higher frame rate, at lower system specs. Oh but DX10. That is a poor fucking excuse. DX10 improves on the DX9 instruction set, so it should actually do those functions faster. Malarky. BTW, the game itself is mediocre. It's a friggen tech demo like Doom3, only with lazyer programmers. Broken game = sales? Also GOOD LORD THE LIGHT BLOOM!! (or is that wood next to the shack just CRAZY luminecent?)AM FUCKING EM
-
SO, has anybody on here actually PLAYED it yet? Or are all you tech geeks just speculating and arguing just for arguments sake?
I'll probably be the guinea pig here and buy it just to see if my weak ass computer will play it. I have a hard time believing that if I can run cod4 without any issues, that I shouldnt be able to run this game. But, I guess we will see.
Anybody have a real experience with this yet or what?
-
Link;195443 wrote:
Garuntee my PC I just sold would run this game like cake.Intel Quad Core Kentsfield 2.66 ghz
4gb RAM
SLI 8800 GTX Vid Cards
2x 500GB RAID hd'sCPU was overclocked to 3.3 on watercooling
vid cards were also OC'd (not to much tho)There wasnt a game out at the time that i got rid of this PC that made a noticable difference when I ran it on high settings.
I can garuntee you that this game would be very easy to run on high settings by someone with half a brain and a PC that wasn't build in 1902.
I'm pretty much running that same setup less the RAID config. I still can't play EQ2 at full settings (can play most other games just fine though). I'd imagine this game is being built for future expansions and therefore is overbuilt from the get go so that it won't need major upgrades in the graphic engine dept in the future to maintain its position as a viable game w/ adequate graphics.
-
by the #'s I should be able to run it fine. Here's my spec's
P4 3.2ghz
2 gig ram
GeF 8400GS 512mb DDR2 Graphics card with full DX10 support.
I know there is alot more than just surface specs but you get the just of it.Am I missing something here or is this NOT enough.
-
Should be able to run it, just not at full bore graphics is my guess.
-
i played it the other night at a relatives and it played very well, not sure of framerates and it wasnt at full settings, but nonetheless, it played. i didnt notice any jerkyness or slow framerate, the graphics were good, and best of all it is a fun ass game! played it for 6 hours and didnt scratch the surface, game progress wise. im not sure of the specs of his comp, i know it is a dual core amd with somwhere around 3 gig ram, windows xp64 and dont quote me but i beleive it is a radeon x1900 (big bastard)
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login