Support NeoGAF

[Dyno]

This damage control they're on really lets you smell the desperation.

You've got to really, really love high end computers to blow $900 because these early adopter rigs have no where near their purchase value just a year later. There are no other games that demand that kind of power so really Crytex is asking quite a bit from the customer.

The people who make do with an average system can still play 80% of the games out there at max settings. In a couple years they'll pick up that system for far less and probably have the option to play more than one game with it.

 

[Evander]

"The problem with Vista isn't resources, it's compatability.

It's to be expected with ANY new OS, but it still stops me from wanting to jump on board before it's been patched a bit, and the rest of the market has gotten familiar with working with it."


And what horrible compatability issues are you experiencing?

None, because I'm still on XP



But some of the peripherals I use don't have Vista drivers out yet, and I've heard of some early issues with the Zune software which would have been rather annoying. Also, my father, who is running Vista Home Premium, I believe, kept complaining to me that he was getting blue screen'd every time he tried to convert VHS video into digital with a perifferal that he had bought, which had even been labeled as Vista compatable (using the pack-in software.)

 

[Moor-Angol]

The main thing you need is the 8800gt

Ok, so there are no problems, i have a Zotac 8800gt, the one which is clocked at 660Mhz instead of 600Mhz default

 

[Spoit]

The hardware market will have to evolve in a diferent way sonner or later. It's kinda sad but I doubt we'll ever see another game like Crysis, pushing foward the hardware and betting on that future hardware.

The main reason most of the recent hardwares last year have been disappointing is that nvidia sees no reason to destroy the sucess they have with the 8800 line when amd's cards simply can't keep up on the high end. Admittedly, it's at least a bit better than the cpu market, where the phenom can't even approach the level of the existing intel chips since at least amd's newest midend graphics cards (3800 series) are competitive on a price level

 

[dark10x]

Well, Quicktime was saying it was running at a locked 60fps (the video) so I don't think that was the problem. (I checked that it was running ok as the fans spun up)

I'm not sure about those comparison shots though. In the custom one, the HDR seems very over-exaggerated, but the Crysis defaults do seem a bit "off" too.

I guess we're ages away from running v.high at 60fps then?

The HDR is overdone in that shot, but that's not how I play it. Remember, you can customize your HDR settings in realtime from the console. All options can be adjusted and you can watch as they change before your eyes (no loading). You basically just have to find the sweet spot. That comparison demonstrates how much of a difference a couple CVARs can make.

I also want to point out that, on my PC at home, the videos did not have tearing or slowdown issues. They looked perfectly smooth. On my laptop, however, it reported the video as running fine but it clearly wasn't running as well. Something to consider...

The problem with Vista isn't resources, it's compatability.

It's to be expected with ANY new OS, but it still stops me from wanting to jump on board before it's been patched a bit, and the rest of the market has gotten familiar with working with it.

Overblown.

I've installed probably around 30 games (for testing and playing) and found that only ONE would not work (Trackmania Sunrise, due to old Starforce drivers that don't work with Vista X64). Trackmania United (Steam version) works fine, though.

I've installed and played lots of new games, but also plenty of older ones. Games like Outcast, Shogo, Undying, Unreal, Advent Rising, The Longest Journey, SiN, and plenty of other oldies. I just wanted to see them running flawlessly and all of them did. Newer stuff, of course, worked without problems as well (from the last few years). Doom 3, Quake 4, Half-Life 2 (and episodes), Dreamfall, Thief III, Psychonauts, Myst V, FEAR, Tomb Raider Legend, etc. I've also used plenty of other random software ranging from emulators to graphic design software without any issues. Trackmania Sunrise was the ONLY application that I could not run thanks to old Starforce issues.

I'd imagine that would hold true for most games, really. If you have any games with old Starforce drivers, you may be SOL. Everything else, though, is fine...and this is with Vista 64. Perhaps times have changed since Vista launched, but it's the fastest OS I've ever used and runs everything I throw at it. Did you know that I can minimize Crysis and continue to all kinds of other things with no performance hit? I was able to load Crysis, minimize it, and then load up Half-Life 2 at the SAME TIME. Both games ran fine when one or the other was selected. I could also have Office 2007 apps open, IE, and Windows Media Player running at the same time without a hitch. It's rock solid and insanely fast. It feels like the days of "waiting" are gone. When I close a game, it immediately exits and my PC is running flawlessly. There is no down time. In the past, closing a game meant waiting for the PC to stop grinding the HDD (even with plenty of ram). XP is terrible in that regard.

 

[Zaraki_Kenpachi]

"But some of the peripherals I use don't have Vista drivers out yet, and I've heard of some early issues with the Zune software which would have been rather annoying. Also, my father, who is running Vista Home Premium, I believe, kept complaining to me that he was getting blue screen'd every time he tried to convert VHS video into digital with a perifferal that he had bought, which had even been labeled as Vista compatable (using the pack-in software.)"


Your just listening to pretty null complaints by others. Vista has pretty damn nice compatability I've only had one game not work everything else program, game, or otherwise has been fine. There's nothing wrong with the Zune software unless they are just unlucky or something because I've been using Vista on my pc which I use to add music to my zune and store my music and have had 0 issues. It was pretty flakey in the beginning but now it's pretty well fixed and people are just complaining now about an old stigma that isn't even relevant any more.

 

[dionysus]

Don't worry I know where you stand. I'm not explaining this to you, I'm explaining it for others who seem to think you can put a dollar figure on a PC/console comparison. When you buy a PC you're buying a hell of a lot more than a 360/PS3 alternative.

While I generally agree with the PC gaming POV, this statement doesn't really work because most people already own a computer that can do everything but play games. So in essence you would be spending 900 dollars just to play games, because they already own a machine that can do all those things you listed. Therefore the console price comparison is relevant in my opinion.

 

[Tieno]

Try this...

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=9256118&postcount=533

You need to create a system.cfg file and place that in the root of your Crysis folder.

I'd also recommend changing...

r_ssao_darkening = 1.2

to

r_ssao_darkening = 2 or
r_ssao_darkening = 3

It should produce results like that pic, but at a smooth framerate. If you need further performance improvements switch

r_motionblur = 4

to

r_motionblur = 3

Are you again spending more time tweaking the settings than playing the game, like you used to?

 

[bee]

the vista problem is still very real, the performance as a general os is above that of XP no doubt but creative couldn't write a decent vista sound driver if you gave them another 500 years, also gaming performance is below XP in practically every game, i dual boot both os's and i can run crysis in XP then in vista with dx9 forced so its exactly the same settings on both os's and vista is much slower.

 

[Evander]

This damage control they're on really lets you smell the desperation.

You've got to really, really love high end computers to blow $900 because these early adopter rigs have no where near their purchase value just a year later. There are no other games that demand that kind of power so really Crytex is asking quite a bit from the customer.

The people who make do with an average system can still play 80% of the games out there at max settings. In a couple years they'll pick up that system for far less and probably have the option to play more than one game with it.

The thing is, Crysis isn't really that remarkable a game. The only thing stopping people complainging about how mediocre it is, is that so many people can't even play it.

It isn't a bad game, but it doesn't really bring anything or note to the table. The whole thing with the atributs and the suit and is great, in concept, but the way that they implemented it is unremarkable. It really doesn't matter what setting you're in most of the time, just that one in a while there is a tree trunk in your way, and you have to switch to strength setting to be able to jump high enough to get over it. Sometimes you put on your cloaking to sneak past an enemy, but plenty of games have done that before, and have done it far better.

Also, the AI isn't that great either.



Really, if it weren't for the high system requirements, no one would even be talking about the game anymore.

 

[Ark-AMN]

Agreed, I'm playing Crysis, and other than the graphics (which of course, I can only view on low settings to get some semblence of a stable framerate), there's absolutely nothing there gameplay-wise to write home about at all. It's the same as Far Cry.

 

[Evander]

"But some of the peripherals I use don't have Vista drivers out yet, and I've heard of some early issues with the Zune software which would have been rather annoying. Also, my father, who is running Vista Home Premium, I believe, kept complaining to me that he was getting blue screen'd every time he tried to convert VHS video into digital with a perifferal that he had bought, which had even been labeled as Vista compatable (using the pack-in software.)"


Your just listening to pretty null complaints by others. Vista has pretty damn nice compatability I've only had one game not work everything else program, game, or otherwise has been fine. There's nothing wrong with the Zune software unless they are just unlucky or something because I've been using Vista on my pc which I use to add music to my zune and store my music and have had 0 issues. It was pretty flakey in the beginning but now it's pretty well fixed and people are just complaining now about an old stigma that isn't even relevant any more.

The people I know who use Vista have had a bunch of compatability issues with it. Why would I go out and buy a multi-hundred dollar product, and then go through all of the effort of installing a new OS on my currently running system just to see for myself? That is crazy.

I FULLY intend to upgrade, I'll probably just wait until after SP1 comes out for it.



I really wish that apologists like yourself didn't do this. You make the OS look worse by claiming that absolutely no issues exist, rather than accepting that there are minor ones, which will eventually get worked out, and that nothing is wrong with the OS, but nothing is wrong with taking your time in upgrading either.

 

[Evander]

Agreed, I'm playing Crysis, and other than the graphics (which of course, I can only view on low settings to get some semblence of a stable framerate), there's absolutely nothing there gameplay-wise to write home about at all. It's the same as Far Cry.

To be fair, I haven't played the actual game, but I was planning on running out and buying the special edition, until I played through the whole demo, and realized that I'd probably just quit half way through to go play Half-Life on my PS2. It's a pretty game, but if I want pretty, I can just download some pictures of waterfalls and sunsets.

 

[Zzoram]

Agreed, I'm playing Crysis, and other than the graphics (which of course, I can only view on low settings to get some semblence of a stable framerate), there's absolutely nothing there gameplay-wise to write home about at all. It's the same as Far Cry.

Crysis is in many ways just the next step after Far Cry, but people forget that Far Cry (PC) was actually a good game. It's open world FPS style is quite refreshing when compared to most narrow corridor or slightly less narrow rails that most FPS games use.

 

[CTLance]

Wat.
1280x720? 720p, 16:9? Why? It'll look like shit on most non-CRT computer monitors. Not to mention this is a pretty low resolution IMHO.

But what do I know. My gaming PC is still broken (Pleeeease, MSI, hurry! ;_; ).

 

[Zzoram]

Wat.
1280x720? 720p, 16:9? Why? It'll look like shit on most non-CRT computer monitors. Not to mention this is a pretty low resolution IMHO.

But what do I know. My gaming PC is still broken (Pleeeease, MSI, hurry! ;_; ).

My 6800 ran the Crysis demo on Low at 1440x900 a bit choppy (20ish FPS avg). I'm sure an 8800GT could handle it on a good mix of Medium and High at 1440x900 or 1280x1024.

 

[Draft]

While I generally agree with the PC gaming POV, this statement doesn't really work because most people already own a computer that can do everything but play games. So in essence you would be spending 900 dollars just to play games, because they already own a machine that can do all those things you listed. Therefore the console price comparison is relevant in my opinion.

In that case, you spend $250 to put in a video card, and maybe another $25 for an extra gig of RAM, if you don't already have 2. Congrats, you just turned your boring ass PC into a monster gaming ninja box for less than $300.

Intel has done a fine job of convincing the world they need screaming fast processors to check their email and watch Youtube, and Microsoft has done a fine job of building software that chokes and dies on anything less than a gig. The only thing separating most PCs bought in the last 3 years from playing modern games is on-board video, which can be easily remedied for as little as $150 (and that's not getting you a POS either, that's getting you a very decent gaming card.)

 

[Oneself]

Not true.

I've found that Vista is a shockingly optimized OS. It is more demanding up front, but even with everything I've installed, performance remains just as fast now as it was when I first built it. Crysis has taken no impact in performance.

Yeah, Vista, but this 900$PC has XP in it.

 

[Zzoram]

In that case, you spend $250 to put in a video card, and maybe another $25 for an extra gig of RAM, if you don't already have 2. Congrats, you just turned your boring ass PC into a monster gaming ninja box for less than $300.

Intel has done a fine job of convincing the world they need screaming fast processors to check their email and watch Youtube, and Microsoft has done a fine job of building software that chokes and dies on anything less than a gig. The only thing separating most PCs bought in the last 3 years from playing modern games is on-board video, which can be easily remedied for as little as $150 (and that's not getting you a POS either, that's getting you a very decent gaming card.)

Correct, everyone I know that doesn't play games seems to think they need a dual-core or their computer is crappy :lol

For most people, it's just a matter of adding a video card and they're good to go, as desktops in weekly flyers regularly come with 2-3GB ram now.

 

[Zzoram]

Those videos are nothing.

First of all, those quicktimes are insanely demanding. My Crysis PC can display them, but my Centrino Duo laptop could barely display the video without constantly chopping up and tearing. The videos are recorded at a framerate higher than 30 fps, it would seem, as they were much smoother on my rig at home and did not exhibit tearing. The performance issues you witnessed were your PC struggling with the video. It's odd that they wanted to demonstrate performance and then went with such a demanding codec.

The game can look MUCH better than that with very little performance loss. These shots are taken in DX9 mode with custom CVARs in place. Performance is generally smoother than 30 fps. I should also note that animation becomes far more impressive with object motion blur (some cutscenes look like pre-renders). As expected, the shots look quite a bit worse to my eye viewing them on this LCD I'm using. On my CRT, the colors are much richer. I've also further enhanced my config since snapping these.

Also, take a look at these shots and you'll notice how much improvement can be made over what CryTek uses as a default...

PC, king of games. Mods, ini tweaks, console commands, texture packs, console will never be as good to the hardcore.

 

[dark10x]

Are you again spending more time tweaking the settings than playing the game, like you used to?

Not really.

I actually found a nice config for the game and played all the way through it. I'm only now playing with it now that I've finished the game. Currently, I'm playing it on Delta, but I'm messing with configs along the way.

I'm only doing it with Crysis because its settings allow for so many changes to the visuals and its neat to see what impact everything has on its appearance.

 

[Draft]

Correct, everyone I know that doesn't play games seems to think they need a dual-core or their computer is crappy :lol

For most people, it's just a matter of adding a video card and they're good to go, as desktops in weekly flyers regularly come with 2-3GB ram now.

I ordered parts to build a shitbox over the weekend. Had some stuff to work with so only needed a mobo, CPU and RAM. 1.8ghz C2D cost me $90, Nvidia 630i mobo w/ integrated graphics cost me $80, 2gb of Mushkin PC6400 cost me $35. I was flabbergasted. I remember spending $150 on 1gb of overclocked Kingston DDR333 not but a few years ago :lol

 

[Zzoram]

I ordered parts to build a shitbox over the weekend. Had some stuff to work with so only needed a mobo, CPU and RAM. 1.8ghz C2D cost me $90, Nvidia 630i mobo w/ integrated graphics cost me $80, 2gb of Mushkin PC6400 cost me $35. I was flabbergasted. I remember spending $150 on 1gb of overclocked Kingston DDR333 not but a few years ago :lol

RAM prices have come down dramatically since the RAM companies were sued for price fixing. CPU prices have come down a lot as well due to the increased competition between AMD and Intel. Go go market forces!

 

[∀ Narayan]

How about a 360/PS3 challenge Crytek?

How about statements like this are a bannable offense?

Seriously, every fucking thread. And it's not just one person, either!

 

[Evander]

Just for fun, here are the details on my PC, which was built based on knowledge obtained SOLELY by dismantling a broken gateway, and looking up "north bridge" on wikipedia.



PC specs (it was built as a budget PC, with a focus on multitasking, rather than serious gaming. I went a little overboard on the cooling, because it appeared that overheating is what had fried my previous five-year-old Gateway.):

Case: Coolermaster Mystique 632S

Motherboard: ECS NF650iSLIT-A (I chose it because it had two PATA connections, meaning I didn't have to buy any new drives yet. Also, I am using onboard sound.)

Video Card: ChainTech GeForce 8400 GS 256MB DDR2 PCI-E (Originally had an EVGA 256-P2-N615-TX GeForce 7600GT 256MB 128-bit GDDR3, but it caused a lot of freezing, especially when booting up, so I switched to the 8400 GS when it was offered to me for free; college student budget, you know.)

PSU: Antec True Power Trio TP3-650

RAM: OCZ Platinum R2 2GB (2 x 1GB) 240-Pin DDR2 800

CPU: Core 2 Duo E4400

Cooling: Cooler Master Aquagate Viva (self-contained liquid cooling system, no assembly or maintainance required, just have to top off the fluid every six months, or so)

CPU Fan: Vantec Tornado (80mm)

Fan Controller: Super Flower Fan Master

Misc: USB/Firewire PCI-Express card.

HDDs (one 40 gig named Master, and one 160 Gig named Blaster), DVD drives, floppy drive, and card reader are all canibalized from my old Gateway, but I've had my eye on Scythe's combo floppy/card reader, and then using the 3.5 bay that my current card reader is in to add some USB ports to the front of the machine (currently, my USB ports are all either on the top, or on the back.) Also in the plans for the future is to add a larger Sata HDD (500 gigs or more).

Pics of my Tower:

 

[Forgotten Ancient]

I wish they'd do more of these benchmarks with widescreen resolution.

 

[Evander]

How about statements like this are a bannable offense?

Seriously, every fucking thread. And it's not just one person, either!

Maybe instead of complaining that people want PC games to be ported to consoles you should complain that PC developers think that they are "too good"to do it.

 

[VictimOfGrief]

This would've been more interesting if they had addressed their "concerns" over current next-gen hardware and the ability or lack there of to play it on those consoles.

However, a budget PC for someone to play Crysis on being $900 bucks.... I suppose that's "budget" these days.

 

[dionysus]

In that case, you spend $250 to put in a video card, and maybe another $25 for an extra gig of RAM, if you don't already have 2. Congrats, you just turned your boring ass PC into a monster gaming ninja box for less than $300.

Good point, and this will work for many people. I submit there is a significant amount of gamers whose PCs aren't that easily upgradeable. I had a top of the line gaming PC 4 years ago I still use, and it would basically require a new PC to run Crysis. That PC is better than almost all of my friends.

 

[Evander]

PC, king of games. Mods, ini tweaks, console commands, texture packs, console will never be as good to the hardcore.

I will give you this. Growing up on PC, and it being where I got my start in gaming, I still miss mods when I'm gaming on my consoles, but the added price and difficulty of making sure everything is compatable just doesn't seem worth it, IMO.

 

[Tieno]

Not really.

I actually found a nice config for the game and played all the way through it. I'm only now playing with it now that I've finished the game. Currently, I'm playing it on Delta, but I'm messing with configs along the way.

I'm only doing it with Crysis because its settings allow for so many changes to the visuals and its neat to see what impact everything has on its appearance.

How come the standard settings are so 'unoptimized'? Is it because of the hardware differences?

 

[∀ Narayan]

Maybe instead of complaining that people want PC games to be ported to consoles you should complain that PC developers think that they are "too good"to do it.

Well, according to your logic. Konami and Kojima Productions are "too good" to port Metal Gear Solid 4 to the Xbox 360.

Take that as you will. But your statement is exceptionally crude.

 

[Evander]

Good point, and this will work for many people. I submit there is a significant amount of gamers whose PCs aren't that easily upgradeable. I had a top of the line gaming PC 4 years ago I still use, and it would basically require a new PC to run Crysis. That PC is better than almost all of my friends.

Not to mention folks who made the mistake of investing in AGP...

 

[Dyno]

The thing is, Crysis isn't really that remarkable a game. The only thing stopping people complainging about how mediocre it is, is that so many people can't even play it.

I totally agree, but didn't want to be the first to bash the game.

I played through most of it on Medium settings. The game was at its best when the maps were big and there were multiple means of completing your objectives. It even started to have a bit of a sandbox feel which impressed me. I was okay enough with the suit and I rather liked the modifying your guns.

Once things went alien though it got old real quick. It wound up on rails and those slow moving bullet sponge monsters were utterly uninspired. Since this was at the end of the game is was a real let-down.

A more experienced game design company needs to show us what it can do with the engine.

 

[dark10x]

How come the standard settings are so 'unoptimized'? Is it because of the hardware differences?

They aren't unoptimized, they simply didn't look for a middle ground.

The "High settings" could be bumped up quite a bit visually with little impact on the framerate. Very High actually requires DX10, but the DX10 renderer is too slow for current hardware. High runs very smoothly, though, so it's not unoptimized, it just doesn't have as much visual sizzle as it could. It's as if they decided to leave certain visual features on the table only for DX10 users or something despite the fact that the DX9 rendered would have no trouble with them.

The thing is, Crysis isn't really that remarkable a game. The only thing stopping people complainging about how mediocre it is, is that so many people can't even play it.

Whoa now, what? That I can't agree with. Crysis IS a remarkable game and one of the best FPS I've ever played. Unlike Far Cry (which I HATED), CryTek actually delivered a very solid FPS with a fantastic design base. The core mechanics are really well thought out and allow for lots of creative thinking. Not only that, despite the freedom, the game manages to feel cinematic as hell. It's a fantastic game.

Once things went alien though it got old real quick. It wound up on rails and those slow moving bullet sponge monsters were utterly uninspired. Since this was at the end of the game is was a real let-down.

Most of the game consists of the open ended fighting, but I think the introduction of the new threat was well handled. You didn't have to fight them for too terribly long and the game kept things interesting scenario wise. I thought the pacing was just right. Of course, I also loved The Flood in the Halo series for the same reasons (and we know how people feel about them).

 

[Borys]

1st page was good, 2nd was worse, now we're coming close to retardation zone.

Never would have thought that dark10x would be the sanest person in a PC exclusive game thread, sincerest thanks dark for straighting up some fools.

 

[Evander]

Well, according to your logic. Konami and Kojima Productions are "too good" to port Metal Gear Solid 4 to the Xbox 360.

Take that as you will. But your statement is exceptionally crude.

Did you miss the coments, pre-launch, where the Crysis devs said that they could even port the game to the DS if they wanted to, but they wouldn'tbecause the graphics would be crap, and they didn't want to impede their "artistic vision"?

They're producing a comercial product (and, aside from the graphics, a pretty mediocre one at that.) They have the ability to make the game accessable to more people, and even said as much, but also essentially stated thatthey are too good to do it.



I have no love for the Metal Gear series, and even disagree with Kojima's statements, but at least what he said wasn't that he wouldn't bother putting MGS4 on the 360, but rather, that the PS3 was the only system that could handle the game experience as a whole. He compared the PS3 to a movie theater, and the 360 to watching a movie in your living room. I may not agree, but at least he did not say "the PS3 has better graphics, and I refuse to put out MGS4 with anything less than PS3 level graphics."

 

[65536]

I also want to point out that, on my PC at home, the videos did not have tearing or slowdown issues. They looked perfectly smooth. On my laptop, however, it reported the video as running fine but it clearly wasn't running as well. Something to consider...

It's definitely the videos, I'm still seeing it if I do a frame-by-frame through them.

 

[∀ Narayan]

Did you miss the coments, pre-launch, where the Crysis devs said that they could even port the game to the DS if they wanted to, but they wouldn'tbecause the graphics would be crap, and they didn't want to impede their "artistic vision"?

They're producing a comercial product (and, aside from the graphics, a pretty mediocre one at that.) They have the ability to make the game accessable to more people, and even said as much, but also essentially stated thatthey are too good to do it.



I have no love for the Metal Gear series, and even disagree with Kojima's statements, but at least what he said wasn't that he wouldn't bother putting MGS4 on the 360, but rather, that the PS3 was the only system that could handle the game experience as a whole. He compared the PS3 to a movie theater, and the 360 to watching a movie in your living room. I may not agree, but at least he did not say "the PS3 has better graphics, and I refuse to put out MGS4 with anything less than PS3 level graphics."

Your paraphrase aside. It's pretty evident that the "justification" on both parties boils down to pretty much the same thing.

 

[xabre]

How about statements like this are a bannable offense?

Seriously, every fucking thread. And it's not just one person, either!

There needs to be a PC sub forum.

 

[dark10x]

It's definitely the videos, I'm still seeing it if I do a frame-by-frame through them.

*shrug*

Don't worry about it, though. This is a PC game. Stuff like tearing is an option and most of the performance related issues can be adjusted as you please.

 

[Evander]

I...didn't want to be the first to bash the game.

Whoa now.

I'm not bashing the game. It isn't bad, IMO, just not the amazing all-new experience that it was touted to be. If you have nothing else to play, and a machine that can run it, you could do far worse, but it really isn't a game worth upgrading your machine for, let alone building a whole new one. The AI is poor, the big mechanic, the suit, doesn't make all that much of a difference. The game plays the same regardless of what setting you have the suit on, with the one exception of needing to switch it to strength to jump over tree trunks and rocks, which honestly just feels shoehorned in to remind you that you have the suit in the first place.



Like I said, it isn't bad game, it's just an unremarkable one.

 

[Evander]

Your paraphrase aside. It's pretty evident that the "justification" on both parties boils down to pretty much the same thing.

Not at all.

The devs said that everything in crysis would be exactly the same in a port, except they'd have to scale down the graphics.

Kojima said that the PS3 is the only system that could handle MGS4 at all.

Like I said, I don't actually agree with Kojima, but he's talking about the entire game, not just the graphics.


edit: unless you are going to claim that the graphics are inherently required to appreciate the game, which doesn't make any sense because the game includes the option to run it on low settings, with worse graphics. If the graphics were that big a deal, it would require optimal specs across the board, and only have one graphics setting.

 

[BruceLeeRoy]

I think Crysis is going to dramatically change the way PC developers make a game. Unless Crysis sales pick up which doesnt really look likely I think more and more will go the blizzard / Valve route.(Making kick ass games that basically can run on everything) I also think that Crytek are crazy if they think a year from now when people have rigs that can play it on very high anybody is going to do so outside of the hardcore. The majority of people will be like "Crysis what? Didnt that come out like a year ago, have you seen the pics for COD5 LOOKS INSANE!"

Not at all.

The devs said that everything in crysis would be exactly the same in a port, except they'd have to scale down the graphics.

Kojima said that the PS3 is the only system that could handle MGS4 at all.

Like I said, I don't actually agree with Kojima, but he's talking about the entire game, not just the graphics.


edit: unless you are going to claim that the graphics are inherently required to appreciate the game, which doesn't make any sense because the game includes the option to run it on low settings, with worse graphics. If the graphics were that big a deal, it would require optimal specs across the board, and only have one graphics setting.

I think it would be awesome to see these guys working on the PS3. With the amount of talent they have solely focused on pushing one system I bet they could do amazing things. Does anyone remember that interview(might have been 1up) where the director was talking about how they had a engine running on PS2 that pretty much could run far cry perfectly.

 

[bee]

how did you get that pc and that couch so close together? surely they should be repelling each other

 

[anthunit]

To be fair, I haven't played the actual game, but I was planning on running out and buying the special edition, until I played through the whole demo, and realized that I'd probably just quit half way through to go play Half-Life on my PS2. It's a pretty game, but if I want pretty, I can just download some pictures of waterfalls and sunsets.

Half-Life on your ps2 with that computer.... WHY!?

 

[∀ Narayan]

edit: unless you are going to claim that the graphics are inherently required to appreciate the game, which doesn't make any sense because the game includes the option to run it on low settings, with worse graphics. If the graphics were that big a deal, it would require optimal specs across the board, and only have one graphics setting.

Well, look at it this way. Crysis is made by Crytek. Crytek essentially makes their games graphical showcases. It's pretty obvious that they're exclusively appealing to high-end PC gamers.

I would say that they included the lower settings just for the sake of accessibility.

 

[cedric69]

Does Crysis take advantage of Quad Core processors?

 

[xabre]

Does Crysis take advantage of Quad Core processors?

Nope.

I don't know of any game that does, or will in the foreseeable future.

 

[The Abominable Snowman]

Yeah those 2 next-gen consoles (and the Wii) are just so awesome for video encoding, 3D rendering, audio composition, internet surfing, CAD, email, creating and printing documents, running spreadsheets, doing about a billion other things only PCs can do and WoW.

So you're suggesting we buy 2 nextgen consoles and an Eee PC?