# Crysis and Unreal Tournament 3 Sales 'Tank'



## zekrahminator (Dec 17, 2007)

Some of the most anticipated titles of the year, Unreal Tournament 3 and Crysis, have failed to sell very well. In contrast to the overly hyped Halo 3, which boosted actual Xbox 360 sales, Crysis and Unreal Tournament 3 sales were, in short, abysmal. Since last month, neither game has managed to sell even 100,000 units. To be precise, EA sold 86,633 copies of Crysis, and Epic Games sold 33,995 copies of UT3. The Inquirer claims that Crysis, despite having a beautiful graphics engine that will have benchmarkers twiddling their thumbs for years, failed to impress anyone without a very expensive gaming machine. And Unreal Tournament, despite being absolutely breathtaking, had gameplay that was uncannily similar to the previous two versions of Unreal Tournament. Hopefully, as systems get better and gamers get more money to spend on games, these sales figures will increase.

*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## Hawk1 (Dec 17, 2007)

Yeah, not surprised with Crysis. It's like Vista, most of the general pop. don't have the hardware to run it properly, so no sales.


----------



## PVTCaboose1337 (Dec 17, 2007)

I loved Crysis, and my machine is about as bad as it gets.  Then I also can say I have not played UT3, but heard it was quite good.


----------



## devguy (Dec 17, 2007)

The PS3 version of Unreal Tournament 3 just came out at my Gamestop and PS3 owners have showed interest in it.  I'm sure that will help sales.


----------



## nguyenpeter76 (Dec 17, 2007)

cod4 on the other hand....


----------



## pt (Dec 17, 2007)

nguyenpeter76 said:


> cod4 on the other hand....



cod 4 fkin rules!


----------



## yogurt_21 (Dec 17, 2007)

see this is what happens when developers try to push the graphical envelop without making their game able to run on an athlon xp and a 9800 pro. they tank. lol most people dont upgrade hardware enough to be able to play crysis. this is why halo being on a static ggaming environment (xbox360) did so much better, nobody had to upgrade their 360 in order to play it.


----------



## beastiebob (Dec 17, 2007)

Too early to pull the panic button on Crysis, since its likely to have a longer shelf life than most other games due to its steep technology curve.  Although with all that pre-release hype, they have to be disappointed by the sales.  

Things look more gloomy for UT3 but maybe it will sell better at the console level.


----------



## PVTCaboose1337 (Dec 17, 2007)

yogurt_21 said:


> see this is what happens when developers try to push the graphical envelop without making their game able to run on an athlon xp and a 9800 pro. they tank. lol most people dont upgrade hardware enough to be able to play crysis. this is why halo being on a static ggaming environment (xbox360) did so much better, nobody had to upgrade their 360 in order to play it.



Wow...  you would not upgrade the 360 anyway...


----------



## Frick (Dec 17, 2007)

PVTCaboose1337 said:


> I loved Crysis, and my machine is about as bad as it gets.  Then I also can say I have not played UT3, but heard it was quite good.



What are you talking about, your machine have more than enogh powaa to run both games just fine.

BTW, the UT3-demo was fun for a while, but it's not my "thing".


----------



## PVTCaboose1337 (Dec 17, 2007)

Frick said:


> What are you talking about, your machine have more than enogh powaa to run both games just fine.
> 
> BTW, the UT3-demo was fun for a while, but it's not my "thing".



Yeah...  but not at u83rh16h settings


----------



## Frick (Dec 17, 2007)

PVTCaboose1337 said:


> Yeah...  but not at u83rh16h settings



That doesn't make your system "as bad as it gets".


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Dec 17, 2007)

what is cod4? a typr of salted fish?


----------



## cdawall (Dec 17, 2007)

[I.R.A]_FBi said:


> what is cod4? a typr of salted fish?



call of duty 4


----------



## v-zero (Dec 17, 2007)

UT3 kicks ass. I love it, even in bot-match mode it's just so old school!


----------



## Azn Tr14dZ (Dec 17, 2007)

Unreal Tournament 3 is selling pretty well on the PS3, a lot of people playing it there.


----------



## DarkMatter (Dec 17, 2007)

I haven't played Crysis game yet, but I loved the demo and MP beta. I'm waiting to play the game when my 8800gt arrives this week. I will judge then. But it's significative that I have spent more hours playing Crysis demo than COD4 or UT3 isn't it?
UT3 despite good, it's more of the same. 
COD4 it's a fantastic interactive movie, but I have some issues to call it a game, seriously. I enjoyed it, don't get me wrong, but I can't understand all the hype. It's more of the same too, nothing really new or worthy compared to earlier versions IMHO (the scene on the plane and the one of the snipers... pff boring and a POS, the final... better not talk about it), Also I found earlier versions a lot more immersive. That's my opinion, it was a dissapointment for me.
And MP it's ok, but since I don't have the time to play all MP games, if I have to choose between COD4 and TF2, I choose TF2 without a doubt.
I think that both Crysis and UT3 will sell a lot more with some time, just as Farcry did. Consoles and PC are different in this regard. Console gamers go in a rush to buy the games they want. Most console games don't sell a lot more than what they do in the first months, but PC games sellin a more slow but steady fashion.


----------



## MilkyWay (Dec 17, 2007)

whats wrong with unreal tournament 3 so what if its like the other ones, thats fun stuff! Crysis is a good game even on a medium pc, also cod 4 isnt any better than crysis on a bad pc tbh i think the models in cryis and cod 4 are good even on a medium pc i think what takes a hit is the scenery

i suppose that crysis is just not advertised enuf neither is unreal tournament, COD 4 is allways in deals and on tv, thb id rather play those 2 games but its personal preference.

oh you mentioin old cod games i think 1 was the bbest if they could make a game like that again id be happy 2 was good but a little to much drama and less of the grittyness and realism.

COD 4 just concentrates on small places pack full of bad guys and some gimmicky sniper stuff just a bit of the same already


----------



## v-zero (Dec 17, 2007)

Azn Tr14dZ said:


> Unreal Tournament 3 is selling pretty well on the PS3, a lot of people playing it there.



I find this unsurprising since the PS3 has lacked a decent multiplayer fps since time began, plus it runs like butter on the PS3.


----------



## Dangle (Dec 17, 2007)

I think people didn't buy Crysis because they saw how terribly that game was optimized even for the top-end hardware.  The game runs like absolute garbage and the visuals don't justify how terrible it runs.


----------



## btarunr (Dec 17, 2007)

The phase Crysis is in, is somewhat similar to Doom 3. Also the factor that a lot of people kept off the game for being very heavy on the hardware.

Though I wouldn't call it a crisis for Crysis. It has  better storyline, game-play and replay-value than what Doom 3 had in its time.


----------



## Azn Tr14dZ (Dec 17, 2007)

v-zero said:


> I find this unsurprising since the PS3 has lacked a decent multiplayer fps since time began, plus it runs like butter on the PS3.



It does run like butter, and the graphics are amazing...you can also use a Keyboard/Mouse on it when playing so I'm in!


----------



## DarkMatter (Dec 17, 2007)

Dangle said:


> I think people didn't buy Crysis because they saw *how terribly that game was optimized even for the top-end hardware*.  The game runs like absolute garbage and the visuals don't justify how terrible it runs.



That's not true. Except UT3 maybe, there isn't any game better optimized than Crysis. But Crysis is aiming a step higher, it's a new gen. It's graphics are a lot better than COD4 for example. COD4 does look fantastic, but you need a fast machine to run it well too. Crysis environments are massive compared to COD4 and have a lot more details. Shader and lighting quality it's like night and day too. You can't compare them in the level of the graphics they are offering, so you can't say it's not well optimized. You can say that they aimed too high though, which could be true, but that is something only time will tell.


----------



## DarkMatter (Dec 18, 2007)

kieran_fletch said:


> whats wrong with unreal tournament 3 so what if its like the other ones, thats fun stuff! Crysis is a good game even on a medium pc, also cod 4 isnt any better than crysis on a bad pc tbh i think the models in cryis and cod 4 are good even on a medium pc i think what takes a hit is the scenery
> 
> i suppose that crysis is just not advertised enuf neither is unreal tournament, COD 4 is allways in deals and on tv, thb id rather play those 2 games but its personal preference.
> 
> ...



You edited the last 2 paragraphs or I just didn't read them in the first place? 
Anyway, COD 1 was the best game that year, and one of the best in history. I agree there, but the sequels are just not as good as the original. They are good games and their execution is superb, but they just don't have the uniqueness of the original. They felt like "been there, done that" to me. Even COD4, which is in a totally different set, felt the same to me.
Games like HL2, FEAR and Prey (yes, Prey) have changed how modern FPS gameplay should be, at least for me. I'm talking about what makes those games unique, immersiveness. I know that COD aims for some realism, but somehow sequels failed there, and COD4 fails there more. COD1 was so great because you felt as if you were in the middle of a war, something COD4 doesn't deliver in a feasible manner. I never felt like in the middle of anything in COD4 and that's the problem. And this happens, oddly enough BTW, because you are the center of everything. They make you do everything that needs to be done, all enemies try to kill you (they even forget about your allies) allies constantly know and say waht you have to do next... Real wars are not like that, war it's mess, so it's a failure IMO.


----------



## DaMulta (Dec 18, 2007)

I would of bought it if crossfire worked....


----------



## strick94u (Dec 18, 2007)

UT3 is great but it was released awhile before I got it as for crysis only reason I have it was it was free with my video card and not sure its worth infecting my pc with vista just to see the wonders of dx10


----------



## sneekypeet (Dec 18, 2007)

Personally I am uber geeked that EA took this one right in the backside. They had to have spent tons on promoting Crysis and developing and the like. Just makes me sooooo happy to see them fall flat on their faces after all the crap they pushed up to this point failing , and the lack of respect they showed their customers when issues occured.

Personally I almost think not only is it due to the hardware requirements , but it may have a lot to do with previously unsatisfied customers!


----------



## btarunr (Dec 18, 2007)

DaMulta said:


> I would of bought it if crossfire worked....



It does, if you perform the Korean trick.


----------



## strick94u (Dec 18, 2007)

btarunr said:


> It does, if you perform the Korean trick.



That sounds dirty


----------



## Ravenas (Dec 18, 2007)

UT3: Awesome Game
Crysis: Awesome Game
Halo 3: Less than average in my book.

My 2 cents.


----------



## btarunr (Dec 18, 2007)

DaMulta, just curious...you don't have a multi-GPU setup why not buy it anyway?


----------



## Dangle (Dec 18, 2007)

DarkMatter said:


> That's not true. Except UT3 maybe, there isn't any game better optimized than Crysis. But Crysis is aiming a step higher, it's a new gen. It's graphics are a lot better than COD4 for example. COD4 does look fantastic, but you need a fast machine to run it well too. Crysis environments are massive compared to COD4 and have a lot more details. Shader and lighting quality it's like night and day too. You can't compare them in the level of the graphics they are offering, so you can't say it's not well optimized. You can say that they aimed too high though, which could be true, but that is something only time will tell.




I've got 2 GB of ram, Vista, 2900XT, and a Q6600.  When playing the game there was always ~600MB of free space in my RAM.  It rarely ever sent a single core to 75% use.  It's like the entire game was trying to run using only my video card.  Seems to me like it's not optimized.


----------



## JC316 (Dec 18, 2007)

No wonder the UT3 servers are bare, I can usually find maybe 3 or 4 CTF servers. It's really sad too since UT3 is a really nice game.


----------



## DaMulta (Dec 18, 2007)

btarunr said:


> DaMulta, just curious...you don't have a multi-GPU setup why not buy it anyway?



What do you mean that i don't have a multi gpu setup?

I have 2 2900xt 1GB cards.....with a quad.

I will wait for a patch/driver(Painless driver)before I buy the game.


----------



## GLD (Dec 18, 2007)

You would think that the cheaper hardware prices of the 3000 series and 8800GT series would help sales of the newest games. 

I would agree that people are prob. worried about having crappy game play on the newest games that deserve/are worthy of a decent video card, like CoD4, Crysis, imo.

Well there is always The Orange Box. It will run on a DX8 system. That is a great choice   for people without tomorrows hardware in their rigs. I bet sales on it are crushing the other titles.


----------



## DarkMatter (Dec 18, 2007)

Dangle said:


> I've got 2 GB of ram, Vista, 2900XT, and a Q6600.  When playing the game there was always ~600MB of free space in my RAM.  It rarely ever sent a single core to 75% use.  It's like the entire game was trying to run using only my video card.  Seems to me like it's not optimized.



Your CPU or the ram can't do the job of the GPU, they do their own job (AI, physics). The fact that both have free space confirms the game is well optimized (as it is doing his job with much less resources): the game is bottlenecked in the GPU because its graphics are so f****g good. It runs above 20fps on medium (textures, objects and shaders on high) on my computer, and it looks better than anything else at these settings, so yeah, this is what I call a good optimized game.

EDIT: I remember that when Doom3 was released lots of people said the same about that game and the engine. And how much better HL2 and Source were. Time has told another story.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Dec 18, 2007)

this really is unsurprising. i wonder if sales of COD4 surprised anyone. now that is a fun game!


----------



## strick94u (Dec 18, 2007)

JC316 said:


> No wonder the UT3 servers are bare, I can usually find maybe 3 or 4 CTF servers. It's really sad too since UT3 is a really nice game.



Yup every time I log on a server its has 1 or 2 punks running cheats Not real fun


----------



## Random Murderer (Dec 18, 2007)

i'll tell you why they didn't sell well:
PIRATES!


----------



## XooM (Dec 18, 2007)

Remember when HL2 and CS:S came out? How they had support for even DirectX 7 machines? Remember how it sold ludicrously well?
Well, crysis and UT3 look and handle like shit on anything short of a *really* good machine. my 3800x2 and 8600GTS chug playing both of them with modest settings. Gosh, i wonder why nobody buys them.
Oh, yeah, and the part that actually matters... like... good gameplay... i didn't happen to notice it, but maybe that was the lag.


----------



## Snipe343 (Dec 18, 2007)

I have Crysis and i also have a 8600GT it runs great i can run on high with a/30fps and medium w/60fps its also a great game, I also have UT3 and the gameplay is the same al older but multiplayer is still a blast so the only reason the sales tanked is because a lot of people probley downloaded them.


----------



## Weer (Dec 18, 2007)

Maybe it's because we're all stealing it? Well, not me.. Crysis is the only game I'm going to buy.


----------



## Random Murderer (Dec 18, 2007)

i think the reason ut3 did so badly is that even the pirated versions can play online, and who wants to play crysis online? not me, unless there's a TON of people in the game...


----------



## Lopez0101 (Dec 18, 2007)

Far Cry and Crysis were one of the few games I've actually bought in the past few years. Before that it was Supreme Commander. Though I have bought quite a few games in the past. Not much worth buying these days for full price. Personally, I wouldn't spend any money on CoD4.


----------



## Steevo (Dec 18, 2007)

Go pirates!@@@@!!!!!




And so far as the game uber leet onhexz noez u dittnt grlfrndz!!!!!



Object one of my court case against game,

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=video_games


and object two,

http://www.steampowered.com/status/survey.html


Only a marginal percentage of gamers have hard hardware, the rest are crap. But still crap enough to play other games.



So for the 75% of gamers that don't have the newest shit, these games suck.


----------



## AddSub (Dec 18, 2007)

> see this is what happens when developers try to push the graphical envelop without making their game able to run on an athlon xp and a 9800 pro. they tank. lol most people dont upgrade hardware enough to be able to play crysis.



Not really. An older and properly tweaked machine can run Crysis easy. All this Crysis hardware talk is just self-ego-stroking by people who just dropped $3000-$4000 or more on a brand new ultra _l33t_ supa-dupa system just to play games like Crysis, yet they see people with $300 boxes doing that just fine. At least that's the case here on TPU forums. There are maybe two or three threads I can recall where someone with a really, REALLY, old and inadequate system was complaining about Crysis. Myself I don't play Crysis because it's pretty much Far Cry 2.0. It's graphics are hyped and overrated, much like it was the case with Far Cry. Also, who needs another FPS? Right now, bulk of games released are either FPS or generic fantasy MMORPGs. Somebody change the tune already.


----------



## sam0t (Dec 18, 2007)

I admit it, have not read the previous comments, but want to say it anyways:

Maybe this will finally wake up some of the PC game developers/studios. Its not only the graphics that sell, you actually need a good game. For example, many have touted that the old classic RPG genre is dead and buried and there is no way a RPG can sell these days? Fortunately we have games like The Witcher which has shipped (not sold yet) over 1 million copies to stores already and still going strong.


----------



## D.F. (Dec 18, 2007)

AddSub said:


> Not really. An older and properly tweaked machine can run Crysis easy. All this Crysis hardware talk is just self-ego-stroking by people who just dropped $3000-$4000 or more on a brand new ultra _l33t_ supa-dupa system just to play games like Crysis, yet they see people with $300 boxes doing that just fine. At least that's the case here on TPU forums. There are maybe two or three threads I can recall where someone with a really, REALLY, old and inadequate system was complaining about Crysis. Myself I don't play Crysis because it's pretty much Far Cry 2.0. It's graphics are hyped and overrated, much like it was the case with Far Cry. Also, who needs another FPS? Right now, bulk of games released are either FPS or generic fantasy MMORPGs. Somebody change the tune already.





If you say that is all about ego and that everyone on tpu forums are egomaniacs without any real argument to back it up, then I could say yours is just resentment for not being able to play any new game at more than medium-low directx8 settings with that radeon x850xt. In fact, for the way you complain, it seems you need to believe there aren't any good games coming out right now cause you can't play them as you would like to play them. 
And when you said that an older machine can run Crysis easily, you should have said "easily without any of it's technological glory", and that technology is not to be seen as if it didn't add anything to the game, on the contrary, it adds a lot. Of course a game it's not only it's technology, but it's an important part of it. for example, I loved doom3 although I think it's a terrible game, but it was technologicaly so amazing that I couldn't help loving it. It can happen the other way around too, an amazing game with terrible graphics. But the truth is technology and the other aspects of games go hand by hand, and this should not be dismissed.


----------



## Triprift (Dec 18, 2007)

I woudnt even try to run Crysis on me laptop but ut3 might be ok on 1024 x 768 med detail


----------



## eidairaman1 (Dec 18, 2007)

on UT3 Front, DUH! The game is primarily a Deathmatch sport game, if you want a storyline Play Unreal. Crysis didnt sale too well due to the demand of a System,


----------



## btarunr (Dec 18, 2007)

I played UT3 on a neighbour's rig. gameplay wise nm difference. Just some neat SM3 graphics.


----------



## Wile E (Dec 18, 2007)

AddSub said:


> Not really. An older and properly tweaked machine can run Crysis easy. All this Crysis hardware talk is just self-ego-stroking by people who just dropped $3000-$4000 or more on a brand new ultra _l33t_ supa-dupa system just to play games like Crysis, yet they see people with $300 boxes doing that just fine. At least that's the case here on TPU forums. There are maybe two or three threads I can recall where someone with a really, REALLY, old and inadequate system was complaining about Crysis. Myself I don't play Crysis because it's pretty much Far Cry 2.0. It's graphics are hyped and overrated, much like it was the case with Far Cry. Also, who needs another FPS? Right now, bulk of games released are either FPS or generic fantasy MMORPGs. Somebody change the tune already.


Yes, these older systems can play Crysis, but not the way it was intended to be played. The graphics quality must be turned down

Hell, I haven't bought Crysis because of my hardware. If I can't play a game at completely maxed settings (except AA, I'm ok with 2x AA), I don't bother. Oh well, maybe next year.


----------



## DarkMatter (Dec 18, 2007)

Wile E said:


> Yes, these older systems can play Crysis, but not the way it was intended to be played. The graphics quality must be turned down
> 
> Hell, I haven't bought Crysis because of my hardware. If I can't play a game at completely maxed settings (except AA, I'm ok with 2x AA), I don't bother. Oh well, maybe next year.



So he was right. Since you can't play it maxed out, you don't play it at all. No matter that the game on medium/high settings looks better than most of other "next gen" games right? As he said ego...


----------



## Wile E (Dec 18, 2007)

DarkMatter said:


> So he was right. Since you can't play it maxed out, you don't play it at all. No matter that the game on medium/high settings looks better than most of other "next gen" games right? As he said ego...


Not ego. I just don't feel I'd be getting what I paid for, if I don't play it maxed out. I'm in the habit of constantly upgrading something, so when the card releases that lets me see Crysis at it's full potential, I'll buy and play the game. I'd feel ripped off playing it at medium settings. It may look absolutely wonderful on medium, but I would know it could look even better.


----------



## btarunr (Dec 18, 2007)

If you're selling your 2900, keep me in the know

C'mon Wile E, we can't have just everything at our disposal, can we? we have to make do with whatever we have. Would you play UT 3 if I told you that you'd need to buy a $120 PhysX card to experience a tornado and other physics? and attain 'best experience'?? Go to see your 2900 XT would make minced meat out of UT3 and that's a ferocious card. The difference is negligible. If I can get MSAA 4X that's more than enough for my 19" display which obviously isn't the best. End of the day I get the same thrills, chills, excitement that a video-game is supposed to give me, end of the day I'm entertained. and my video-card is worse than yours.


----------



## Wile E (Dec 18, 2007)

btarunr said:


> If you're selling your 2900, keep me in the know
> 
> C'mon Wile E, we can't have just everything at our disposal, can we? we have to make do with whatever we have. Would you play UT 3 if I told you that you'd need to buy a $120 PhysX card to experience a tornado and other physics? and attain 'best experience'?? Go to see your 2900 XT would make minced meat out of UT3 and that's a ferocious card. The difference is negligible. If I can get MSAA 4X that's more than enough for my 19" display which obviously isn't the best. End of the day I get the same thrills, chills, excitement that a video-game is supposed to give me, end of the day I'm entertained. and my video-card is worse than yours.


I wasn't very specific as to what I meant by max settings. I'm happy with just 2xAA 16XAF. I'll also sacrifice some physics, as long as I can turn all the rest of the graphical detail all the way up, including all textures, shadows and HDR features. I do have both GRAW and GRAW2 (Tho I wouldn't mind trying out a PhysX card on them.)

The only reason I won't buy UT3 is because I prefer single player shooters. I'm not big on online play. I prefer Unreal over UT.


----------



## DarkMatter (Dec 18, 2007)

Wile E said:


> Not ego. *I just don't feel I'd be getting what I paid for, if I don't play it maxed out*. I'm in the habit of constantly upgrading something, so when the card releases that lets me see Crysis at it's full potential, I'll buy and play the game. I'd feel ripped off playing it at medium settings. It may look absolutely wonderful on medium, but I would know it could look even better.



But my friend, that's exactly ego that's driving your acts. Crysis is giving us a lot more than any other game. So your claim would be true if they were selling the game for $70. But for $50 at medium settings they are offering exactly the same as any other AAA title out there, just that they offer a lot more for when we have the hardware to run it. That is you wanting more for less, as if they owed you something, and that's ego asking for more than what you deserve. I am not saying this only because of you, but because of how the gamer community has reacted about this game. IMO there's a big diference between stating that Crysis needs a really powerful PC to run it at max (true), and complain about this game being a crap because it can't run at ubersettings on latest hardware, which BTW it's one year old already. 



> I wasn't very specific as to what I meant by max settings. I'm happy with just 2xAA 16XAF. I'll also sacrifice some physics, as long as I can turn all the rest of the graphical detail all the way up, including all textures, shadows and HDR features.



I can't believe that you can't play it at High with your rig, since with my much less powerfull PC I can play it on medium with textures, object detail, shaders and water on high. Of course without AA, but the ego is really dominating you if you *have* to play with AA on. At your resolution AA is desirable, but nothing more. And it's really difficult to notice any difference between 8x and 16x AF, but the performance can drop critically. I haven't tried how much of a performance impact has on Crysis though, but I do have tried the impact on the appearance, negligible. A setting that has a great impact is shadow detail, Crysis shadows at medium are as good as COD4, UT3, GOW or Bioshock at highest, so if those are good enough, why isn't it on Crysis? The impact on performance is enormous, same with postprocessing effects, physiscs and pretty much every other setting really. As long as you keep textures and shaders on high, Crysis looks better compared to other titles. Of course those higher settings are what make Crysis stand over the other games in graphics, but as I said there's a big difference between not maxing t out and not having the better visuals. If Crysis on medium with shaders on high is not enough for you (not just you, anyone), neither is COD4 or any other game out there. If you need to max it out, just for the sake to max it out, that's ego.


----------



## cdawall (Dec 18, 2007)

AddSub said:


> Not really. An older and properly tweaked machine can run Crysis easy. All this Crysis hardware talk is just self-ego-stroking by people who just dropped $3000-$4000 or more on a brand new ultra _l33t_ supa-dupa system just to play games like Crysis, yet they see people with $300 boxes doing that just fine. At least that's the case here on TPU forums. There are maybe two or three threads I can recall where someone with a really, REALLY, old and inadequate system was complaining about Crysis. Myself I don't play Crysis because it's pretty much Far Cry 2.0. It's graphics are hyped and overrated, much like it was the case with Far Cry. Also, who needs another FPS? Right now, bulk of games released are either FPS or generic fantasy MMORPGs. Somebody change the tune already.



i tihnk my rig represents exactly what was just said here  came out to about $300 yet its playing the game just fine 


only complaint i have is it freezes with several AI on screen but thats fixable with either the 3400+ sitting on my desk or 2GB of ram...


----------



## D.F. (Dec 18, 2007)

DarkMatter said:


> So he was right. Since you can't play it maxed out, you don't play it at all. No matter that the game on medium/high settings looks better than most of other "next gen" games right? As he said ego...




I guess there's always some ego (or something like that), but, at least for my part, it's more about respect for the years of work of lots of people, and making justice to that work. It's like movies, I can see a light romantic drama on my 14 inch Tv but I deffinitly won't be seeing Transformers on it for the first time, maybe the second time I could. But how would I be making justice to it's years of work and special effects on a 14 inch tv? It's the same with crysis, you make no justice to it playing it with a 3 year old rig. I guess though you have to differentiate game lovers against those who look for mere entretainment. Myself, as a director of some independent shorts, I care for people to see my work the way it's supposed to be seen and not with low volume, small tv, bad colors, etc. I know how important it is, so I do the same the other way around. 
Even though there's money and entretainment all over this medium, there are lots of good artists behind who do it not only for money but because they were inspired to do something and did it with love, and that is something to be respected.


----------



## cdawall (Dec 18, 2007)

D.F. said:


> I guess there's always some ego (or something like that), but, at least for my part, it's more about respect for the years of work of lots of people, and making justice to that work. It's like movies, I can see a light romantic drama on my 14 inch Tv but I deffinitly won't be seeing Transformers on it for the first time, maybe the second time I could. But how would I be making justice to it's years of work and special effects on a 14 inch tv? It's the same with crysis, you make no justice to it playing it with a 3 year old rig. I guess though you have to differentiate game lovers against those who look for mere entretainment. Myself, as a director of some independent shorts, I care for people to see my work the way it's supposed to be seen and not with low volume, small tv, bad colors, etc. I know how important it is, so I do the same the other way around.
> Even though there's money and entretainment all over this medium, there are lots of good artists behind who do it not only for money but because they were inspired to do something and did it with love, and that is something to be respected.



so me not being able to afford a new rig means i shouldnt be able to play any of the new games?


----------



## D.F. (Dec 18, 2007)

cdawall said:


> so me not being able to afford a new rig means i shouldnt be able to play any of the new games?



Is up to you. Personally, I prefer to wait and play other great, somewhat older games that I can play in the meanwhile at their full settings. It's not about being that demanding either... If the game runs fine at high settings but not at maximum then I guess it's ok for me. But when it comes to medium-low, then I'd wait.


----------



## DarkMatter (Dec 18, 2007)

D.F. said:


> I guess there's always some ego (or something like that), but, at least for my part, it's more about respect for the years of work of lots of people, and making justice to that work. It's like movies, I can see a light romantic drama on my 14 inch Tv but I deffinitly won't be seeing Transformers on it for the first time, maybe the second time I could. But how would I be making justice to it's years of work and special effects on a 14 inch tv? It's the same with crysis, you make no justice to it playing it with a 3 year old rig. I guess though you have to differentiate game lovers against those who look for mere entretainment. Myself, as a director of some independent shorts, I care for people to see my work the way it's supposed to be seen and not with low volume, small tv, bad colors, etc. I know how important it is, so I do the same the other way around.
> Even though there's money and entretainment all over this medium, there are lots of good artists behind who do it not only for money but because they were inspired to do something and did it with love, and that is something to be respected.




It's completely the other way. They have put a lot of effort to make the game look great on slower machines too and by no buying the game now, just because you can't run it at max, and not any other reason, is somehow despreciative. They worked a lot on the project and by no buying the game, you are not giving them the recognition they deserve. If the sales of the game don't end up better they won't get involved in a game like this again, and not only them but all developers would see that innovating doesn't pay off. I feel a bit sad and dissapointed by the PC gamer community in regards to this. And it's not that they are not offering good quality graphics on current hardware, because they do and better than most others, it's because the people wants more for the same. It's not because they don't offer superb graphics on today's hardware, just like COD4 or UT3, it's because the yet better than that level of quality, despite being there, is not available to the majority of people yet. I sometimes feel that if Crysis would have launched with the same graphics level as COD4 or Bioshock, if a mixture of current Medium/High settings (as the one I wrote before), was the maximum possible, no one would have said anything and would have just enjoyed the game and the graphics. Crytek said long ago and many times that the game would be scalable, both with 2 year old hardware counting from the launch day and hardware that wouldn't be still launched, so that when new hardware came in you could benefit from a new level of realism. It's not as if they tried to fool anyone, they have delivered exactly that. But I guess it's part of human being to want more than what one deserves.
In the end, following your example:
I agree with you in that a film like Transformers should be seen in the best media possible. And the same applies to Crysis. If I did a short film, I would like pleople to see it on the best media possible, but if I had put many efforts in that short beyond how it looks, so that those with 14" screens can enloy it too, I would like that people to:
a- See it on the screen they already have and enjoy it, because I think that on that media my short film is at least as good as any other one.
b- If they think it would look better on a bigger TV, hope they buy a new one and see it as I wanted it to be seen.

But I wouldn't want those people not to see it, and not only that, but I wouldn't want them to blame me and downplay my short just because it doesn't look as good as it does on bigger screens...

End of rant.


----------



## btarunr (Dec 18, 2007)

^ This is the level at which people think in the TPU forums. Certainly the standards are raised.


----------



## D.F. (Dec 18, 2007)

DarkMatter said:


> It's completely the other way. They have put a lot of effort to make the game look great on slower machines too and by no buying the game now, just because you can't run it at max, and not any other reason, is somehow despreciative. They worked a lot on the project and by no buying the game, you are not giving them the recognition they deserve. If the sales of the game don't end up better they won't get involved in a game like this again, and not only them but all developers would see that innovating doesn't pay off. I feel a bit sad and dissapointed by the PC gamer community in regards to this. And it's not that they are not offering good quality graphics on current hardware, because they do and better than most others, it's because the people wants more for the same. It's not because they don't offer superb graphics on today's hardware, just like COD4 or UT3, it's because the yet better than that level of quality, despite being there, is not available to the majority of people yet. I sometimes feel that if Crysis would have launched with the same graphics level as COD4 or Bioshock, if a mixture of current Medium/High settings (as the one I wrote before), was the maximum possible, no one would have said anything and would have just enjoyed the game and the graphics. Crytek said long ago and many times that the game would be scalable, both with 2 year old hardware counting from the launch day and hardware that wouldn't be still launched, so that when new hardware came in you could benefit from a new level of realism. It's not as if they tried to fool anyone, they have delivered exactly that. But I guess it's part of human being to want more than what one deserves.
> In the end, following your example:
> I agree with you in that a film like Transformers should be seen in the best media possible. And the same applies to Crysis. If I did a short film, I would like pleople to see it on the best media possible, but if I had put many efforts in that short beyond how it looks, so that those with 14" screens can enloy it too, I would like that people to:
> a- See it on the screen they already have and enjoy it, because I think that on that media my short film is at least as good as any other one.
> ...




I never said anything about not buying it or not playing it. I said I'd wait. Their efforts will be paid off eventually. You say I'm not giving them the recognition they deserve, but I will, cause I will buy the game, just not now. Who knows, maybe the guys at crytek foresaw this was gonna happen in the first months, and they know sales are gonna boost as people buy their new riggs. Or maybe the game isn't selling well for some other reason. Whatever the reason, I still wan't the most of the game, and I'm free to wait. If the guys at crytek did such an effort in making the game scalable, then that's good, it works for lots of people, that's why they did it, but not for other people like me. Wanting to play the game maxed out (or nearly) is a personal choice which has no reason not to be respected.


----------



## zekrahminator (Dec 18, 2007)

Don't be hating each other, it's just a game...


I'm getting Crysis as soon as I have more money to spend on video games. And I'm the guy with the X850XT...


Granted, I am asking for a better PSU for Christmas, so I can in turn get a better graphics card .


----------



## cdawall (Dec 18, 2007)

D.F. said:


> Is up to you. Personally, I prefer to wait and play other great, somewhat older games that I can play in the meanwhile at their full settings. It's not about being that demanding either... If the game runs fine at high settings but not at maximum then I guess it's ok for me. But when it comes to medium-low, then I'd wait.



well i play @ med/high settings on my low-cost, older rig and still pull 10-60fps in game

honestly if i can play it i will, graphics should never supercede gameplay


----------



## DarkMatter (Dec 18, 2007)

zekrahminator said:


> Don't be hating each other, it's just a game...



Don't worry no hating here. 



D.F. said:


> I never said anything about not buying it or not playing it. I said I'd wait. Their efforts will be paid off eventually. You say I'm not giving them the recognition they deserve, but I will, cause I will buy the game, just not now. Who knows, maybe the guys at crytek foresaw this was gonna happen in the first months, and they know sales are gonna boost as people buy their new riggs. Or maybe the game isn't selling well for some other reason. Whatever the reason, I still wan't the most of the game, and I'm free to wait. If the guys at crytek did such an effort in making the game scalable, then that's good, it works for lots of people, that's why they did it, but not for other people like me. Wanting to play the game maxed out (or nearly) is a personal choice which has no reason not to be respected.



Yeah and I respect your decision. Indeed one of the reasons I'm upgrading to a 8800gt is Crysis. The other being that my second rig, with a 6800gt, can't play the games I want as well as I want.
But as I said before, there's a big difference between wanting to play a game at the maximum IQ level posible and what Wile E said, which is to what I responded.



> If I can't play a game at completely maxed settings (except AA, I'm ok with 2x AA), I don't bother.





> Not ego. I just don't feel I'd be getting what I paid for, if I don't play it maxed out.





> I'd feel ripped off playing it at medium settings. It may look absolutely wonderful on medium, but I would know it could look even better.



Not trying to attack you Wile. I think that I do catch your point, and that you didn't really think that way, at least not that radical. But since men are judged by their acts and no by their thoughts, I had to reply to your comments.

Anyway, there isn't anything wrong on waiting until you upgrade for playing Crysis or any other game (I have done that, indeed). There is in downplaying a game because you can't max it out, be it intentional or not. And sentences like "if I can't max it out I don't bother", "I'd feel ripped of" and more importantly "I don't feel I'd be getting waht I paid for" do exactly that. Since all games sell for the same, stating that you wouldn't get what you paid for, is clearly downplaying the game. I like making comparisons with cars so here we go: 
Imagine that Ferrari starts selling Modena cars with 200HP, with the option to upgrade to the 500+ HP model later. Apart from the motor, all the other parts are the same. If they sell that car for the same price as most other cars (tet's say $20000), you just can't feel you are not getting what you paid for, just because you are not getting the 500HP model. You can't expect to get the great Ferrari at budget prices. At the price, you get the tyres, you get the suspension, you get everything except over the top horsepower, you get the car, you get the Ferrari.

Wile, I don't have anything against your decisions or your thoughts either. But I do have my reservations about what you said, in the way you said. I hope it's all clear this and that there isn't any harm. 

@ D.F. again

If you care to read my first post(s) again you would realize that I didn't have anything against you in the first place, I'd have replied to post #48 otherwise. But the post in which you talked about the short film, quoted a post that wasn't about you and just didn't make much sense IMO. The more gratificating thing for Crytek would be the next.
Dec. 2007 : "Ey guys, I have played Crysis at medium settings and I loved it!"
Mid 2008 : "I have played it at max and WHOHOHOHOOOOAAAAA!!! "

See ya!


----------



## Morgoth (Dec 18, 2007)

i downloaded crysis and i'm not hapy with it.. needs more guns and its to short in the snow zone


----------



## eidairaman1 (Dec 18, 2007)

I My Machine Specs are low and i Ran UT 3 on 1024x768 with Level 2 Detail and 100% Rendering. Crysis im really unsure about.


DarkMatter said:


> It's completely the other way. They have put a lot of effort to make the game look great on slower machines too and by no buying the game now, just because you can't run it at max, and not any other reason, is somehow despreciative. They worked a lot on the project and by no buying the game, you are not giving them the recognition they deserve. If the sales of the game don't end up better they won't get involved in a game like this again, and not only them but all developers would see that innovating doesn't pay off. I feel a bit sad and dissapointed by the PC gamer community in regards to this. And it's not that they are not offering good quality graphics on current hardware, because they do and better than most others, it's because the people wants more for the same. It's not because they don't offer superb graphics on today's hardware, just like COD4 or UT3, it's because the yet better than that level of quality, despite being there, is not available to the majority of people yet. I sometimes feel that if Crysis would have launched with the same graphics level as COD4 or Bioshock, if a mixture of current Medium/High settings (as the one I wrote before), was the maximum possible, no one would have said anything and would have just enjoyed the game and the graphics. Crytek said long ago and many times that the game would be scalable, both with 2 year old hardware counting from the launch day and hardware that wouldn't be still launched, so that when new hardware came in you could benefit from a new level of realism. It's not as if they tried to fool anyone, they have delivered exactly that. But I guess it's part of human being to want more than what one deserves.
> In the end, following your example:
> I agree with you in that a film like Transformers should be seen in the best media possible. And the same applies to Crysis. If I did a short film, I would like pleople to see it on the best media possible, but if I had put many efforts in that short beyond how it looks, so that those with 14" screens can enloy it too, I would like that people to:
> a- See it on the screen they already have and enjoy it, because I think that on that media my short film is at least as good as any other one.
> ...


----------



## AsRock (Dec 18, 2007)

i stoped buying UT quite some time ago TvT is not my thing any longer. How ever i am interested in Crysis just cannot afford it.  Prefure games like OFP \ Arma ( Human v's AI ) my self now and is only when i'll spend $50 on a game.  I'll wait till the price drops most likely as i be only buying it for the SP...


----------



## DarkMatter (Dec 18, 2007)

eidairaman1 said:


> I My Machine Specs are low and i Ran UT 3 on 1024x768 with Level 2 Detail and 100% Rendering. Crysis im really unsure about.



Have you tried the demo? If not give it a try. Acording to gamespot's hardware guide (http://www.gamespot.com/features/6182806/p-5.html) the 1950 pro runs it better than 7900GTX. Though mine runs the game a lot better than what they state, maybe because mine has pixel shaders OCed from factory and I have overclocked the core a 10% more (shaders overclock acordingly too). Anyway you shouldn't have any problems running it on medium, probaby with shaders on high at 1024x768. I'm taking into account that your CPU is rather old, but I don't think it will have such an impact on your graphics card as the one that is having the 8800gtx in those benchmarks, but it's hard to say. The fourth system in the overview tab (A64 4000+, x1650XT, 2GB ram) suggest you can play it well. Maybe you should put physics on low with that CPU, but that's all. Try out the demo, and do some tweaking. 

EDIT: I would have expected better performance on UT3 from your rig though. Anyway your system is a win over the consoles itseft. Except the GPU that rig (the tech under it) has at least 4-5 years and still in the fight.  Who said you need to upgrade every year?


----------



## cdawall (Dec 18, 2007)

eidairaman1 said:


> I My Machine Specs are low and i Ran UT 3 on 1024x768 with Level 2 Detail and 100% Rendering. Crysis im really unsure about.



it should run just fine i run it on my rig and with your cpu@2.2ghz it should be even if not better than mine @2ghz

my settings if you want to try them are these (click on it to see full size )


----------



## DarkMatter (Dec 19, 2007)

cdawall said:


> it should run just fine i run it on my rig and with your cpu@2.2ghz it should be even if not better than mine @2ghz
> 
> my settings if you want to try them are these (click on it to see full size )



 I can't believe your OC on that 7800GS on stock cooler. It's insane!! +86% overclock. 

I would recommend him everything medium, w/ textures and shaders on high, instead. At least if the 1950 pro is as much better as gamespot said in Crysis, it could be worth a try. Postprocessing on high kills my performance.


----------



## cdawall (Dec 19, 2007)

DarkMatter said:


> I can't believe your OC on that 7800GS on stock cooler. It's insane!! +75% overclock.
> 
> I would recommend him everything medium, w/ textures and shaders on high, instead. At least if the 1950 pro is as much better as gamespot said in Crysis, it could be worth a try. Postprocessing on high kills my performance.



that was a maxed run i run normal @565/770 and the core doesnt heat up over 50C on the stock cooler


----------



## DarkMatter (Dec 19, 2007)

cdawall said:


> that was a maxed run i run normal @565/770 and the core doesnt heat up over 50C on the stock cooler



Anyway nice OC. 
BUT LOL. You changed +86% to +75%? 
7800GS Nvidia's stock is 375. 700/375=1,8666666666666666666666666666666666666


----------



## eidairaman1 (Dec 19, 2007)

Well i have a Sapphire board to send off for RMA, and also my main rig is giving me fits upon OS install, not sure if its the mod bios or ram, but it stops during OS install, so im going to probably end up building a new machine or using my old MSI K7N2 Delta-L motherboard. The speeds i was advertising was on the Radeon AIW 9800 Pro


cdawall said:


> it should run just fine i run it on my rig and with your cpu@2.2ghz it should be even if not better than mine @2ghz
> 
> my settings if you want to try them are these (click on it to see full size )


----------



## Wile E (Dec 19, 2007)

DarkMatter said:


> Don't worry no hating here.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


With your analogy, I just wouldn't buy the 200HP Ferrari. I guess I didn't word myself properly, as yes, I would be getting what I paid for, but at the same time, I would know that things could be so much better. Knowing that it could be even better kinda takes away from it's glory. That's not to say Crysis isn't a good game, I will be buying it, but I'm waiting till I can play it maxed or at least really, reeeeeallly close to maxed in DX10. The Very High XP hack might be acceptable, but I've yet to test it. (Don't have the money to spend on the game, atm, anyway.)

I've done this with every game that pushes the envelope, and will continue to do so, as I just really enjoy being able to see these improvements in all of their glory. (Now if I could just afford that 1920x1200 monitor. lol)


----------



## Lopez0101 (Dec 19, 2007)

Well, you know you could always get the game now, play it and then when you upgrade your rig you could always play it again, but with higher settings. A year or two after a game comes out when the hardware has caught up to the game it's usually fun to play through it again.


----------



## cdawall (Dec 19, 2007)

DarkMatter said:


> Anyway nice OC.
> BUT LOL. You changed +86% to +75%?
> 7800GS Nvidia's stock is 375. 700/375=1,8666666666666666666666666666666666666



lol i did BFG specs them @400 os its 75% in my book


----------



## DarkMatter (Dec 19, 2007)

Wile E said:


> With your analogy, I just wouldn't buy the 200HP Ferrari. I guess I didn't word myself properly, as yes, I would be getting what I paid for, but at the same time, I would know that things could be so much better. Knowing that it could be even better kinda takes away from it's glory. That's not to say Crysis isn't a good game, I will be buying it, but I'm waiting till I can play it maxed or at least really, reeeeeallly close to maxed in DX10. The Very High XP hack might be acceptable, but I've yet to test it. (Don't have the money to spend on the game, atm, anyway.)
> 
> I've done this with every game that pushes the envelope, and will continue to do so, as I just really enjoy being able to see these improvements in all of their glory. (Now if I could just afford that 1920x1200 monitor. lol)



Now that is a way to explain it. No problem with that, that's ok. With Doom3 I did more or less the same. Well not really, I played a hacked copy with a Geforce 4800 at high settings 800x600. And later I bought the 6800GT and Doom3, so I played it maxed out (Then I worked already so I had the money). Nothing else, it's all said and well, peace. 

Humm... I'm just curious now, you wouldn't buy that Ferrari and buy another car, or you wouldn't buy none at all? Nothing to do with the analogy with games. But I exagerated a bit to try to make my point clearer. I thought that Ferrari cheapo would be sooo sweet... 

About the monitor: don't buy that, dude!! Stay away from that temptation.  Or you will never be able to play Crysis or any other demanding game in the near future , at least if you can't afford a 9800GTX when it comes out.


----------



## DarkMatter (Dec 19, 2007)

cdawall said:


> lol i did BFG specs them @400 os its 75% in my book



Yeah, I supposed that, but why didn't you just tell that, instead of correcting it in my own quote? 
Anyway stock overclocked cards don't necessarily overclock a lot further than standard ones. They do select the fastest ones for the OC models, but cmon, you know what I mean. You got a nice OC.


----------



## cdawall (Dec 19, 2007)

DarkMatter said:


> Yeah, I supposed that, but why didn't you just tell that, instead of correcting it in my own quote?
> Anyway stock overclocked cards don't necessarily overclock a lot further than standard ones. They do select the fastest ones for the OC models, but cmon, you know what I mean. You got a nice OC.



yea thanks  it is an insane oc IMO


----------



## niko084 (Dec 19, 2007)

UT3 is cool but I don't see why it would sell huge...

Crysis just needs too much to really run.


----------



## Wile E (Dec 20, 2007)

DarkMatter said:


> Now that is a way to explain it. No problem with that, that's ok. With Doom3 I did more or less the same. Well not really, I played a hacked copy with a Geforce 4800 at high settings 800x600. And later I bought the 6800GT and Doom3, so I played it maxed out (Then I worked already so I had the money). Nothing else, it's all said and well, peace.
> 
> Humm... I'm just curious now, you wouldn't buy that Ferrari and buy another car, or you wouldn't buy none at all? Nothing to do with the analogy with games. But I exagerated a bit to try to make my point clearer. I thought that Ferrari cheapo would be sooo sweet...
> 
> About the monitor: don't buy that, dude!! Stay away from that temptation.  Or you will never be able to play Crysis or any other demanding game in the near future , at least if you can't afford a 9800GTX when it comes out.


Well, if things pan out the way I hope, top gfx cards will be falling in my lap soon, thank you Team Palit. 

As far as the Ferrari, I probably would just buy another car. Something a little more "budget tuner" friendly. Or, just buy a cheap used car until I could afford something better than the Ferrari.


----------

