funny how under "1. Optimizations and Stability" they havent got anything to make it run better on peoples rigs :P
You would think that they would try and figure out ways of optimising it on current systems so that they can sell copies of the game.

They brought this game out too quick, they shouldve waited till the next gen of cards... really quite upsetting to spend money on a Q6600, HD2900, 4GB's Ram only to find it runs crap and nothing out there will actually run it properly so that you can get a decent player experience.

but will it improve performance across the board like they said 1.1 would do :P

twicksistedfunny how under "1. Optimizations and Stability" they havent got anything to make it run better on peoples rigs :P
You would think that they would try and figure out ways of optimising it on current systems so that they can sell copies of the game.

They brought this game out too quick, they shouldve waited till the next gen of cards... really quite upsetting to spend money on a Q6600, HD2900, 4GB's Ram only to find it runs crap and nothing out there will actually run it properly so that you can get a decent player experience.

i dont agree, crytek guys WARRNED EVERYBODY that they wouldnt beable to play this game at very high/ultra high settings on current rigs, they wanted this game to be one that would last as an example of what the new cryengine can do for years to come, the game still looks good even with stuff not maxed out, at mid settings it looks better then other top games of today at max settings.....to me thats saying something.

they could just remove current high and very high with a patch, change medium to very high and so on and so forth and then people would feel better about their current rigs, but then later they would need to patch the game back to how it is now.....whats the point of that!!!!

tho it would have been fun if they had orignaly put it out with it set so that very high and high where acctualy medium and low then later patched it so that it was like it is now, would have been a hoot to see people patch and then post in shock and awe because it raised the gfx quility so much in 1 patch :P

ChillyMysti dont agree, crytek guys WARRNED EVERYBODY that they wouldnt beable to play this game

yeah i hear what you saying but thats still pretty useless.. i mean its not like it even plays well at low / medium settings...

Its pretty crap to try and sell something that dosent actually work as intended becuase its impossible with current hardware... actually if you can do that and people are stupid enough to go for it, well shame on them i guess and laugh all the way to the bank ;)

ChillyMyst... the game still looks good even with stuff not maxed out, at mid settings it looks better then other top games of today at max settings.....to me thats saying something.

O boy, somebody hire didn't play COD4 I think. Take a look at it man. You wouldn't regret for that. It goes on my PC with 91+ frames everything on MAX. , and I did not know how much above 91. And the multilayer -when I first saw it my breath stops.
About Crysis - yeah phenomenal min. 9; max. 31; average 26 frames per second on the same PC (OS Win XP SP3 RC). And I have to say that on Vista 64 Ultimate - it is unplayable.

twicksisted...really quite upsetting to spend money on a Q6600, HD2900, 4GB's Ram only to find it runs crap and nothing out there will actually run it properly so that you can get a decent player experience.

Agreed. We are talking for a decent amount of money too. Especially when it comes to the RAM sticks (2k+ for Corsair 4GB & Vista64) It is fair to say that Crysis was said to be ready more then a year ago. Most of us - Crysis fans have maid upgrade in the end of 2006/ beginning of 2007year to meet its demands.

:O you gotta watch saying that about vista, some of the vista fanboi's will get all mad about you dissing their favorite POS-OS

and i have seen cod4, gotta say that i still feel crysis is more realistic, not that it feels like im really there, but the phsyics and such in SP are just insain, shoot a tree down and squish ur enimys :D

hehe... i got COD4... and i finished it in a weekend.... multiplayer is a bit too crazy... spawn, walk die... spawn, walk, duck shoot die... spawn shoot kill, die...

COD4 is actually great and im very impressed what my single HD2900pro (XT clocks) does with it on a 24" screen maxxed to the limit.. but still im venting about crysis...

Its kinda like me selling something and after you buy it saying, well actually it wont work for a few years but eventually it will be fine... thats bollocks...

Im sure by now you realise that the new gen cards ( X2's ) arent even gonna do this game justice... we have to wait for the following or even one more after that.... and by then crysis will be old news!

but they did warn you b4 hand, read the press stuff from them from B4 the game even came out, they warrned that current systems wouldnt beable to play the game at its max settings any time soon, but that you would beable to play it on current systems.

and i know people with laptops that played the game 1600,8600,2600 mobility units that dont give the same perf as a desktop videocard, sure they had to turn stuff down, but the game would run.......

again this game if effectivly a tech demo for the engine, companys can build games that dont offer the same level of gfx as crysis at very high using the same engine, but look as tood as it does at medium.

effectivly for now any company that uses cryengine2 will probbly use crysis's medium as their ultra high/very high setting, and low as medium, and go even lower for the low settings, but when the time comes that mainstream hardware can deal with the crysis very high settings then game devs will beable keep using the same engine not have to modify it or buy a licence to yet another engine.

your just looking at it as an "i bought the game and am pissed i cant play it at very high settings on my current system" when i and many others including game developers are looking at it as "this is kool, this engine will last a few years"

i use to think like you, i use to think that i shouldnt have to upgrade my gaming rig every couple years to beable to play all the latist games at my max res with all the eye candy cranked, then i started to realise that it truely is games that drive the pc industry to advance.

think about it, if games didnt requier more and more power and more and more speed we would all still be using windows 3.11 grade systems, because honestly a 386dx40 is enought for you to email and do word prosessing on.........

but thanks to games we have uber powerfull GPU's, extreamly powerfull cpu's(anything made in the last few years, even the nasty p4's is uber powerfull for a normal work system)

way i see it, if crysis drives ati/amd, nvidia,intel and the rest to develop new chips and offer them at reasonable prices ALL THE BETTER!!!!!!

*tim taylor voice* "more power!!!!" "grunt grunt grunt"

Reasonable, but if somebody with no experience in PC hardware/software reads this and is looking to buy a new PC it is most likely that he/she will spend 6k+ USD (HDD not included) for something like this:
- Intel® Core™2 Extreme processor QX9650
-2 x Nvidia 8800 Ultra
- MB Intel x48 DDR3 deluxe :laugh:
- 4 or even 8 GB DDR3 RAM Patriot Extreme Performance DDR3 1600 :rockout:
- Fusion-io SSD 2x640GB HDD :nutkick:
- 30" LCD Monitor
- fancy case
and so on, and so on
...
last ones Vista 64 bit Ultimate + Crysis :respect:
And guess what the game probably won't be playable at Very High.

Crysis is not slow because it so ''next gen", it's slow as hell because the programmers misused unproven technologies in a way that is meant to cope with Microsoft agenda more than delivering a polished and optimised product. Crytech is a business which don't care about the gamers, they only care about the technological agreements they made with microsoft, i.e.: Release a game that will only play, with all features, on their useless new OS, Vista.

Anyway, that's the way I see it. :rolleyes:

great anothr ms hater who sees wolves in all the shadows............

i hate vista but i dont see wolves in all the shadows, infact i know how game makers think, and they dont really care about much other then selling their wares and moving onto the next project..

simlariver i bet you said the same thing when crytech brought out farcry's 64bit patch, probbly where winging that they where trying to force you to go buy a 64 bit system and os so you could run the game at full quility..(it is a nice boost in SP!!!) when the truth is that crytech just made a 64bit version to give 64bit system owners something uniq to play with that their 32bit counterparts didnt have, not that they couldnt have made all the advancements in 32bit as well, but thats not the point.

we will see how well the forced dx10 thing goes down, really nobody i know plays crysis or most dx10 games in dx10 even if they run vista because the perf hits just to big for the little if any benifit they get from using dx10 mode.

i will stick with x64 pro, vista can kiss my arse, windows7 may have a chance with me if it comes out on time and delivers whats promised :)

Well, the farcry X64 patch, as far as I know, did not brought anything that was impossible to do on 32bit systems... It was part of a partnership with AMD to add value to they Athlon64 processors.

Anyway. I will, just like you, keep my XP-64 and wait for windows 7. Enven if it comes in 2011 because Vista is Windows Me all again :shadedshu

I hate Cryshit...i was baptized by COD4

Seriously... take a long god damn look at COD4, man that game is going to be in the hall of fame, thats the standard we gamers go for today, Cryshit was really a bag of-shit man, i ran it with the latest parts, my hard drive was Samsung T1 f1, and still the jitters just drove me mad...oh did anyone play up to the 2 final boss on the ship, well i had manage to, but just guess what ???
"i freakin literally fell through the damn hard deck...no really, like fall right through" man i was so pissed i uninstalled it right after, didn't even bother to see what the ending was like. i hear its some halo 2 knock off.
the X-play review was horrid, a mean those guys complete totaled it, they even showed the well known bug of an over turned tank still firing around, why couldn't they just waited a few more months to clean up all those bugs.

R_1last ones Vista 64 bit Ultimate + Crysis :respect:
And guess what the game probably won't be playable at Very High.

You know i wouldn't mind if i wasn't able to play on Very High...but the truth is i was able to, cause i had 8800gt's in SLI and yeah sure they built a game for the future...thats understandable, but the crappy AI, crappy voice overs, Bugs...those alone will just throw you off, i uninstalled the game twice, i reinstalled it again cause i was board and didnt have COD4 just yet :), i just cant see my self playing this game a year later when tech is up to requirements, by then the competition is going to be sick with the latest and greatest.

I don't know how some dude said it was realistic based on shooting down some trees, the guns to me didn't feel realistic at all, the reason why we all talk about COD4 is because COD4 is now the standard we go for, nothin less, only better, Cryshit was suppose to be tha must have game but i'll let sale statistics speak for them selves.

Man i am just so glad i didn't waste my 50 bucks on this bag a hype, and to believe it was actually going to be good, damn it even up to now that stinking background music still playing in my head, man it was hideous... dont get me started on the voice overs, as for fan boys man they are so in denial, pretty pictures and graphics don't fizzle us anymore and i could go on about how bad this game was, but its just not worth my time, real gamers know a real game when they play it.

Man i just love those sexy ass British S.A.S voice overs. Oh well off to some COD4...:)

why do so many people in this thread break forum rules by not posting their sig specs in the forum profiles :(


for the guy who mentioned vista: try running it in DX9 mode. not my faut if your hardware cant hack DX10, mine sure can!

my system could coap with dx10 mode, but i just dont see the point of dual booting vista when 99% of the time i would be in x64pro, honestly, i would say 2/3 of my apps dont work properly or at all under vista due to known issues with vista itself(ms claims some of these are to be fixed with sp1......we will see)

vista performs worse then x64pro and server 2003 x32 in every bench/test i ran back when i was testing vista, and thats BRAND NEW CLEAN INSTALL of vista vs a year old install of server 2003 ent...........thats sad.........really sad.....

ChillyMystmy system could coap with dx10 mode, but i just dont see the point of dual booting vista when 99% of the time i would be in x64pro, honestly, i would say 2/3 of my apps dont work properly or at all under vista due to known issues with vista itself(ms claims some of these are to be fixed with sp1......we will see)

vista performs worse then x64pro and server 2003 x32 in every bench/test i ran back when i was testing vista, and thats BRAND NEW CLEAN INSTALL of vista vs a year old install of server 2003 ent...........thats sad.........really sad.....

vistas better for everyday use, rather than outright performance. I'm happy with that, as i do more general things than i do gaming (more of an anime/media person, gaming is 2ndary)

2/3 of your apps is a lot more than usual... i've only had 2, and they were quite old programs.

Man , somebody had just did it. Crysis on Very High
Or not. From www.Guru3D.com
Frames per second Gameplay
<30 FPS very limited gameplay
30-40 FPS average yet very playable
40-60 FPS good gameplay
>60 FPS best possible gameplay