Wow! The first slamming of Crysis.

I'm actually relieved to hear negatives since it's not all the usual drivel based on just hype.

I'm also a bit disappointed at what the suit seems to be doing to the gameplay that I loved the most in Far Cry. I liked knowing I had to sneak through the woods undetected, and if I got detected at certain points, it would definitely mean my death. With the suit, it seems like that will be virtually gone.

Furthermore, tech demoes from 2 years ago showed brush moving as you walked, now the shrubs are just static. WTF!

Over last few months I have had this growing feeling that Crysis is being too marketed to 2 - 3 year old PC's. That would be idiotic, but it seems very much to be going in that direction. You don't try to market or sell a Ferrari to people that only drive 55. Nor should you market the Ferrari of games to people that obviously have no interest in the graphical wonders that Crysis once promised. 2 year old hardware should be the min. limit for this game, not an Intel 2.8ghz, Nvidia 6600 SM 2.0, RAM: 768Mb. Those min specs are really ridiculous, even the recommended specs are really weak. They neutered the game to fit in ridiculously weak minimum specs. Well, they better have the greatest gameplay because the graphics likely won't be able to scale from those weak min specs to be what we all hoped for, from early tech demo's and screen shots. Bigger textures and better shadows eating up GPU's is not real scaling. It's not what it could have been if you didn't aim so low. Maybe it's the future of moving the engine to console (we all know it will absolutely happen, or you should now if you didn't before).

I really hope the engine is not being dumbed down for 2 - 3 year old PC's or the near future console ports. But alas, that is very much what it looks like has been happening.


This comment was edited on Aug 14, 18:56.

PC Gaming isn't dead. It's the trying to make games for the console audience that kills games in general. I don't doubt that this game will come to console too, but I don't know either way and maybe they haven't announced that port yet.

Trying to make a game based on what you think people will like is a horrible way to make a game. It's the BEST recipe for disaster!

Try making a game that the developers or creative directors find the most fun, entertaining, challenging, addictive. Then you are well on your way to making a great game and finding success.

For XP to actually receive a genuine service pack, would only hurt Microsofts dominant desire to push Vista and soon end support on XP (thereby forcing adoption to Vista).

SP3 priority has to be hugely lower than a year ago. Maybe it will come out one day, but it's not likely to be all that it could be.

Maybe MS can find ways to slow down or cripple XP, making Vista look comparatively more beneficial.

This comment was edited on Aug 12, 17:07.

Okay no. Flagship's Hell Gate:London is DX10/Vista because of MS involvement. The Alpha of HGL is on XP/DX9, but they already said they are forcing the move to DX10 due to commitments.

And Flagship is not the only DEV that has DX10 projeccts that have Vista / LIVE tie-ins that require upgrades.

You seem to be missing the obvious points of developers utilizing a technology that currently does nothing beneficial for us gamers. Nothing! But you did buy into the hype, Microsoft is paying developers to use DX10. And for some developers, that isn't even enough to waste the time on a seperate renderer from what it really takes away in real productivity from the game rather than messing with DX10. I wonder how long it will take, how many DX10 games, before gullible people realize that reality of performance is contrary to the words.

As a gamer now all you can say is, look my uber PC is running DX10 while you only have DX9 on XP, l00z3rs. And yet the DX10 always performs worse when you can't notice anything graphically better. Silly, but that is all DX10 provides for us, until possibly when a game were to be written in it from the ground up, but Vista still performs poorly on it's own. While XP is around and DX9 performs better, which it does and will for a long time, no one will be going full DX10, just for marketing purposes for gullible people.

I have an 8800 but I never bought it for DX10, DX10 is a joke and won't be utilized for a couple years. And by then, we will have something actually worth developers time of using. Unfortunately it's in all our best interests to skip over the 8800 and 2900 cards and go to wddm2 compliant hardware ASAP.

This is all a cluster fuck with the chicken and the egg fiasco. It was poor planning by Microsoft because they needed to get Vista out when they did, now everyone like GPU companies has to struggle to adapt for the next couple years on how to get this to level off.

For now DX9 will be great for the next several years. Until MS figures out what they are doing, and at the very least makes Vista something worth adopting over XP.

This comment was edited on Aug 12, 16:31.

Well let's hope that wddm2 arrives with SP1, because WDDM2 will definitely require new hardware to support it. It will be interesting to see what will happen once native DX10+ games start appearing in a few years.

DX10 should be skipped and left behind. Unfortunately too many people have purchased DX10 hardware and it will be tempting in a couple years for devs to write for it. Hopefully next spring will bring wddm2 and DX10.1 compliant hardware and we can forget about the joke DX10 in a few years.

DX10 won't really be used for the next couple years anyway, except as a marketing stunt, because it has no reason to be used yet, plus it is on a slower gaming platform. The Sooner the hardware supports the next revisions, the better we will all be, so people can figure out we will be skipping over DX10 and wddm1.

DX9 is here for the next few years, DX10 will be a joke for now.
This comment was edited on Aug 12, 03:58.

5 weeks to duplicate that sucker.
I'll be picking this up.

If those are the requirements, this game should look BEYOND amazing. But it doesn't. It looks like crap. If it really requires those kind of specs just to play, that tells me the engineers and software coders are all newbies and don't know WTF they are doing.

Either that or they had problems with epic's UE3 engine. Which could become horrible for Epic if this turns from success of lots of licensees into a class action, or atleast a growing list of licensee issues.

Bioshock will show alot on how well it does with UE3. Hopefully it isn't a UE3 difficulty being experienced, that would be bad for everyone, especially Epic.

I wouldn't mind a game really having those minimum specs, if it made full use of them.
From the sound of peoples experience with the AI in the demo, I guess Midway forgot that they can devote more CPU time to AI, requiring multi-core and all.

Real proper minimum specs like this are at least a year away in properly done games.

It would be great if a game like Crysis had these specs, because you know the Crytek developers would make full use of them in the game world.

But if these are real it's because they don't have time, desire or ability to optimize for PC. I don't think it would come through in the actual game levels as uber graphics and gameplay.

I remember when water was free.

80% of the earth is covered in water, but I want to pay a lot of money for it.

If only I could buy air in a can, that would be awesome.

http://www.coolhunting.com/archives/2006/06/oxygen_in_a_can.php

Cool another November title.
Hopefully it's the "we want to polish it more" kind of push back.

The infamous "soon" looms again!

Since I just saw the movie yesterday, got to give it a whirl.

After the demo, I never even wanted the game.
Shame too, I really liked the originals. Certain things don't translate well 10 years later without some innovation, unless your South Korean ofcourse, can't forget SC2.

I'm looking forward to hearing the consensus on this game after beta goes for a while.

I'm sure their will be hardcore fans sticking to the game like glue, their always is when any current/previous Blizzard employees are involved in a game.

I think somewhere in development they lost site of the game they were really wanting to make, but it's too early to really say. Current info just seems to leave me and the game wanting.

Anyway, I hope for the best.

Best PC Game is missing Bioshock, which does not bode well for the game in other fields. Somehow Quake Wars is there though.

If Best of Show is won by Rock Band, I may have to start focusing on other hobbies like fishing and remote control.

I can answer this a couple ways:

It's doomed because it fails often.

It fails before it was doomed to fail.

The recommendation against using four memory modules comes from the fact that a lot of people who buy certain CPUs are going to overclock them, and using more than two memory modules makes that harder to do...This applies particularly strongly to bus-speed overclocking, the only kind you can perform on a non-Extreme-Edition Core 2 Quad. Increasing the processor bus speed increases the speed of things other than the CPU, and also makes perfect timing more important; you often need to bump up CPU and RAM voltage to get higher speeds to work, and that increases power draw too.

I'm fairly sure 4x1GB RAM in recent motherboards overclocks much better than the limitations inherent to 2x2GB sticks. 2GB sticks are bad overclockers compared to 1GB sticks in their frequency limitations. Furthermore the four slot issue isn't as pronounced as it once was with mobo & chipsets back in the day.

In a real world situation a person should be able to spend less money, get 1GB lower latency sticks, and be able to get much higher frequencies with those sticks for an overclock.

I think 4x1GB is preferred rather than 2x2GB for the majority of boards but you may want to see what the particular mobo/chipset is capable of.

Another thumbs up!

Woohoo soft particles, oh wait, DX9 does it too and faster. Ooof. :O

The joke that no one laughed at.