Crysis out for PC

mehargags said:
is anyone playing it at 1680x1050 ?
'coz with my ATi X1900XT its not giving me the option to set that resolution. Only 1400x1050 or 1440x900. I upgraded the drivers to latest Catalyst but still don't get 1680x1050 as an option in the resolution..... :(

install the latest drivers for your monitor.

u will then get the resolution.
 
evox said:
does anybody have any idea when Crysis will land on Indian shores? I've tried Pre-ordering it via EA India's retarded pre-order system but the damn thing didn't even give me a confirmation email nor did it ask for any financial data (CC number) . anybody got any info?

Thanks
Naga said:
I pre-ordered 1 copy and got a price of Rs.799/- including delivery as a discounted offer. But I was told it's expected by the month end and that is also not confirmed:(
Naga said:
Ea India
No use clicking on the pre-order link on that page. But you can call the numbers listed there.
Call: 022 40500778, 40500700, 65745152, 28507890
 
lol!! i have a core2 duo but don't have exactly the above requipments... i think i will have the opportunity to play that game in a year or something when i will buy a new one!!
 
I’m guessing this title will attract quite a few gamers. It is the direct translation from the title of a swedish article I will be translating into english here today. This is an interesting article written by Andreas Dimestam at SweClockers.com concerning the relationship between the Gaming and Hardware markets. I have done the translation as best I can but if anyone notices a mistake, please make a note of it in the comments!
Around 3 years ago Far Cry was launched by the same developers behind Crysis: Germany based Crytek. The Game was an average FPS that didn’t bring anything new to the genre, but was still a pleasant game, playable at least one time. Back then just like now, graphics were at the center of things.

Far Cry had beautiful environments that few computers at the time could handle. Hardware websites and enthusiasts quickly made Far Cry a benchmark standard for all types of hardware. A little later however, something happened which became the beginning of this whole story. AMD launched their 64-bit processor Athlon 64 and were hunting for sales arguments.

Due to the fact that AMD were the first to create 64-bit processors in regular home PC’s, there was almost no software that supported this new technology. This made it difficult for AMD to convince the consumers of the advantages of more “bits in the processor”. AMD was simply forced to convince developers to use the new technology, and one of the goals of this campaign was a 64-bit version of Far Cry.

Apparently AMD managed to “convince” Crytek. About the same time that Microsoft released their 64-bit version of Windows XP a patch popped up on AMD’s website promising gold to those with the courage to buy a new processor and upgrade their operating system. The advantages of “more bits in the processor” was demonstrated with snapshots showing more badass explosions and more detailed textures. Isn’t 64-bit wonderful?

For those of us with our feet on the ground, these arguments were not as convincing. 64-bit in fact has nothing to do with bigger textures. To be able to adress more memory and have access to wider registers can make it easier to handle large sums of data, but at the time no personal computer was even close to breaking the 32-bit barrier. Cut short, this PR scam had nothing to do with “more bits in the processor”.

Back to present day and the launch of the Crysis Demo. Just like last time an enormous amount of hype was built up, largely about the astounding graphics. By using Microsofts latest graphics standard Directx 10, which is only available in Windows Vista, the developers have been able to push the boundaries of what is possible with todays hardware. That is the official version at least.

The truth is the true purpose of Directx 10 is to make developing easier by cleaning up registers and supplying new useful functions. This however is nothing the consumer notices, and therefore Microsoft must point out Directx 10’s “graphical improvements” in order to convince gamers to upgrade to Windows Vista. In reality DX10 does not mean drastically improved visual effects, at least not with todays graphics cards. There is a certain repetition of history to be seen here, right?

And then a few days after the Crysis demo launched the bad news was announced. When using Directx 9 you can’t run the game at “very high” settings, which drastically improves the visual experience from lower settings. A member at Crysis-online poked around a bit with the demo files and found a way to get almost exactly the same visual quality with Directx 9. This meant that the developers (Crytek) had purposefully worsened the Directx 9 setting to make Microsofts new technology appear superior. Apparently Crytek dosen’t mind lying to their customers.

This is not all. Crytek CEO Cevat Yerli was interviewed a while back by Shacknews and talked about how beneficial multi-core processors would be for the game. Finally those who had spent big bucks on quad-cores would earn their increased perfomance.

“Multi-core will be beneficial in the experience, particularly in faster but also smoother framerates. […] We recommend quad core over higher clock.”

Quad core was the advice Crytek had to give to hopeful gamers saving money for upgrades. What was the reality again? The reality is that four cores gives zero, I repeat, ZERO perfomance increase in Crysis. And thats not all, because once again the 64-bit question has to be adressed. Cevat Yerli was also interviewed by Gamespot among others praising “more bits in the processor”:

“I would recommend gamers run 64-bit only under very high configurations.”

Better Performance at higher graphics settings? This was not the reality. The truth is that 64-bit improves NOTHING in Crysis!

This is of course the demo version we are talking about, but everything points toward the full version of the game functioning the same. Is this the kind of behaviour us enthusiasts and gamers will have to live with in the future? Game developers being a part of the marketing of new technology and hardware, no longer concentrating on delivering the best possible product but convincing consumers to open their wallets and unnecessarily upgrading their systems? I assume money has exchanged hands more than once behind the scenes, and who the suspects are need not even be mentioned. As a true gamer and hardware enthusias i declare that Crysis makes me sick.

Source: SweClockers
food for thought huh!
 
Excellent article u got there Kippu. I also tottaly aggree with it. I just saw a video on youtube where Cevat yerli is being interviewd and beside him is a massive 30" screen i suppose and my GOD Crysis is running soo smoothly which is unbelievable in other words, pure BS.
The video has all the so called penryn quad core thing going on and all he talks about is the CPU like a mad man.
We all have to accept one common fact that this world is becoming mean day by day and wants to destroy our happiness.
YouTube - New Crysis Video: Game kicks a$$ on Intel's Penryn Quad Core
 
that article is retarded, anyone who has enough experience in the industry wouldn't spit such bullshit simply because it's too presumptuous on one's part.

It took FarCry 2 years (2 Graphics card revisions) to make the game playable at highest settings with highest level of AA and AF (7800GTX) why do people expect Crysis to give 60fps at 2560x1600 with 16x SSAA and 16x AF? why? just because you own 8800 Series you expect nothing but the best? well, I have little news for those people and that news is that they should stop leaving in dreams. GF8 series is 1 year old and while that may not sound that long, in PC Gaming industry, which evolves rapidly, that's an eternity. one needs to understand that Crysis wasn't developed to be played on current gen hardware at max settings, hell, even Cevat Yerli said that (screw the naysayers)

Crysis will be playable at high settings on current cards

and it certainly is. Crysis gives 25fps at High Settings (DX10) upto 1600x1200 resolution. anything more than that and you NEED a SLI Setup. because Crysis is that demanding and for damn good reason too; PS3/X360 or previous PC titles don't hold a candle to what Crysis delivers graphics wise. another interesting thing is all the people saying how Crysis will be the death of PC gaming...why? just because it revolutionizes and sets a new standard for graphics? two years from now, people will be playing Crysis at 60-70fps and will look back and laugh when Crysis killed PC systems. when Quake came-out, it did the same thing, so did Doom 3, then F.E.A.R, then Oblivion and now Crysis. seems like whenever a great title comes out, you've got a handful of people putting it in the ground simply because they fail to understand how the industry works. as for missing SLI/Quad Core support, I'll wait for the patch. Crytek was already under pressure thanks to the delaying of the demo and pushed release date. if they pushed the release date any more, they would've gotten hell from the online community. now that it's finally shipped, they can focus on smoothing the rough edges and adding/tweaking support for various technologies. if they fail to deliver that, then one has every right to be pissed at them. but before that, I suggest everyone to hold back their hatred for few days (assuming you really do have problems and not ripping Crysis just for the sake of it)

This is of course the demo version we are talking about, but everything points toward the full version of the game functioning the same. Is this the kind of behaviour us enthusiasts and gamers will have to live with in the future?

I find it hard to believe that any sane hardware enthusiast/gamer would say something this retarded. PC games always force upgrades, Crysis just forces it more. what's the difference?

Game developers being a part of the marketing of new technology and hardware, no longer concentrating on delivering the best possible product but convincing consumers to open their wallets and unnecessarily upgrading their systems?

well, yeah. EA's Cookie cutter SIMS comes to mind. Gaming Industry afterall, is a business. people see profits and not emotions and/or personal taste. why is so hard for you to understand? atleast Crysis doesn't disappoint on the gameplay front.

I assume money has exchanged hands more than once behind the scenes, and who the suspects are need not even be mentioned.

that statement is so retarded that I refuse to dignify it with a response.

As a true gamer and hardware enthusias i declare that Crysis makes me

sick.

as a real gamer and a Practical person, I declare you [swedish author] a dimwit. you have no idea what you're talking about so kindly stop polluting interweb with your retarded bullshit. if you're going to run something down, atleast have enough sources and/or solid statements to compliment that.
 
Seriously, these people (@swedish guy) seem to be forgetting that Crytek is serious about their engine which they don't want to get outdated anytime soon. The game's High settings, meant for present generation cards, looks much better than 99% of other games out there. The Very High settings were meant for about 6 months later when the new generation of cards will come out (which will happen with or without crysis) and the extra power can be used to make the game look even better.
 
i don't agree completely. I'm sure MS paid Crytek loads of money to showcase their "DX10" game, so that people have to buy vista to play crysis. Do you know that DX10 doesn't have any "exclusive effects". The majority of what DX10 brings to the table is just an improvement of already existing features, expanded certain limits, (IE: DX9 can support 2048x2048 sized textures max; DX10 supports 4096x4096 sized textures), stuff like that. Crysis has yet to utilize all these things. It is still a first generation DX10 game and is no where near to the point of utilizing all of the leg room DX10 has to offer. Don't get me wrong, DX10 is going to be great when the hardware that can fully support all of what it has to offer. But, Crysis for the majority of its development cycle had been a DX9 game. It began to be shown off as a showcase for DX10 after the hype picked up for it and it became a "Games for Windows" title. The DX10 features put in use are just small improvements over already existing DX9 features just to make DX10 an overall "nicer" experience. Things like parallax occlusion mapping, light shafts, and god rays were there for a good while and running perfectly and absolutely fine with DX9 hardware. Those things were "excluded" from DX9 to make DX10 more appealing. It's simply marketing. The worst thing about it is the devoted yet technically ignorant fans will buy and eat this **** up. They don't make any attempt to educate themselves and only go by with what they've been told by an authoritative figure. The sad thing is that if people have paid attention to older interviews with Cevat Yerli, he himself points out what he had planned to be the differences between the DX9 and DX10 versions of Crysis. There wasn't many things that were to be different besides simply a higher level of polish. As its come closer and closer to the release of the game and the DX10 differences were revealed, the uneducated simply assumed that the differences arose simply out of technical limitations. It's simply not true. A lot of you blind devoted fans are simply spouting what you have been told and act in a farce as if they knew they details.
 
rPOk said:
i don't agree completely. I'm sure MS paid Crytek loads of money to showcase their "DX10" game, so that people have to buy vista to play crysis. Do you know that DX10 doesn't have any "exclusive effects". The majority of what DX10 brings to the table is just an improvement of already existing features, expanded certain limits, (IE: DX9 can support 2048x2048 sized textures max; DX10 supports 4096x4096 sized textures), stuff like that. Crysis has yet to utilize all these things. It is still a first generation DX10 game and is no where near to the point of utilizing all of the leg room DX10 has to offer. Don't get me wrong, DX10 is going to be great when the hardware that can fully support all of what it has to offer. But, Crysis for the majority of its development cycle had been a DX9 game. It began to be shown off as a showcase for DX10 after the hype picked up for it and it became a "Games for Windows" title. The DX10 features put in use are just small improvements over already existing DX9 features just to make DX10 an overall "nicer" experience. Things like parallax occlusion mapping, light shafts, and god rays were there for a good while and running perfectly and absolutely fine with DX9 hardware. Those things were "excluded" from DX9 to make DX10 more appealing. It's simply marketing. The worst thing about it is the devoted yet technically ignorant fans will buy and eat this **** up. They don't make any attempt to educate themselves and only go by with what they've been told by an authoritative figure. The sad thing is that if people have paid attention to older interviews with Cevat Yerli, he himself points out what he had planned to be the differences between the DX9 and DX10 versions of Crysis. There wasn't many things that were to be different besides simply a higher level of polish. As its come closer and closer to the release of the game and the DX10 differences were revealed, the uneducated simply assumed that the differences arose simply out of technical limitations. It's simply not true. A lot of you blind devoted fans are simply spouting what you have been told and act in a farce as if they knew they details.

hilarious post indeed. thanks, I needed a good laugh!
 
i'm serious dude - crytek is taking us for a ride - why lock the dx10 effects in xp? when they seem to work as good as in vista with twice the fps...look at call of duty4 - such an incredible engine, so optimized game, with most of 'special effects' included....and its a native dx9 game...and shows how much more dx9 still has to offer....
 
evox said:
It took FarCry 2 years (2 Graphics card revisions) to make the game playable at highest settings with highest level of AA and AF (7800GTX) why do people expect Crysis to give 60fps at 2560x1600 with 16x SSAA and 16x AF? why?
An X800 XT PE could run FarCry at max settings (along with all the full vegetation tweaks) quite comfortably in 2004.
I myself played FarCry on a 64MB Radeon 8500 (already 2 generations old back then) at 1152x864 medium settings and got 30fps outdoors and 60fps indoors.

It's sad to see people today being satisfied with generally poorly optimized games as long as they look pretty enough.
 
rPOk said:
i'm serious dude - crytek is taking us for a ride - why lock the dx10 effects in xp? when they seem to work as good as in vista with twice the fps...look at call of duty4 - such an incredible engine, so optimized game, with most of 'special effects' included....and its a native dx9 game...and shows how much more dx9 still has to offer....

Comparing CoD4 to Crysis....Crysis in medium settings offers better visuals than CoD4 at Extra.

An X800 XT PE could run FarCry at max settings (along with all the full vegetation tweaks) quite comfortably in 2004

too bad it was worthless after patch 1.3 came out and added SM 3.0 features.

It's sad to see people today being satisfied with generally poorly optimized games as long as they look pretty enough.

poorly optimized you say? I say Crysis is a next gen game that requires Quad Core with 2GB+ Ram and 8800GTS. and it offers the visuals to fully justify the performance. apparently many people don't get that Crysis was never meant to run Smoothly on current-gen hardware and it's designed for future cards that are more powerful than 8800/2900 series.
 
Question 2: how can developers claim that a game has been designed for future cards (or were you claiming?) that haven't even been taped-out yet? ;) Does that mean the game is too EARLY? Then why release it early if current hardware is too "limp" to support it?

The only thing that's clear is they had to ship the game in Q4 to meet some sales target, irrespective of whether it was fully optimized or not.
 
RiO said:
evox, tell us the truth... you work for EA India right? :p

so fanboy wasn't enough and now people feel obligated to accuse me of shilling? dear god, why is that I get flamed so much for pointing out obvious facts. If one wants to rip on Crysis, I'll be more than happy to help because even the full version has many annoying bugs and glitches (DX10 Control lag, MP issues, numerous bugs) what pisses me off is that people with stone-age rig want great performance. furthermore, If one is so dissatisfied with the state of PC gaming, sell your PC and get X360/PS3 and be done with it.

RiO said:
Question 2: how can developers claim a game has been designed for future cards that haven't even been taped-out yet? ;) Does that mean the game is too EARLY? Then why release it early if current hardware is too "limp" to support it?

Crytek never claimed Crysis was designed for future cards. It's common sense which most people seem to ignore. take Fear for example, when it came out, it killed the [then] current cards (GF7 series) especially when Soft Shadows were turned on. however, an year later, 8800 series rips through it with everything maxed. it's common sense to assume that any game that isn't playable on current hardware because of spec/performance limitations would be playable on next-gen hardware because obviously every new revision offers better IQ/Performance and Features. as far as releasing early is concerned, I blame the hardware manufacturers but in any case, that would be a point to argue IF Crysis wasn't playable on current cards. which it is, the only problem is, it requires 8800GTS/GTX/Ultra SLI to always give 40fps+

^^ so that they can fulfill the actual purpose.. force ppl to spend $$ on upgrading hardware and OS

lmfao
 
I think Crytek being in collusion with h/w manufacturers is a bit farfetched, but people caliming that dx10 is only on vista, how can you explain about the *ahem* version of Halo 2 PC which runs on Windows XP with all the graphical features? I have a feeling dx10 should work on Windows XP.
 
Back
Top