Crysis trailer needs more suit etching

lol I thought the same thing. why do they always do this for trailers? half the video is just their damn logo. WTF DO I CARE.

Why do you people nit pick?! Who gives a shit about the credits, it was done pretty creatively with the whole armored suit thing. Thats like saying Batman sucks because the first few minutes of their movies consist of showing off batmans armor. They wanted to take a theatrical approach to the trailer, and thats how they did it. I think it's fine...actually more than fine, that trailer was bad ass.

Right. So you'd sit through the movie if half of it consisted of showing you the credits while running up batman's crotch?

Nitpicking would be complaining about the font they used in the credits, not how the trailer only has less than 50% game footage.

ummmm.. how when crytek made the first far cry with cryengine 1 so i think the sequel will use there latest engine so........ ha!

Everything you soo there its gameplay my friend, but i think is direcxt 9, now expect more details and better light effect in direcxt 10 under windows vista; that means a more video realistic game.....

The close-ups of the suit are CG, but the rest are in-game, though not actual gameplay.

And in response to tony, Far Cry 2 is being made by Ubisoft now and will use a different engine. Crytek is no longer involved with Far Cry because Ubisoft bought the rights from them.

Because the primarily console-oriented gamer community loves to poke fun at the PC'ers

Even though you're right, bargains can be found for the high-end stuff, even if it won't get you to the bleeding edge, but methinks some PC gamers like to brag about the $$ they put down on their rig (i know a few like that)

So, you would be happy playing this game gimped? Are you serious? The whole draw of this game is graphics,graphics,graphics, so where else does its merit lie? And sorry to break it to you, but an X1950 aint gonna cut it with this game.

bullshit Maylon. Crytek has already stated that a 7900 should run this game on medium settings. An X1950 should have no problem at all. I would also suspect that medium settings with a game like this should look awfully nice. A lot of people are not just excited about the graphics, but excited to play a killer FPS, which Crytek has done before.

I agree there really seems to be this unrealistic stigma in regards to PC game hardware requirements.

I'm primarily a PC gamer that rarely updates his video card and there have been VERY few games that i have missed out on due to not being able to run a game.

I just went from a Radeon 9550 to a Nvidia 8600 gts and there was only maybe 3-4 games i decide to hold off on until i got a better card in the like 5-6 years i had that card.

Before bioshock came out everyone was saying that my card would not cut and i kinda bought into it. In reality my card runs it maxed out at 1280x1024 no problem.

I think I'll be able to enjoy Crysis even if i can't run it maxed out. The PC gaming thing is just DIFFERNT from the console gaming thing, you get a new card and basically step new games down to run them until you decide to upgrade. The platform just allows developers to constantly move forward instead of being stagnant.

//rant off

It's the least you could do McElroy seeing as I don't see you reporting from PAX! No get back to work!

http://wii.joystiq.com/2007/08/25/crysis-trailer-needs-more-suit-etching/

all the prefixes lead the same place

Hmmm did 2k games developer of Bioshock stated or said that they will use Direcxt 10 for Bioshock..??
if you did not see any difference between them, then my answer its that 2k games never had the intention to use Direcxt 10 with Bioshock....

There is an option in the video options to turn on DX10 textures or something. Did I not say that we ran it side by side with DX10 and DX9?

But you said that your PC does not run Windows Vista, now did you run Bioshock under Vista and XP...?

Read first post carefully... "a friend and I" He was running vista with DX10 while I was running XP with DX9.