| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Massively, and more

Reader Comments (57)

Posted: Nov 14th 2007 3:08PM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Sounds a lot like my 18 month old daughter; cries and whines and poops herself, but at least she is cute.
Reply

Posted: Nov 14th 2007 4:36PM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Sounds like my wife.
Reply

Posted: Nov 14th 2007 11:39PM Negativecool said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Sorry Grindstone, but this reply hasn't anything to do with your post.

What I wanted to say was that I'm not really excited for Crysis.
No, I am excited for the future games that are going to use the graphical tools OF Crysis - the Crytek2 engine.

Crysis is simply a graphical showcase of what the Crytek2 engine can do, which by the way, is a hell of a lot.

I wouldn't have been surprised by bad reviews because I consider Crysis to be more of a sales pitch to potential devs wondering if they want to invest time and money in their own engine or someone else’s.

I cannot wait to see what a talented team of devs with a great game in mind can do with these tools. I’m picturing a game that has more of an impact on the future of gaming than something like Wolfenstein 3D, Super Mario 64, or FFVII did.

I’ll have a decent PC when that day comes…Just not now, not for Crysis.
Reply

Posted: Nov 14th 2007 3:09PM POTPIE said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I tried the demo and even with a reasonable machine (Core 2 Duo 2.4Ghz, 2GB ram, Nvidia 7900gs) it didn't run well. And the game looks like feces at medium settings. If the demo is any indication, I'd estimate that about 3% of PC owners will get a decent experience with Crysis... Too bad, since I was really looking forward to it.
Reply

Posted: Nov 14th 2007 3:56PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I have a friend playing it and loving it on a 7300.
Reply

Posted: Nov 14th 2007 5:36PM ultimateq said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I run it on a 7600GT and I have to run it at damn near lowest settings. How your friend can even get it to run is beyond me.
Reply

Posted: Nov 14th 2007 7:00PM einhanderkiller said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
On my machine (C2D E6600/2GB RAM/7900GT), the game runs beautifully. At 1024x768, Medium settings, I get around 30 to 40 FPS. High settings gets me around 20 FPS, and Very High nabs me around 7 FPS.
Reply

Posted: Nov 14th 2007 3:17PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Pretty nice negaview, the SMG negaview was really weak...

My 8800 GTX, water cooling, dualcore and 2GB RAM horsey played the demo exellently on "very high" on my XP.

For all the smartasses whi are going to say that's impossible - Well, it's not.

http://blogs.pcworld.com/gameon/archives/005814.html
Reply

Posted: Nov 14th 2007 3:43PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Err... Everyone knows that already. That tweak was posted on every gaming blog out there when the demo was released.
Reply

Posted: Nov 14th 2007 3:19PM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
I think everyone's sour because they just realized their PC sucks big-time. I know I am.
Reply

Posted: Nov 14th 2007 3:21PM Aperture said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
i'm running a core2 extreme 2.93ghz, 2GB ram, and one 8800GTX and I can't run it at full. The editor crashes on me when I try to save as well.

and as far as gameplay goes, it's subpar at best.
Reply

Posted: Nov 14th 2007 3:30PM SheppyReturns said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I just gotta say this. Great avatar. Normally I don't like the fuzzies but...
Reply

Posted: Nov 16th 2007 10:29PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Yup, like the avatar, but I may be biased. :)

My 8800 GTX is likewise incapable of running the highest res with very high everything. But ya know, it looks better at merely 'high' and more pixels.

Now if it'd just let me choose 2560x1600... *eyes another 8800GTX for SLI*
Reply

Posted: Nov 14th 2007 3:36PM jsgrill said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
"Don't start expecting any narrative cleverness or characters who do much beyond move the plot from one stage to the next."

Do we at least get to open up some drug dealer's Excel files when we reach level 10?
Reply

Posted: Nov 14th 2007 4:13PM merf1350 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
No, this time you have to make it through 4:20:00 without your weak ass rig crashing on you.
Reply

Posted: Nov 14th 2007 3:40PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
i thought dan dormer already wrote this one up.
Reply

Posted: Nov 14th 2007 3:50PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Hmm, well this review certainly paints a poor picture of the game. Suddenly, I'm not so interested.
Reply

Posted: Nov 14th 2007 3:57PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
It's called a nega-review. This is not just a regular review.
Reply

Posted: Nov 14th 2007 4:20PM WC said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
He's correct, nega-reviews almost always make a game look horrible. You should take them with a huge grain of salt.

I've seen them rip into games that I absolutely loved, and nothing they said was actually incorrect... Just out of proportion to how good the game was.
Reply

Posted: Nov 14th 2007 3:55PM (Unverified) said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
Well, let me think.... So if I can Afford a US$8,000.00 machine then I can play Far cry 2 with pump graphics?

No thanks.. Sorry I'm not that rich.
Reply

Posted: Nov 14th 2007 3:57PM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Wow, yeah. This costs $8000 dollars to run. That's so true. You're a genius; I wish I was more like you.

Reply

Posted: Nov 14th 2007 4:23PM Shagittarius said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
A little knowledge goes a long way Cryo, way to look ignant.
Reply

Posted: Nov 14th 2007 4:26PM (Unverified) said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
@Shag

Would you mind and build fucking machine on the dell web site with 2 8800GTX and max it out and tell me what the F#$King price is????? Just try it smart ass.
Reply

Posted: Nov 14th 2007 5:04PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I actually went to Dell's website, and the only way I made a $8000 PC was by selecting 2 1TB hard drives in Raid 0, plus a third 1Tb Hard drive. I don't need to tell you that Crysis doesn't need all this crap. And Dell makes overpriced PCs, anyway.
Reply

Posted: Nov 14th 2007 6:59PM GenBanks said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Anyway, who ever said that you need to have every single setting maxed out for the game to look totally awesome? (and, dare I say, look better than anything on any console).
Two 8800 GTXs isn't at all necessary. The beauty of a PC game is that you can enjoy a pretty game with this gen of technology, but when nvidia starts releasing their newest graphics cards within a year from now, you can look forward to even better graphics from the same game.

You were being overly negative and not constructive. Now you are lashing out at people that replied to your troll post. Classy.
Reply

Posted: Nov 14th 2007 3:56PM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Guess I'll wait for the 360 version then. ;)
Reply

Posted: Nov 14th 2007 4:05PM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Honestly, I feel this game would do amazing as a console game. The story, to me, is enjoyable in an action movie kind of way. It would match up to the simple but decent stories of Halo and Gears of war. It's also a helluva lot of fun with the 360 controller. Hope to see a port sometime soon.
Reply

Posted: Nov 14th 2007 4:00PM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Seriously, console owners and people with mediocre computers are just going hardcore sour grapes about Crysis. If this game came out on the ps3, ps3 fanboys would call it a Halo killer. If this game came out on 360, everyone would be raving about how amazing it is.

But since only a minority of gamers, particularly on this site, are able to play it, everyone wants to put it down. Hate what you can't have.
Reply

Posted: Nov 14th 2007 4:07PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
So you are saying we are just a bunch of losers that can not afford this game?

Reply

Posted: Nov 14th 2007 5:19PM NightElve said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
You think?
Reply

Posted: Nov 14th 2007 5:20PM Vidikron said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I think the game looks good and plan to get it, but I'm just not frothing at the mouth for it. It looks a lot like FarCry to me, except you get powers from a suit instead of genetic enhancements. I thought FarCry was a good game and certainly pretty for its time, but I wasn't blown away. It seems to me like the people most impressed with Crysis are those with powerful rigs that just want something that pushes them and those that really liked FarCry.
Reply

Posted: Nov 14th 2007 6:43PM arrrgh said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
truth jeff
Reply

Posted: Nov 16th 2007 12:06AM Slaziman said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Aw come on. If the graphics are the only pull of this game (since almost every PC can run it at low settings) it's really not worth my money. Hell, I could run the demo at high settings and I still won't pay for the full game. I'll wait till it's on teh torrentzz and download it for free, since the online isn't up to par.

That being said, watching the CPU benchmark with all the cool explosions and effects really got me excited... eye candy FTW
Reply

Posted: Nov 14th 2007 4:04PM SergeantSalad said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Core 2 at 3.2ghz, 4gb ram, and 320mb 8800gts
Even on medium, the game still looks gorgeous, and even more important: IT'S FUN
Reply

Posted: Nov 14th 2007 6:09PM Tyguy said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Exactly. I only have a core2duo 6600 and 2 gb ram but a 8800 gts 320mb card and I have a mix of medium and high settings at 1400x1050 and the game plays great. It also looks better than anything else I've played so I have no clue what all the whining is about. So they can't play the game at the max settings... how does that make medium/high settings look bad.
Reply

Posted: Nov 14th 2007 6:49PM arrrgh said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
people are idiots. Plain and simple.

the people that are actually saying CoD and Gears look as good as crysis are in some huge denial.
Reply

Posted: Nov 14th 2007 4:10PM debosbike said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Jeff, the "minority" of people able to play this is exactly why you'll see it on the 360 first. From pc to 360 is easy to port, plus they can optimize for the hardware. If its graphically as good as Gears, the rest of the needs (AI, etc) should be easily handled by the cpu.
Reply

Posted: Nov 14th 2007 4:14PM (Unverified) said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
An average at best fps that 10% of pc gamers can play? Another reason why pc gaming is just stupid. I can't see this game selling well at all.
Reply

Posted: Nov 14th 2007 4:32PM Supino said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
- Hey! I see you found new screenshots of Crysis there!

- No.... I'm actually playing it.
Reply

Posted: Nov 14th 2007 7:03PM GenBanks said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Rofl, I loled at that :D
Although to be fair I spent quite a while staring in amazement at the screenshot at the top of this post so maybe it wouldn't be so bad :)
Reply

Posted: Nov 14th 2007 4:41PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
2010 GOTY
Reply

Posted: Nov 14th 2007 4:50PM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
"Would you mind and build fucking machine on the dell web site with 2 8800GTX and max it out and tell me what the F#$King price is????? Just try it smart ass."

People who buy computers from Dell don't deserve to play Crysis.
Reply

Posted: Nov 16th 2007 12:09AM Slaziman said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I agree, Dell sucks huge nuts
Reply

Posted: Nov 14th 2007 4:54PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Yup played the game, on full graphics, don't really see whats the big deal. The suit powers are so watered down they are almost useless barring the cloak. Unless you playing it on easy you can't just go and take out entire compounds Rambo style as depicted in many trailers. While it may be a solid game in it's own right it still just feels like Farcry with better graphics.

For people like Jeff you think the poor performance gripes are just "sour grapes" my retort would be why do I have to shell out major cash or wait "5yrs" when I can just go play COD4 or Gears and get equal or better graphics now.
Reply

Posted: Nov 14th 2007 5:39PM ultimateq said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I can agree. The story seems generic, and if you don't have an SLI of two 8800gtx you won't run it at max settings. On the lowest settings with 1680x1050 (widescreen) resolution the game didn't look HORRIBLE, was very playable, and actually kind of fun. I will agree that the objects popping in and out of view is very annoying though.
Reply

Posted: Nov 14th 2007 6:46PM arrrgh said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
OK HOW MANY PEOPLE HERE WERE LIVING UNDER A ROCK?

because that's what it sounds like...from DAY FUCKING ONE, they said "NO your machine will NOT run Crysis" and everyone was like DAMNIT, but at least it'll look amazing! And then it came out...looks amazing, and people are whining that they can't run it. WTF?
Reply

Posted: Nov 14th 2007 7:02PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
It's amazing how a game running poorly and dropping frames like a hot potato is a feature now.
Reply

Posted: Nov 14th 2007 7:14PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'd bet a dollar you haven't played it.

This game can scale to play on any hardware at a decent framerate. Towards the middle to the middle-high end you're getting great performance for your image quality. This game only gets difficult to run when you try for the very high at high resolutions with high AA/AF.
Reply

Posted: Nov 14th 2007 7:33PM ummhello said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
...didn't you know?? that's what the "feature" patch downloads fix in a few months after a game's release!!!!!
Reply

Posted: Nov 14th 2007 7:23PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
And seriously, what does this whole Crysis shitstorm say to game developers? Crap, let's not try and advance technology too far or people will complain. Let's not spend a ton of money making sure our graphics engine can scale all the way up to the highest end available into the future-- and right back down to the low. People will only cry if they can't play it at full settings, regardless of if the easy to run medium settings still look gorgeous. Who cares if a game is future-proof, something you'll be able to play for years, us gamers only care about the present!

Dumbasses. Games like these push Nvidia and ATI to make graphics cards that can run them like butter. And these graphics cards will go on to fuel your next generation of consoles. Support gaming technology moving forward, regardless of if you can't enjoy it now. The faster and further it goes the sooner it'll be available to everyone at a cheap price.
Reply
Sorry, you must be logged in to leave a comment.

Featured Stories

Rhythm Heaven Fever review: Crazy into you

Posted on Feb 9th 2012 12:00PM

Remedy not done with Alan Wake

Posted on Feb 9th 2012 10:30AM

Engadget

TUAW

Massively

WoW