I agree... if you have a rig that can handle it well, get it. But I would assume that everyone that has a beefed out rig already purchased this game to show off to their friends.

One million sold? So the total amount of people who can run it properly is up to, oh, a dozen??

US is a secondary market for PC games. Germany alone is probably bigger. So these figures are perfectly credible. It's the same for most PC games. Other recent examples : The Witcher sold 50K in the US while it sold more than 1 million worldwide. Same for STALKER. Command & Conquer 3 sold 300K in the US in 10 months while it sold 2 millions worldwide in 2 months. etc.

good post. Maybe this will shut the anti-pc sentiment echo chamber up a bit, goddamn that was getting annoying...

I'm sure CoD4 easily broke a million on PC as well worldwide. Most of Europe minus England is much more PC centric.

I think the requirements are pretty absurd still. I have an E6750 @ 3.2GHz and an 8800 GT with a pretty solid overclock and I'm still only pulling 30FPS or so on high settings at 1440x900. Considering UT3 looks gorgeous and runs at maxed settings at 1440x900 with an average of 120+FPS, I'd say it's a bit ridiculous. Crysis looks good, but I don't think it looks good enough to justify the performance. I found the gameplay to be pretty average as well, so really I don't see anything that makes Crysis a great game.

Well, I did find it to be worth it, in terms of gameplay and visuals. When it comes down to personal opinion, then there's no real winner anyway. Also, UT3 doesn't do half of what Crysis does on any given level, not to mention these are completely different games with completely different engines.

My issue with Joystiq as well as other sites, was came across as being irresponsible with their portrayal of Crysis not being able to run on modern machines. Even as you state, your system runs the game at 30fps at a very good resolution, regardless of what you state about your feelings on the game. Crysis got pinned for being something that it wasn't. In the end, its no different than Oblivion 2 years ago, or Doom3, or Far Cry, or Quake, and so on.

No, it is different. It simply doesn't offer appropriate performance. Sorry, but there's no reason a system like mine with high end RAM and a high end video card and processor, both of which substantially overclocked, should be barely managing 30FPS and occasionally mid-low 20s at high (not "omg u need vista cuz we said so lolol" very high) with no anisotropic filtering or anti-aliasing on a resolution meant for 17" and 19" LCDs. Don't get me wrong, it looks good, but it doesn't look *that* good. Call of Duty 4 and UT3, both recent games, manage to look excellent while performing literally 3 to 4 times faster.

Which matters how? A sale is a sale, regardless of the format it is delivered in.

Considering Uncharted's substandard sales, that's not really a good thing, Chief.

Which is a shame because Uncharted is a great game.

Huh?

http://www.ps3fanboy.com/2008/01/25/uncharted-reaches-a-million-sales-worldwide/

Uncharted is already past the 1M mark, like Crysis so where the heck are you two getting that it hasn't been selling? Sure it hasn't been selling in Gears or Halo levels but that doesn't mean the game is magically rotting in store shelves worldwide.

Uncharted is selling well for a ps3 game-- as is UT3. Everyone's getting a little too hyped up on the amazing sales Nintendo and 360 are getting, and forgetting that a game can sell much less and still be successful. Since when does the # of sales affect the quality of a game? Do we use the same arguments to support the quality of Britney Spears' releases?

Jeff is right on his second post.

people seem to think that if a game doesnt sell as much as Halo 3 then it isnt a good game or something. not every good game is going to sell an astronomical amount like Halo 3 did. if that is your argument then i guess Bioshock didnt deserve all those GOTY awards then right? it only sold 1.53mil according to VGChartz. the sales of a game are not a great indication of how good a game is since some great games get overlooked or are in unpopular genres. a game going platinum is a great accomplishment. period.

Well they would've been a fool not to check the minimum requirements and to have tried the demo *sigh*

Minimum requirements base themselves around nothing but the very basic OS is runnng. Each other program whittles away on that so recommended requirements is a much better metric.

No way dude. Minimum system requirements are usually spot-on or overly zealous.

@Jeff

That's not really been my experience with PC games... especially not Crysis. In my experience the minimum requirements will get the game running, but everything will be the lowest possible settings and the FPS may be pretty bad.

Take Crysis itself for example. It's minimum requirements are a GeForce 6800GT and 1 GB of RAM. That's not going to get you much at all on Crysis. You'll likely be seeing a slide show, especially late in the game. The recommended requirements, OTOH, are a GeForce 8800 GTS and 2 GB of RAM. Now that will actually get you a good experience.

"get the game running, but everything will be the lowest possible settings and the FPS may be pretty bad."

Not that I disagree with your sentiments, but isn't this the very definition of "minimum"?

Minimum usually means being able to run the game with moderate appearance in comparison to the maximum settings with decent performance.

Well, I remember a time when the requirements games had read something like "486 with 8MB RAM". I remember reading:
From the Strike Commander tech manual:
"286s just don't have the power to run Strike Commander. You need at least a 386"
From PC world:
"New games like Myst/Doom need at least a 486"

Sigh..those were simple days :)

-Unreal
-Quake
-Doom III
-Hexen/Heretic

There's been plenty of games that ended up used as benchmark material and required a top of the line PC to play... do you remember the lovely dual 3dfx SLI configuration needed to run Quake in 1600x1200 at anything close to 30fps?

The problem these days is that we get less bang per buck out of videocard upgrades and those tend to happen way too frequently.

Why'd you preface a bang for your buck comment when talking about buying two video cards just to run a game at 1600x1200? One card these days pulls that off and costs less than a pair of Voodoo cards did. I'd say that is great bang for your buck.

Cute lie.

Either that, or you're getting 10-15 FPS max.

He said he runs it, he didn't say he runs it well.

He said high settings, he is a liar.

I've nothing to gain by lying, I run it at a perfectly playable speed; there's a couple of slowdowns in places but nothing too detrimental to my overall enjoyment of the game.

That was supposed to be in reply to Marty of course.

Also brought about a burst of upgrade sales from all across the market. It was the first big graphic engine to come out for quite some time.

Little did everyone know, the game was just garbage.