TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Gaming Forum
-- Crysis Demo...anyone play it?
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Crysis Demo...anyone play it?

I just cleared the SP demo. It does look nice, but nothing out of the ordinary really. The damn game is a resource hog to say the least. I like the suit options, it adds another, albeit shallow, layer to the FPS genre.

I'm running an Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 (2.4Ghz per core), 4GB myshkin RAM, nVidia 8800GTX, on Vista, and I could not max the game out. Running at the native resolution of my monitor (1680x1050) I was running high (maximum is very high) settings, with no AA, and was averaging only 25fps. It is very playable at that speed, but far from perfect. I've seen on forums that I'm not the only one with very decent rigs that is getting pretty lousy frame rates.

Hopefully with further nVidia (and ATI) patches, and with a final release of the game, some of the performance issues will be addressed.

Maybe after some updates the game will be less demanding on the system. I have seen it with a few games like metal gear solid which was a resource hog at first.

No way will my rig run it

I'm not impressed at all with the game. sure if you have a crazy rig and can max everything out it will look BEAUTIFUL...probably the best looking game ever, but when it comes to gameplay...nothing revolutionary at all.

My impression after playing both single player and multiplayer demos. Graphics = nice. Gameplay = meh

Way overhyped.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt I'm not impressed at all with the game. sure if you have a crazy rig and can max everything out it will look BEAUTIFUL...probably the best looking game ever, but when it comes to gameplay...nothing revolutionary at all. My impression after playing both single player and multiplayer demos. Graphics = nice. Gameplay = meh Way overhyped.

i think its pretty sick...its amazing just as a tech demo and more of a kinda look around and destroy shit and look at how pretty everything is typa game

quote:

Originally posted by Spike i think its pretty sick...its pretty amazing just as a tech demo and more of a kinda look around and destroy shit and look at how pretty everything is typa game

The problem is this game was used by both Microsoft and nVidia to tout and advertise the latest and greatest, and supposedly to show the benefits of the new nVidia architecture, as well as the supposed speed increases and beautiful looks of games optimized for DX10. Unfortunately, this is not what it delivers. Again, my system is definitely not top of the line, but neitehr is it slow at all. I've heard of people not able to get much better framerates even under an SLI configuration, albeit the demo did not even support this. I know nVidia released new beta drivers specific to this game, but it still remains to be see whether the final release will make this any better. Other than that, as for the gameplay, its basically Far Cry but with more stunning graphics. The suit options give you more strategic options as to how you want to approach a specific task or attack, and give you more flexibility if you want to flank your enemy. I keep hearing people always complain about FPS games. Yeah, I can agree with the most generic of complaints; its just another FPS. But in all honesty, what can game developers really do to better this genre?

I have an Intel QX6700 (at the default speed, could probably bump it to 2.93) and a GeForce 8800 Ultra and I tried running it all maxed out (as it detected on my system). With 16X AA and 1920 x 1200 resolution..it just froze. I had to restart my computer manually, and drop it down to 1680 x 1050 resolution with 8x AA and it worked, but all the details were maxed out at "very high" as it detected. It definitely seemed to lag even at a lower resolution with everything at very high.

So I set everything at "high" and it ran smoothly, but for some reason...it doesn't look all that great. Seems to be a large difference between "high" and "very high" in terms of graphics quality, even more so than on older games like Doom 3 and Quake 4...not a huge difference on Ultra High or High settings, you just get better frame-rates with high. So all and all...even if you have a top of the line system (granted it doesn't have a QX 6850 OCed to 3.7ghz and SLI but who can afford/need that just to play games?). It does so far...remind me a lot of Far Cry, just with better graphics. I think Bioshock is more fun to play (doesn't try to be all realistic but still has amazing graphics), and Timeshift is a more realistic looking shooter that I think might actually be better than this.

/\
I hear what you're saying about the difference in the graphics settings. I found that on High as opposed to Very High, there was a VERY noticeable drop in the quality of the graphics. Mind you, not to say that it doesn't still look good on High, but there is a difference. The lighting and dynamic shadows in particular jumped out at Very High.

Ditto on the BioShock comment, that was a blast to play through, and even as an added bonus, I was able to max the settings out on that game.

I think the problem is that developers are trying so hard to make realistic looking games that they are forgetting the fun-factor when it comes to playing them. Sure multi-player gaming is more fun than single-player, but the single player experience should still be enjoyable and not a hassle to play, whether it's because of the graphics/system requirements or the difficulty of the game. Some games are just so difficult because they are trying so hard to be realistic (few shots and your dead). I miss the days of Doom where you could still manage to complete a level even on a little health with your face all bloody. Sure it might not be super realistic, but it sure beats playing a level over and over and over as you have to do on some games (the original Ghost Recon was nearly impossible to beat...even on the easiest settings. I could hardly beat the first mission).

Update: It works much better with the latest drivers (169.04 beta) from Nvidia if you have an Nvidia 6, 7 or 8 series card. I can actually get a playable frame-rate now with very high settings, no noticeable lag (just slightly). But again, the demo will not let me run it at 1920 x 1200..it froze and then blue-screened even with the latest drivers. Hopefully there will be a patch for this (or Nvidia fixes any problems in the Beta Driver), but perhaps they have set it up like that for a reason..they want you to buy the game before you will be able to run it maxed out. I did get maybe 2 minutes of play at that resolution before it froze.

quote:

Originally posted by Spirit5 I think the problem is that developers are trying so hard to make realistic looking games that they are forgetting the fun-factor when it comes to playing them. Sure multi-player gaming is more fun than single-player, but the single player experience should still be enjoyable and not a hassle to play, whether it's because of the graphics/system requirements or the difficulty of the game. Some games are just so difficult because they are trying so hard to be realistic (few shots and your dead). I miss the days of Doom where you could still manage to complete a level even on a little health with your face all bloody. Sure it might not be super realistic, but it sure beats playing a level over and over and over as you have to do on some games (the original Ghost Recon was nearly impossible to beat...even on the easiest settings. I could hardly beat the first mission).

Remember the good old '90s days? So many great games came out during that time simply because technology was so limited that devellopers were forced to focus on gameplay first. Now it's all about who can create the most fancy graphics, and then they throw in some botched gameplay just to sell the thing. It makes you go wow the first time you see it, and then it gets boring after a week.

quote:

Originally posted by Project-K Remember the good old '90s days? So many great games came out during that time simply because technology was so limited that devellopers were forced to focus on gameplay first. Now it's all about who can create the most fancy graphics, and then they throw in some botched gameplay just to sell the thing. It makes you go wow the first time you see it, and then it gets boring after a week.

Yeah that's why I stopped playing PC games for a few years. Consoles are great but they have their share of problems as well. PC games are generally most customizable (you can tweak graphic and sound settings) and have better graphics and sound. Nowadays, it would cost about $2,000 to get the full experience of an XBox 360 or PS3 (meaning a good HDTV that can do 1080p or 1080i, an HD reciever etc), and you might spend close to $4,000 (I did, well my parents paid for most of it) on a computer and a monitor.

I'll probably be able to play games for another two more years and then my current PC will be outdated, by that time there will be 8 cores instead of 4 (and maybe even 12) and graphic will be well up in the 2gb of Video RAM (most likely they will be a part of the CPU/motherboard itself, they are already talking about getting rid of seperate GPUs and making powerful ones integrated into CPUs).

quote:

Originally posted by Spirit5 (most likely they will be a part of the CPU/motherboard itself, they are already talking about getting rid of seperate GPUs and making powerful ones integrated into CPUs).

haha

I still remember the days when a video card would be called a "3D accelerator"

They already have integrated GPUs, but of course they suck.

quote:

Originally posted by eROs.au They already have integrated GPUs, but of course they suck.

Yeah today's do for sure but AMD/ATI is planning to release something like that in the fourth quarter of 2008 that is MUCH better than the integrated chips on most. They are talking something along the lines of the GTX, because by the end of next year...you will start seeing single chip sets as powerful as two GTX's in SLI, and after that some that are even faster.

I don't think SLI (or tri SLI which Nvidia and ATI are attempting) will be around anymore...the thing I can forsee is very powerful (yet more efficient in terms of energy consumption) single cards, more powerful integrated graphics and no more of that SLI gimick.

Your much better off IMO with a more powerful single card than two dual cards that aren't as powerful (say two dual GTs are not as good as one GTX or Ultra, but two GT cards are close if not better than a single GTX in some instances like with Crysis at lower resolutions). I can also see the days of $5,000 gaming PCs over...who spends that much? (except those who are either rich or spend their life playing games).

PC sales are losing to consoles in Japan I heard, and I wouldn't doubt that is the same thing here. In the future (next few years) I think laptops and small form factor PCs will replace Full/Mid Size BTX cases. CPUs getting smaller (yet more of them) and cheaper (except in the very high end for those in the graphics department). Something to do with Murphy's law...however the companies will still be greedy as always (namely Intel and Microsoft and Apple to a certain extent).

Yeah, PC gaming, at least in order to stay on the bleeding edge, is becomming ludicrously expensive.

quote:

Originally posted by zokissima Yeah, PC gaming, at least in order to stay on the bleeding edge, is becomming ludicrously expensive.

Yeah it is expensive. Ideally, it shouldn't cost more than $3,000 for a good gaming computer. It did cost approximately $4,000 for my new computer but that was including the monitor. This old Alienware from four years ago costed my parents almost $6,000! and that was with the computer, the 7.1 speaker system and the monitor. I'm on it right now...it's super loud compared to my new one haha.

Mostly everything on it is outdated now, but still can play games like Half Life 2, Quake 4 and Doom 3 with 2x AA at like 1600 x 1200 resolution. I can max out pretty much everything on those games on my new computer..but like I said before..I don't think Crysis will play that well maxed out even on my new one. And I can see in the forseeable future that games will need more and more. But I think it will be awhile before even dual core PCs will be a requirement for most games.

Looked like piss and ran like piss on my computer but I only have a 7600GT running on a 3.4Ghz Dual Core. I just stopped pretty quick into playing it because I didn't want to ruin the experience. Someday when I get some money. The new 8800GT is well priced so that might be an option.

quote:

Originally posted by Magnus Looked like piss and ran like piss on my computer but I only have a 7600GT running on a 3.4Ghz Dual Core. I just stopped pretty quick into playing it because I didn't want to ruin the experience. Someday when I get some money. The new 8800GT is well priced so that might be an option.

Yeah good choice. Much more worth it than a 8800 GTX (I just needed the fastest so I opted for a GeForce 8800 Ultra in my new computer...but I can get like 40 fps on Crysis at 1680 x 1050 resolution (with no AA).

Sucks donkey penis. I am not impressed with it at all. Graphics do shit for me. I'm sticking to Valve games.

quote:

Originally posted by Project-K haha I still remember the days when a video card would be called a "3D accelerator"

haha yeah man
voodoo power!
our 16mb tnt was shit hot back in like 1997 or something
i remember seeing comparisons of tomb raider 1 when the first 3dfx card came out, i just thought it made everything look blurry!

I uninstalled it and my system seems to work better now. The Demo was buggy or something. It's better to wait till the final version comes out (tomorrow) to play it..but I may wait till Christmas.

I've made a few video captures and posted a couple on YouTube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6ZoBT9RSJc

// Roth

Great game, plays good after some tweaking. On map 3.

IGN gave this sucker a 9.4, so apparently they thought it was alright.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.