Crysis

[hanselthecaretaker]

Some sweet looking demos from the PC game Crysis showing some of the Cryengine2's physics capabilities, first using the sandbox editor (not in-game):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YG5qDeWHNmk&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VaHS-y_mapQ&feature=related

...and running in game:

http://www.stage6.com/user/Teniak/video/1798714/Crysis-Gameplay-All-VeryHigh-@-8800-Ultra

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8mM0Pj20nw



Which reminds me I need to start thinking of what my next graphics card will be.

 

[GUARDIAN]

been waiting for it 2 come out on the 360. def has potential. i like how u can choke a soldier and use them as a shield.

 

[SaladFork]

Yeah awesome game, I need to upgrade my PC before I can play that. My shit barely ran BF2. I have a 360 also but am way better at FPS on the PC.

 

[ceo]

oh damn...I thought this was an old school style NKC thread!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!@

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

been waiting for it 2 come out on the 360. def has potential. i like how u can choke a soldier and use them as a shield.

I hear they're developing it for the consoles (most likely to recoup dev costs) as currently this game is first and foremost a technical showcase for high end users.
I'll get it for PC when I get a new graphics card. I rediscovered PC gaming and my PS3 has been collecting dust ever since.

 

[juiceddreadlocks]

meh you can keep it... I dont have Vista yet even though I've got DirectX10 cards... COD4 is fun though, the two times I've played it just to see if my system would run it.

 

[Kano]

been waiting for it 2 come out on the 360. def has potential. i like how u can choke a soldier and use them as a shield.

They are not making it for x box.. The x box is nit powerful enought to be bale to play it... The ps3 can do it without a hitch with the cell... There is a video where crytex programmers talk all about it...

 

[alien amp pharm]

Meh

Reviews haven't been too favorable.

The gameplay is repetitive and there is even a video showing lots of glitches, not to mention the dumb AI.

Plus there are other games out there that look as good and even better unless you are the 2% that have the hardware to run it at it's peak.

 

[redsamurai]

They are not making it for x box.. The x box is nit powerful enought to be bale to play it... The ps3 can do it without a hitch with the cell... There is a video where crytex programmers talk all about it...

I read that crysis relies more heavily on the GPU than the CPU, which is exactly why I read the "opposite" of what you just stated. The PS3 is good at putting lot's of things on the screen at once......where's the 360 is supposed to make individual things look better because it has a better GPU. I honestly don't see crysis running at a high level on either of those machines. I understand better programming will eventually get some semblance of it to run on consoles........but it's going to look like everything is set on "medium". Those guys are trippin if they thing the PS3 can run crysis on anything even close to high.

 

[puddlemonkey]

The gameplay is repetitive and there is even a video showing lots of glitches, not to mention the dumb aromatase inhibitor.

 

[redsamurai]

, not to mention the dumb aromatase inhibitor.

.

another pwnage courtesy of the elitefitness auto expander.

 

[c-sharp minor]

I've finished the game.

Great graphics.....but the gameplay was standard fps fare imho.

nb. You'll spend A LOT of time in stealth mode. lol

 

[redsamurai]

I've finished the game.

Great graphics.....but the gameplay was standard fps fare imho.

nb. You'll spend A LOT of time in stealth mode. lol

what's the framerate like when there's lot's of guys on screen shooting at you? I've seen some high end setups start to stutter a little bit when there's squads starting to flank you and you have to zip the mouse around left and right for head shots.

 

[c-sharp minor]

what's the framerate like when there's lot's of guys on screen shooting at you? I've seen some high end setups start to stutter a little bit when there's squads starting to flank you and you have to zip the mouse around left and right for head shots.

I get anywhere from 25-60fps with setting on medium (dx9 though)...higher in other areas. That's at 1440x900.

Running AMD Athlon XP 4200
Ati Radeon 3870
2 gb ddr2 blah blah

 

[redsamurai]

I get anywhere from 25-60fps with setting on medium (dx9 though)...higher in other areas. That;s at 1440x900.

Running AMD Athlon XP 4200
Ati Radeon 3870
2 gb ddr2 blah blah

didn't 25fps piss you off?

 

[c-sharp minor]

didn't 25fps piss you off?

Sometimes.

 

[redsamurai]

I'm waiting to buy a new system......with a new intel chip coming out and a new nvidia card, everything else should drop. I want a quad core with two GTS's in SLI, that should run everything for at least two years.

 

[c-sharp minor]

I'm waiting to buy a new system......with a new intel chip coming out and a new nvidia card, everything else should drop. I want a quad core with two GTS's in SLI, that should run everything for at least two years.

Nice system. Definitely should be able to run games on high settings for while to come.

 

[awesomejay]

personally i would skip the quad core and look into the new dual core's the e8400, e8500 and the e8600, the e8400 is 3.0Ghz with 6MB cache, plus you can get it for around $230 , plus its 45nm so it runs cooler, plus the cheapest quad core the q6600 at 2.4Ghz is like $280

 

[redsamurai]

personally i would skip the quad core and look into the new dual core's the e8400, e8500 and the e8600, the e8400 is 3.0Ghz with 6MB cache, plus you can get it for around $230 , plus its 45nm so it runs cooler, plus the cheapest quad core the q6600 at 2.4Ghz is like $280

Don't the quad core's have better performance? I was under the understanding that there was only one chip right now that intel makes that's more powerful than the Q6600....and that's one is like 1k. I read that "right now", not many games take advantage of quad core......but that will change in the future so wouldn't quad core be a better investment?

 

[awesomejay]

check out the graphs in the Q6600 vs the E8400

http://techgage.com/article/intel_core_2_duo_e8400_30ghz_-_wolfdale_arrives/9

they show the E8400 beating the Q6600 in gaming. multimedia the quad still wins. I personally would get the E8400 its cheaper, slightly better nums for gaming and not too far behind for other stuff. now if you dont plan on upgrading for say 2-4 yrs then the quad might be a better choice, but i personally change cpu's at least, more often then that.

article is actually pretty good.. he overclocks the E8400 from 3.0Ghz to 4.23Ghz stable.

 

[redsamurai]

Interesting, so you think it's a better "future proof" chip? I'll have to find out what games are coming out in the next year or so and if they're going to be taking more advantage of quad core or dual core chips. Isn't Intel coming out soon with a "true quad core"?? Or is that AMD?

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

They are not making it for x box.. The x box is nit powerful enought to be bale to play it... The ps3 can do it without a hitch with the cell... There is a video where crytex programmers talk all about it...

This is difficult to believe. Link......

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

I've finished the game.

Great graphics.....but the gameplay was standard fps fare imho.

nb. You'll spend A LOT of time in stealth mode. lol

So was Halo 3 (minus the great graphics) but it didn't stop that game from getting rated better somehow. I bet if Crysis was developed mainly for the consoles the reviews would've been almost a full point higher to push higher sales in the bigger market.

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

check out the graphs in the Q6600 vs the E8400

http://techgage.com/article/intel_core_2_duo_e8400_30ghz_-_wolfdale_arrives/9

they show the E8400 beating the Q6600 in gaming. multimedia the quad still wins. I personally would get the E8400 its cheaper, slightly better nums for gaming and not too far behind for other stuff. now if you dont plan on upgrading for say 2-4 yrs then the quad might be a better choice, but i personally change cpu's at least, more often then that.

article is actually pretty good.. he overclocks the E8400 from 3.0Ghz to 4.23Ghz stable.

Damn, I have the last one on that graph (E6600 2.4 Dual), and at 2560x1600 it's still within roughly 2 fps of the fastest quad.
In any case, the technical challenge here seems to be coming from a resolution standpoint.
A CPU from Intel's Extreme series would be best for hardcore gamers; dual or quad.

 

[awesomejay]

Damn, I have the last one on that graph (E6600 2.4 Dual), and at 2560x1600 it's still within roughly 2 fps of the fastest quad.
In any case, the technical challenge here seems to be coming from a resolution standpoint.
A CPU from Intel's Extreme series would be best for hardcore gamers; dual or quad.

ya but at a price tag of around $1,000 for an extreme quad or dual core, who can justify that?