Poll: The Cry2 Engine crushed my Self-Esteem

[eggdog14]

I thought i had a nice computer.
I thought i was one of the "cool" kids. You know, those with the gaming computers that are so fast and advanced they've become self-aware, and start asking themselves why they should still take orders from you.

I thought wrong.

Crysis runs like a paraplegic cow on my comp. Not even Gamespot (c) has a computer that can run the game on high, because apparently "It's doubtful that a system has been built yet that can run the game at ultra-high resolutions with all the graphical sliders maxed out."

I'm running the demo now, and its still pretty damn sweet at 3 fps. So, when they finally develop a computer to run the damn thing, i'll make sure to hop in my space-car and fly to the nearest intergalactic-gamestop.

cheers
-eggdog

 

[shadow skill]

Crysis just shows that there is no point to making a game that you need to wait maybe a year and a half to actually have parts available to a good number of people that would be capable of running the game. Every other review I read for this game is talking about how the game makes their extremely powerful boxes cry out in agony. I think Crysis NEEDS a console port just to let more people play the game since practically no one will be able to afford a pc that can play this one game.

 

[GrowlersAtSea]

My machine could run the demo fairly well and fairly good settings at my resolution (can't go top notch, but who can really aside from people with 8800GTX's in SLI or something insane like that). I use an 8800gts, and a 1440 x 900 monitor, so don't need to try to run at crazy resolutions so I can keep the settings at fairly nice levels.

But, ultimately, I didn't see all that much that impressed me visually. I had things as turned up as I could and still get good framerates, but frankly I was more impressed with the Call of Duty 4 demo (which also, from what I've read, is much more scalable). The gameplay seemed to be a very simple 'go to point A, kill everyone there, then go to point B' in a jungle environment. Being able to knock down trees at any point with bullets and wrecking some buildings with grenades, vehicles or just a punch was neat and can offer interesting gameplay mechanics, but it just doesn't seem to be worth the hype to me.

Anyway, the high system requirements do matter. A lot of reviewers like to not pay attention to the system requirements and judge a game purely on it's merits, but I think it's kind of naive to not take into account how accessible a game is to the average gamer. I think a lot of reviewers like to think of it like reviewing movies, many Indy movies don't get played outside of select cities, should you mark them down for not being viewable to the average person who isn't in downtown Chicago or LA? That wouldn't be fair.

I can see both sides of it, but I think a game reviewer has a responsibility to the average gamer to be looking out for them. My two cents, at least.

 

[The Irrelevant Gamer]

I just turned all of the graphics settings to low, and pretended the game is from a few years ago.

 

[Jakeb Smith]

I see it as in investment for the future. By the time I have a computer that can run Crysis, it will be in the bargain bin. It will still look fantastic, but not be a waste of a hundred Australian dollars.

 

[Anton P. Nym]

Crysis and its ilk are a big part of why I migrated to consoles; I just can't afford to keep up with the hardware requirements, when the cost of a high-end graphics card is the same as an entire current-gen console and I'd have to buy one every year or two. Sure, it'd be gorgeous... but not gorgeous enough to make me spend that much money and cut that much into the rest of my lifestyle budget.

One HD console every four or five years is a steal in comparison, and not that much behind; heck, the 360 graphics blow me away, though that may be my "was awed by Zaxxon when it came out" experience speaking.

-- Steve

 

[dnv2]

Crysis and its ilk are a big part of why I migrated to consoles; I just can't afford to keep up with the hardware requirements, when the cost of a high-end graphics card is the same as an entire current-gen console and I'd have to buy one every year or two. Sure, it'd be gorgeous... but not gorgeous enough to make me spend that much money and cut that much into the rest of my lifestyle budget.

One HD console every four or five years is a steal in comparison, and not that much behind; heck, the 360 graphics blow me away, though that may be my "was awed by Zaxxon when it came out" experience speaking.

-- Steve

Also my way of thinking at the moment too. Don't get me wrong I love my PC, I love PC games, but it's not just the graphics cards that need upgrading. I can remember times where I've gone and bought a new, best available out there at the moment graphics card and then to my dismay, I'm still hampered by other parts of my system such as my memory or CPU.

Playing games at 15 fps isn't acceptable for me, it really takes the enjoyment out of a game for me and when I can go and play a game on my 360 with stunning visuals, decent frame rate and HD picture I can't justify buying new expensive hardware everytime something comes out that I cant play on my current system.