New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Crysis on your Dell - Page 8

Poll Results: Your impressions of the game

Poll expired: Jul 20, 2010 This is a multiple choice poll
  • 36% (21)
    Truly Groundbreaking
  • 22% (13)
    Nice, but its just another FPS
  • 22% (13)
    Im on the fence about this one
  • 15% (9)
    Doesnt live up to hype
  • 1% (1)
    Im going back to Bioshock
57 Total Votes  
post #141 of 262
10/29/07 at 3:37pm
Crytek and the original CryEngine was never about pandering to old hardware and appealing to the casual mass market, it was always about pushing the limits and pushing new hardware off the shelves. CryEngine2 is no exception. That it is even playable on my 28-month old notebook with a 256MB 7800 GTX @ 1280x720 at medium-high settings is an achievement in and of itself.

I can understand why you're upset though, your notebook must have cost a fortune. Try running the latest beta drivers (169.01), try a few tweaks and compromise a bit on your settings, don't let your unrealistic expectations get in the way of your enjoyment of the game.
Reply
Reply
post #142 of 262
10/29/07 at 4:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blahman View Post
Crytek and the original CryEngine was never about pandering to old hardware and appealing to the casual mass market, it was always about pushing the limits and pushing new hardware off the shelves. CryEngine2 is no exception. That it is even playable on my 28-month old notebook with a 256MB 7800 GTX @ 1280x720 at medium-high settings is an achievement in and of itself. I can understand why you're upset though, your notebook must have cost a fortune. Try running the latest beta drivers (169.01), try a few tweaks and compromise a bit on your settings, don't let your unrealistic expectations get in the way of your enjoyment of the game.
Yep, it was quite some time before FarCry was playable at high resolutions with full details. IIRC correctly it was something like 8-10 months after release.
Reply
Reply
post #143 of 262
10/29/07 at 4:51pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groove75 View Post
I'm pretty disgusted with the performance of the demo. I'm playing it on the system in my sig with my 7950gtx oc'd to 630/700 under Vista with 165.xx drivers and I can tell you that it runs like crap in all resolutions for the most part. I don't consider anything under 1280 even worth using as a resolution in games, so 1280 was as low as I was willing to try. Even at that resolution with medium settings, the frames were atrocious, especially in battles. I think many of you are in denial about the steep requirements of the game and in thinking that very much will be "optimized" by release. I've never experienced any huge engine optimizations after a public demo was released and it would take a massive amount of tweaking to elevate the current level of performance to something acceptable on my systems. I'm so disappointed in Crytek for making this game so unplayable on normal hardware platforms. I can't understand the business decision. At the current state, I would say only the top 5 or 10% of gaming systems out there would be able to play this thing very smoothly. Sure it will scale well, but the reality is that for most of us, we'll have to pick this game back up in a year or two when we have a rig that can deal with it.
Play it in XP, dont expect to play at native res.
Reply
Reply
post #144 of 262
10/29/07 at 9:10pm
when farcry came out I was playing it on my Sager 5680 with a 128mb m10. first real graphics chip that was a real contender
Reply
Reply
post #145 of 262
10/29/07 at 10:12pm
I got my first laptop (Insprion 8500, ATI 9600) for Far cry. Now I got my XPS for this. I just realised that.
Reply
Reply
post #146 of 262
10/30/07 at 12:19am
I think what some might be missing is a very simple fact.

There are MANY games that LOOK better and RUN better on a median system than Crysis does in LOW/MEDIUM settings. In otherwords, Far Cry runs awesomely on most systems out today, AND it LOOKS FAR BETTER than Crysis does with settings set to low or medium especially if we can't run it in a resolution native to our LCDs.

Now why can't they tweak it to at least look as good as Far Cry?

As far as the "this is a demo" argument, we ain't sure of jack. For all we know it is going gold in the next week or two. It is likely they have not finished every level, even though my son has grown eight inches since they started programming on it. (now that really is perspective)

Jon
Reply
Reply
post #147 of 262
10/30/07 at 12:21am
it's already gone gold.
Reply
Reply
post #148 of 262
10/30/07 at 12:26am
To quote Emperor Joseph II from the movie "Amadeus": Well there it is.
Reply
Reply
post #149 of 262
10/30/07 at 1:32am
-But that does not mean that all the tweaks that were included in the gold version were implemented in the demo.
Reply
Reply
post #150 of 262
10/30/07 at 1:44am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolApathy View Post
-But that does not mean that all the tweaks that were included in the gold version were implemented in the demo.

I would love to believe that they left some stuff out that may make it run abit better when the final game hits, but im willing to bet that it will run exactly the same come retail time . this game is just a HOG but a beautiful one . this is one of those games that no one should have to play on low with all settings off just to play it and thats why i laugh when they said it will run on 4 year old systems , sure it will run at 640x480 with everything off looking more like quake 1 then a next gen game .
Reply
Reply
post #151 of 262
10/30/07 at 1:56am
i agree. i will wait 4 years then play it on max with watever I have for hardware then.
Reply
Reply
post #152 of 262
10/30/07 at 1:57am
Crysis 2 will be out by then. The never-ending cycle.
Reply
Reply
post #153 of 262
10/30/07 at 5:35am
It runs ok on medium with my M1710, 1280 x 800. Im going to try some new settings now to see if i cant get that fps up a bit. I wish I had xp installed though.
Reply
Reply
post #154 of 262
10/30/07 at 7:35am
Quote:
Originally Posted by diefool View Post
i agree. i will wait 4 years then play it on max with watever I have for hardware then.

Yeah right, we'll all have 3D environments to play on by then!
Reply
Reply
post #155 of 262
10/30/07 at 7:54am
Its perfectly playable with everything on medium, post processing effects on low, it never really drops below to an unplayable level (low of around 20fps). Max temp of 84. Im a little shitty though, and heres why:

Laptop M1710
4gb ram
7590GTX 512mb
Vista

Desktop HP
1.5gb ram
7800GT 256mb
XP

Now it runs the same, if not better on the desktop (exact same settings and 1280 x 800). Nothing on either machine is overclocked. Would this be only because of XP? If so im XP'ing this laptop asap.
Reply
Reply
post #156 of 262
10/30/07 at 10:15am
Yep its Vista.
Reply
Reply
post #157 of 262
10/30/07 at 10:33am
-What proc is in that HP
-What drivers are you using


The 7950 is equivilent to the Desktop 7800GTX, which is slightly faster than the GT. (7800 GTX has an additional 4 pixel pipes, 1 more vertex pipe, 30MHz higher core clock and a 100MHz memory bump.) Of course everything except the core bump is there to increase memory bandwidth, which at that resolution isn't that big of a deal.


Vista is definitely going to have a performance impact, though the latest 169.01 drivers should recify a lot of that. The only problem I have found with the 169's is an issue with City of Villians. Apparently it doesn't care for that driver too much.

since you have no need for a DX10 OS with your cards I would go with XP. Even with my desktop I played it in Vista & did not find DX10 interesting enough to continue playing it Vista.
Reply
Reply
post #158 of 262
10/30/07 at 3:31pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SirMaximuM View Post
Well... on my Dell i9400 (C2D T7200 + 7900GS stock) I can tell you that is really hard to play at "nice settings" (it does means, at least medium) on resolutions above 1024x768. But I can also tell you that running this game on a 17" WUXGA (1920x1200) at resolutions below 1024x768 @ full-screen surely will be really bad playing FPS game. The question is, could someone who has a Dell i9400/e1705 like mine but just with a 7900GS Oc'd tell me about the performance? I was thinking in flash my 7900GS but I'm not sure about how much REAL in-game performance will be gained.
@SirMaximum: I have an o/c 7900GS (625/740) with a T7400 cpu. I get an average 20 at 1024x768, everything at medium. It is IMHO very borderline in terms playability, and utterly ugly mainly because of the lower res, no AA and poor texture quality (especially the big rocks on the beach, which look like a 6 year old game). I will pass on this game. It is a disapointment for me.
Reply
Reply
post #159 of 262
10/30/07 at 4:19pm
The only way I see the game being worth it, is if you have an 8800GT/GTX/Ultra
Reply
Reply
post #160 of 262
10/30/07 at 4:25pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdonket View Post
The only way I see the game being worth it, is if you have an 8800GT/GTX/Ultra
I agree. This is why I will, like many, play it in a couple years. I played FarCry only this year. I can be patient For the time being, I might get a console and play dumbed down games, but not waste hours in tweaking and swearing. Then in 2 years, I'll get a new PC and catch up with 2008-2009 games. An interesting and less espansive cycle
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home