Originally Posted by Weaser
Ok good. At least I know i'm not crazy now and agree with your perceptions. There is just something wrong when you play Stalker at 1920x1200 max settings and then Crysis at 1024x600 on medium settings with low framerates.. when I say low I mean below 40. One other observation I noticed is how much different looking the game is when you change the shaders from medium to high. On high shaders the game looks awesome but unplayable due to framerates.. on medium it's starting to look almost like any other shooter out there.
Yep. Perhaps my standards are a bit higher than others but I simply refuse to play Crysis at a resolution I haven't had to tolerate in games since....Duke Nukem 3d for crying out loud. There's something wrong with not only having to play at a ridiculously low resolution, but toggle multiple settings to "low" and "medium" just to get quasi tolerable framerates! It's an asinine business and development decision when all they have to do is take a look at the typical gamer statistics. Hell, here's the latest Steam survey from March of this year: http://www.steampowered.com/status/survey.html
Computers with an geforce 8800? 4.56% ! Take a look at those statistics; There's simply no way in hell that anyone other than the top 5-8% of gamers will be able to remotely enjoy Crysis. I'm sorry, but 20 fps is NOT playable for me anymore, and that's at any resolution. It's getting humorous reading some of the desperate posts so far: "I tried 800x600 with 5 settings set to "low", with all my system tray apps closed, 7950 gtx overclocked to 1800/1400 with liquid nitrogen, on a 15 inch monitor, with a thick pair of glasses on (low-tech AAx4) while squinting with my eyes closed approximately 50%, looking through a fish bowl, and the game looked pretty good! Playable framerates even! ~ <18fps>" Ah well, there's other games out there.