Comments on: Crysis in Crisis, Unreal In Real Trouble

By: porncards

porncards — Wed, 24 Mar 2010 00:57:23 +0000

[...] porn … Mail (will not be published) (required) Website. Contact. cosmicpluto@cosmicpluto.com …Crysis in Crisis, Unreal In Real Trouble | Rock, Paper, ShotgunSad tidings for fans of heavily normal-mapped pretend-man-shoots. Seems both Crysis and Unreal [...]

By: Rock, Paper, Shotgun: Watering Your Tech Tree » Blog Archive » Crysis (er) not in crisis, actually.

Fri, 01 Feb 2008 17:42:41 +0000

[...] this is an interesting twist in a tale. Ever since people described its first month sales figures were described as disappointing, it’s been one of those accepted gamer beliefs that the PC-punishing FPS was a flop at retail. [...]

By: malkav11

malkav11 — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 02:31:46 +0000

I think it might be hard to rearrange HL2′s sequences and have the game play nearly as well. It’s not that they narratively need to be in that order, but rather that the order they’re in represents an optimal scaling of difficulty and learning curve. For example, I really wouldn’t want to try to fight a gunship or strider 3 minutes into the game.

By: Pulu See Bagumba

Pulu See Bagumba — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 22:32:31 +0000

Ging said:”…there’s something immensely satisfying about uncloaking in front of a confused Korean soldier only to pick him up and throw him over a cliff.”

QFT. It never gets old. Ever.

By: Garth

Garth — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 17:20:40 +0000

“What HL2 is very good at is creating memorable scripted sequences, but for the most part those sequences are self-contained, not really requiring or doing much with the surrounding context. (it does still have more plot than Half-Life, though. I’ll give it that.)”

Didn’t see this, sorry (lot of posts to go through, heh.)

I actually had a theory that I posited to a friend: if you took Half-Life 2′s ‘sequences’, and rearranged all of them, I’m not sure new players would really notice. The game felt entirely disjointed, and I was never in a position of “Ok, I did x, so now these bunch of things happen, then I get to do y, and…” it was: Drive car to place. Place leads to cave. Cave leads to place. Place leads to car again. Car leads to place.

By: Garth

Garth — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 17:17:36 +0000

[quote]However, Crysis is a complete no-no for me. I have a nearly two-year-old PC, Athlon 64 3700+, 2 GIG RAM and a 7800 GT. It’ll play the OB games without a problem, and I’m assuming would give a fair go to UT3. Crysis has always been billed as a Direct X10 game though (not in the way Halo 2 was…), and although I’m fully aware I can buy it for XP and get the full Direct X9-and-a-half experience, but I don’t want to.[/quote]
I just wanted to let you know I have an almost identical rig to you (only 1 gig, and a Radeon card) and I ran the Crysis demo fine.

I still wasn’t impressed at all, but be assured you can play it (I had most of the settings on High or Medium).

By: The_B

The_B — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 17:00:32 +0000

I’ll give you a hint as to why these two games have failed sales wise- NO ONE CAN PLAY THEM! Having looked into the matter, if you want a computer that can play crysis really well, you’re looking at spending 3000 dollars on the tower alone.

No one is going to buy a game that they can’t play on their machine. Crysis is the future. The present isn’t ready for it.

Mnngh and indeed arrgh. UT3 really isn’t as demanding as it appears. And as for Crysis. Well, I built my computer for less than £600 (about $1200) and it plays the Crysis demo perfectly well.

On another similar note, I was watching an episode of Around the Net in 20 Games on the Frag channel on Joost today (Featuring Jon Hicks, Journo-Spotters!). And the guy from biz-tech said what I thought were the most ill informed comments about UT3′s technical specs ever. Granted it was before it came out, but given he used these words “It will require Vista and a DX10 graphics card and a top end rig” – that was require, not optional. I don’t remember at any point being under the impression UT3 would be Vista only – with comments like that broadcast, it’s no wonder gamers get worried about whether a game will play on their systems…

By: Jim Rossignol

Jim Rossignol — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 12:49:54 +0000

That seems unlikely.

By: Meat Circus

Meat Circus — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 12:42:33 +0000

Dear Mr Jesus,

For your Christmas, I would like to have the last comment on this post, even if it must be burglary.

By: cliffski

cliffski — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 12:03:32 +0000

All I know about crysis is that it has a high-spec engine. Thats not enough reason for me to buy a game, despite having a fairly good rig. COD 4 had its on-line perks and new game modes, and that, plus the fact that its a sequel to a truly awesome game, meant I bought that instead. If I was bored with COD 4, I’d try the demo, but as it is, I haven’t even bothered.

By: Philip

Philip — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 09:15:53 +0000

We’ve been rather spoilt for choice recently, haven’t we? UT3, The Orange Box (which, according to the latest PC Gamer UK contains 3 of the top 7 games of the year), Crysis, ~~Kane & Lynch~~, COD4, not to mention non-FPS games like Tabula Rasa and the latests instalments of PES and Football Manager. I’ve been rather taken by the idea of Viva Pinata too. Plus I’m still horribly addicted to Peggle…

One problem for Crysis and UT3 is they came out after The Orange Box. I’m personally not looking at either, as I haven’t even completed Portal yet. If I did buy one game, it would be UT3, having been sucked in by UT’s madness over many years.

However, Crysis is a complete no-no for me. I have a nearly two-year-old PC, Athlon 64 3700+, 2 GIG RAM and a 7800 GT. It’ll play the OB games without a problem, and I’m assuming would give a fair go to UT3. Crysis has always been billed as a Direct X10 game though (not in the way Halo 2 was…), and although I’m fully aware I can buy it for XP and get the full Direct X9-and-a-half experience, but I don’t want to. I’d rather wait a couple of years until I’ve saved enough money for the Quad-core Quad-GPU Quad-coffee maker monster of my dreams.

Then I’ll buy Crysis. Sorry Crytek, but you’ve pitched your game a touch high for me, and the maximum you’ll get is a tenner from the bargain box. On the other hand, well done Valve – by forgoing Direct X10 for the time being you’ve given your games as wide an appeal as possible.

And how many copies of the Orange Box have sold? I only have to look at my MSN contacts list to give a wrough approximation – most of the current screen names involve cake, or cubes, or being “Still Alive”…

By: poullos

poullos — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 07:15:27 +0000

I have 2 GB RAM, E6600 at stock and a 8800GTS 640mb. One of the RAM sticks burned, and I had to tweak my games a bit on vista to play. I turned everything from very high in Team Fortress 2 to medium-low and the game still looks awesome.

My point? You don’t buy crysis to run it at high. You buy it because you want to run it at max settings and enjoy EVERYTHING this highly former-anticipated game has graphically to offer. It was advertised with hundreds of videos about it’s awesome graphics and physics. Who buys crysis after previewing it knowing he/she can’t run it at max? This was the target message and everyone looked at it as a tech demo. A very good looking tech demo but that was the most you saw in it.

After pre-ordering orange box and played the TF 2 beta, I logged back to play-dot-com and canceled my crysis pre-order. Why? I knew I wouldn’t be able to run the game with full graphics, and after TF 2 I knew there wouldn’t be anything past the first benchmark impressions in the game.

Crysis was advertised as the best looking game. Most people want to run it at full glory, not cut down settings. Gameplay was never advertised apart from the nanosuit. Lacking both story and graphic expectations, made me not buy the game in the end.

UT3? I have TF 2 as mentioned before. No need for another MP game, and there is COD 4 too. Not fun as TF 2 but very good on the classic shooter league.