PDA

View Full Version : EA and Crytek should be sued for


Pages : [1] 2 3

hell_of_doom227
10-28-07, 12:11 PM
Lying about minimum and recommended requirements to run Crysis.

One system with AMD 3800 X2 Dual Core + 2GB of RAM + 7800GT Video Card runs this game barely with everything low settings. The funny thing the objects are not even rendered unless you're really close to them. I don't think that any system less then 2GB of RAM and specs below will run this at all.

This game will be able to play only few people and still the experience is going to be :thumbdwn: .

This is really unoptimized game. They threw a lot of things there with no logic and reasoning behind anything.

I'm not buying this game. Maybe they should had look at Call of Duty 4 and see how the things are done right in a sense of quality/performance ratio which is perfect.

This Crytek engine won't be used by any games in the future, but actually UT3 engine which with AA support is going to kick ass for then next 2-3 years.

grey_1
10-28-07, 12:15 PM
You're kidding right? My specs are a lot lower than yours and I'm enjoying the heck out of it.

Get over it for gosh sake.

Destroy
10-28-07, 12:16 PM
LOL, Crysis is doing every single graphic feature possible with true high res texturesAND doing so in huge wide open areas. And mega destructible environments and physics don't forget too.

When your COD4 or UT3 can do all this, we'll see how the frame rates compare.

SlieTheSecond
10-28-07, 12:17 PM
They didn't lie about the system requirements. Min/Recommended doesn't mean Ultra high settings.

There already are games being made using CryEngine 2.

You can't compare this to COD4. Two completely differen't games. Make a level the size of the one in the crysis demo, throw in all the objects the crysis demo has, add all the physics crysis has, then make it look as good as crysis. Then come back and tell me how perfectly smooth it runs.

Kain
10-28-07, 12:18 PM
They didn't lie about the system requirements. Min/Recommended doesn't mean Ultra high settings.

There already are games being made using CryEngine 2.

You can't compare this to COD4. Two completely differen't games. Make a level the size of the one in the crysis demo, throw in all the objects the crysis demo has, add all the physics crysis has, then make it look as good as crysis. Then come back and tell me how perfectly smooth it runs. Which games?

Vasot02
10-28-07, 12:18 PM
I agree that EA needs to be sued for unoptimized and buggy games (i never liked EA)

But Crytek no

$n][pErMan
10-28-07, 12:33 PM
Its by far the most graphic intensive game out and you are complaining about it? I agree, it still has a way to go, or at least the drivers have a way to go to run it properly. But after disabling a few things in the .cfg files it can still look extremely nice with most of the sweet effects (like the sunbeams) and run quite smooth in DX10 (and DX9). If everyone recalls, FarCry, when the HDR patch came out, ran with quite a performance hit. I remember my old 6800GT stuggling in spots. After a few driver releases however it became quite playable and fun. Hopefully by releasing the demo so early Crytek can get a better feel for what it needs to do to better optimise the game without taking out any eye candy, or at the very least nVidia gets some time to write better drivers.

Dreamingawake
10-28-07, 12:35 PM
yeah the posters in this thread are right.

look at the freakin' Cryengine. it's absolutely mind blowing when you get down to it.

the entire island in the demo is basically being rendered all at once. real time
lighting and shadows, physics -which are really really cool, and probably
the most taxing on the system. high res textures, this engine has it all..

there's no other game out there like this, it truly raised the bar.

ps. yeah new drivers will help, no doubt !!! im betting we could all get at least another 10-15 fps with new drivers, and for some
people that would make a huge difference.

$n][pErMan
10-28-07, 12:42 PM
ps. yeah new drivers will help, no doubt !!! im betting we could all get at least another 10-15 fps with new drivers, and for some
people that would make a huge difference.
Another 10-15 FPS for me would mean everything on Very High in DX10 @ 1920 x 1200 with 2xAA would be a very playable 32FPS :D Right now if I max everything I get about 16 FPS average occasionally dipping much lower. I so wish a driver could do that kind of performance increase.... we shall see :D

CaptNKILL
10-28-07, 01:11 PM
One system with AMD 3800 X2 Dual Core + 2GB of RAM + 7800GT Video Card runs this game barely with everything low settings.
I have a very hard time believing that, and I'm pretty picky about frame rates.

I don't know what my framerates were but the game was 100% playable (and sometimes even what I would call SMOOTH) in DirectX9 mode with everything set to high at 1600x1200 on my system. The frame rates go up a lot with lower settings and lower resolutions too. There is no reason that system wouldn't be able to pull playable frame rates at 1024x768 with a mix of medium and low settings.

Tygerwoody
10-28-07, 01:15 PM
One system with AMD 3800 X2 Dual Core + 2GB of RAM + 7800GT Video Card runs this game barely with everything low settings.
This is what you call a "liar"

T.h.o.m.a.s.
10-28-07, 01:16 PM
.....

people like you should be sued for making dumbass replies :p :p

Lfctony
10-28-07, 01:17 PM
Hm, everything on low and it's unplayable huh....

http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=101125

That's on a Barton 3200+ and a 6800GT with plenty of settings on medium too, and this guy claims he can't run it on a X2 3800+ and a 7800GT!

Tork64
10-28-07, 01:18 PM
What about the whole 24 hour demo exclusive thing for ea preorders ? or should people just forget about it, I personally dont care either way.

Riplayne
10-28-07, 01:19 PM
Lying about minimum and recommended requirements to run Crysis.

One system with AMD 3800 X2 Dual Core + 2GB of RAM + 7800GT Video Card runs this game barely with everything low settings. The funny thing the objects are not even rendered unless you're really close to them. I don't think that any system less then 2GB of RAM and specs below will run this at all.

This game will be able to play only few people and still the experience is going to be :thumbdwn: .

This is really unoptimized game. They threw a lot of things there with no logic and reasoning behind anything.

I'm not buying this game. Maybe they should had look at Call of Duty 4 and see how the things are done right in a sense of quality/performance ratio which is perfect.

This Crytek engine won't be used by any games in the future, but actually UT3 engine which with AA support is going to kick ass for then next 2-3 years.

Go tell someone who cares, i'm sick of reading these useless threads from someone that feels they were cheated somehow, its ****ing demo dude.

jeffmd
10-28-07, 01:24 PM
cry more

six_storm
10-28-07, 01:27 PM
Something everyone is overlooking here. The original poster is running VISTA. VISTA = the sux for gaming, aka a 35%-45% decrease compared to XP. Run Crysis on XP and get back to us.

jeffmd
10-28-07, 01:29 PM
but then it looks bad...

//runs and hides in the dx10 thread

gfx_demon
10-28-07, 01:30 PM
I was also annoyed at first by the performance.

However, now I have reconsidered my judgment. I tweaked the game and got an overall great graphical experience for a good framerate. Also, no other game has outdoor environments that are so huge with the level of physics there is. It's simply unfair to compare it to other shooters.

I think it's an impressive achievement and the gameplay is awesome.

UT3 engine is good too (Bioshock looked great). Both engines have their uses...

DiscipleDOC
10-28-07, 01:32 PM
Something everyone is overlooking here. The original poster is running VISTA. VISTA = the sux for gaming, aka a 35%-45% decrease compared to XP. Run Crysis on XP and get back to us.
I'm running vista with everything turned up, and the game runs fine.

Uberpwnage
10-28-07, 01:32 PM
One of my friends was able to run Crysis on a Pentium 4 2.8GHz, 512MB ram, and an AGP X1600. He said it was one of the best games hes ever played, even at 20-23fps with the lowest settings. It all depends on how you look at - Crytek shouldn't be sued for pushing the envelope maybe a bit far. If anything, it will only spur more rapid growth in the industry since pretty much everyone here would pay for a 9800 or similar card when they had the money. I'm sure Nvidia knows that, and if they don't have something up their sleeve at the moment, they are most definitely accelerating development.

Rummy
10-28-07, 01:35 PM
Once again this is a pre-release demo, patch and drivers are coming. This game is absolutely amazing. Too bad you're going to miss out.

grey_1
10-28-07, 01:36 PM
Something everyone is overlooking here. The original poster is running VISTA. VISTA = the sux for gaming, aka a 35%-45% decrease compared to XP. Run Crysis on XP and get back to us.
Honestly six, if you are having that bad a time gaming on Vista you're doing something wrong. I'm not giving you a hard time buddy, but all my games with the exception of Dark Messiah ran just fine on Vista home, both 32 and 64 bit.

hell_of_doom227
10-28-07, 01:40 PM
I'm running this game everything very high except for shaders high, resolution 1680*1050. It runs and it's very playable...i'm talking about other systems.

Kain
10-28-07, 01:48 PM
I played the demo on a GeForce Go 7400 with 128MB dedicated memory. With 800x600 and all settings on Low, I got an average of 15 fps. I actually finished the demo like this and loved the game. Can't wait to play the full game on a proper computer. :)