Originally Posted by conroejoe
First, I don't consider anything under 40 or 50 FPS "running". 60+ is running, under that its chugging along and to me unplayable really.
Second, my quad and GTX run every other game out there 60+ with AA on (I use 1280x1024 on NEC GX2 90 because my 20" WS gives me a headache @ 60hz). Crysis is the only game I'm not happy with and to be honest doesn't look good enough to justify that it's not able to. COD4 looks more realistic and runs so much better.
Third, here is the video with Cevat talking about the game. Notice how fast it's running - I call BS. Also, them talking about how fast on the quad core. The game is so GPU bound the CPU doesn't amount to crap, also calling BS.
So the video shows the game just smoking right. Specs at the end of the video are Penryn Quad @ 3.2Ghz, 2GB ram, 8800GTX and Windows XP.
How are my expectations set too hight Redeemed? We've just been shown a video of Crysis smoking with said system. Now the game is out and performance sucks? So I was supposed to know I was being lied to? Its my fault they tricked us?? Seriously dude you can go on and on about how your expectations were exceeded. Mine were set by what I SAW about the game and clearly those were timedemos that were taking through a video program and sped up to make 20 FPS look like 80 or it was run on medium settings - to which they never state. Lies and BS from Cevat.
Joe, no where in that interview was the settings in-game nor the fps mentioned. You're purely going off of assumptions based on how it appears. To me, I'd imagine it to be running at 1920x1080, medium settings "in-game", and I have no idea what the AA settings would be. Regardless, that's about how smooth the gameplay is for me at 1680x1050, medium settings, no AA. I don't know how you see that video as being at the highest in game settings... you really cannot tell. At best you can only assume- which would be your fault as they never once put a gun to your head forcing you to come to that assumption.