View Single Post
Old 06-02-08, 10:48 AM   #39
Medion
 
Medion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Barksdale AFB, La
Posts: 1,238
Default Re: No more patches for Crysis

K007 -

Quote:
My favorites are FPS. FPS games tend to be more detail in the graphics, and Crysis has done a superb job of delivering some of the best graphics to the market/future. The facial animations/character models are stunning. When the GTX 280 comes out and this game starts moving into smooth frame rates on high with AA...its gonna really start to pick up.

I don't know about others..but i sure as hell cant wait to replay Crysis again on max settings when i get my GTX 280 ><.

When HALO finally hit the PC..it was a real disappointment. I did play Halo 1, and i thought it was alright..but i wasn't sure what all the fuss was...Then Halo 2 hit PC...needing VISTA min req...which was pathetic...and the graphics failed way short...and it just fell into a blackhole that no one cares about -.-.

People who diss Crysis fail to realize that this game has set a level/target for gpus and other game designers in terms of graphics to meet and make it playable...its a win / win situation regardless of weather the story was good or not.
You're talking about the graphics, I'm talking about gameplay. Halo was a console 2001 release, Crysis is a bleeding edge 2008 PC release. The graphics wouldn't be comparable. I'm sure Crysis is a great game, but slamming Halo for it's graphics is kind of weak. (PC versions are fair game, since they were released way later than they should have been).

Quote:
8800GT is med to low end, it defiantly was considered the mid range card, the price was a dead give away, while the performance was actually pretty good..which made this card a good gpu for budget gamers...though the heatsink is a different story -.-.

9600GT is DEFIANTLY a low end gpu release for the 9 series....and again...a great card for $/Value for budget gamers.

The 8800GTS/GTX was the mid - high end while the 8800Ultra was enthusiastic level ><.

The 9800GTX was....i guess a good budget card...performance on level of a 8800GTX @ half the cost ><....but bad timing for its release with the GTX 280/260 and the ATi 4xxx series coming out which will be better in performance by a large margin...and the ATi 4xxx series seem to be having pretty good pricing....but only time will tell if its good in performance.....I can't wait to see them on XFIRE.....i got a x38 so i XFIRE is gonna kick some major ass i am gonna skip the gtx 280 ><
You're setting a higher standard than the industry does.

Budget - typically refers to onboard video or ultra low ends cards (Radeon 2400, GF 840, etc.).

Low end - Cards that can let you run modern games at average/medium settings, such as the 8600/2600 cards.

Mid range - Lots of play here, but mid range typically lets you play modern games with some bells and whistles, like AA and AF. This could be your 9600GSO/8800GS (mid-low) and 9600GT/8800GT (mid-high).

High end - 8800GTS/8800GTX/8800Ultra/9800GTX, cards that generally cost more ,but give you near bleeding edge performance. The GX2 would be more of an enthusiast card, above high-end.

Your classifications claim that the 9600GT is a low end/budget card. I'm running one now, and I have to disagree. The performance is outstanding. Besides, try telling a casual gamer's parents that $120-140 for a graphics upgrade is "budget" when the same games can easily run on a $50 HD2400 or 8400GS (with lower settings). THAT is budget
Medion is offline   Reply With Quote