No more patches for Crysis

[six_storm]

This is almost ironic because this was one of the most overhyped games ever. My expectations for Crysis were high but it didn't deliver. Oh well, just a personal opinion. Even though my desktop is pretty powerful, it does run Crysis fairly well. It still needs some optimization though, I don't care what you say.

[NarcissistZero]

Originally Posted by nekrosoft13

halo series are the most overhyped horrible games to ever be released. I kind of understand why halo was "popular" it was one of first semi-FPS to be released on conosle, something new that people got excited about.

but anyone with half a brain should realize how horrible those games are.

Err... I am pretty sure I have at least half a brain, and I enjoy the Halo games. Their stories are pretty fun, nothing amazing but fun sci-fi, and their large, open levels with vehicles are really, really good (especially on a console in 2000 or whenever the first came out).

I agree they are overhyped and not the best FPS games ever, and their corridor levels tend to suck, but they are indeed very good games. PC-only gamers can say what they want, it doesn't make that false.

Anyway... Crysis... The quote is interesting as it hints to some huge announcement that will cause this to make sense. I am going to go on record here and say that almost HAS to be a console port. It's either that or a going out of business/absorbed into EA announcement. Nothing else really fits.

If it is a console announcement, and PC support is dead because of it, talk about a blow to the PC community, overhyped or not. Sucks... and I even liked the game (well, the first half anyway).

[Medion]

K007 -

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).

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

I just find it funny how PC Elitests are so quick to talk **** about a developer when less then a year ago the same people talking **** were praising them.

As for this news, I can see why. They made little to no profit from it... Im sure they want to focus on something else.

[NarcissistZero]

Originally Posted by |MaguS|

I just find it funny how PC Elitests are so quick to talk **** about a developer when less then a year ago the same people talking **** were praising them.

The general elitism and crankyness of PC-only gamers is common and embarrassing.

[nemecb]

Originally Posted by AngelGraves13

The problem is that no one considers 9600GT/8800GT to be lower end hardware, they consider it to be top end since nothing is really faster than it (not by much anyway). Low end is 6 and 7 series, which doesn't play nice with this game.

Plays just fine on the second rig in my sig (7600 GT). Sure, the resolution is low and most of the effects are turned off, but it still looks good and it's still fun as hell to knock over trees.

[Medion]

Originally Posted by NarcissistZero

The general elitism and crankyness of PC-only gamers is common and embarrassing.

I find the most common sense oriented gamers are those who play on both the PC and console, without thinking about it. Console gamers who piss on PC games tend to be ignorant, or just plain stupid. PC gamers who piss on consoles tend to be jealous, or elitists. I prefer to stay in the middle and enjoy both platforms

Originally Posted by Medion

I find the most common sense oriented gamers are those who play on both the PC and console, without thinking about it. Console gamers who piss on PC games tend to be ignorant, or just plain stupid. PC gamers who piss on consoles tend to be jealous, or elitists. I prefer to stay in the middle and enjoy both platforms

True, playing good games no matter the platform is the best thing.

[Medion]

Originally Posted by |MaguS|

True, playing good games no matter the platform is the best thing.

Yup. Though I'm anal. When a game is released for multiple platforms that I own, I HAVE to research endlessly to make sure that I get the superior version. Typically, if the PC version is only marginally superior, I'll grab the console version for the plug and play.

[JigenD]

Originally Posted by CaptNKILL

Is there any truth in this? If so, they are completely retarded for stopping support...

It was never directly stated like that. They said the game went 'platinum', which really doesn't mean anything, I think if they had sold a million, they would have been more openly clear.

Anyways, the next game (which is now fully registered) is Crysis Warfare, I bet 360, PS3, and PC.

[CaptNKILL]

Originally Posted by JigenD

Anyways, the next game (which is now fully registered) is Crysis Warfare, I bet 360, PS3, and PC.

Sounds like a multiplayer game.

[NarcissistZero]

Originally Posted by CaptNKILL

Sounds like a multiplayer game.

I would bet it's like World in Conflicts next release... an expansion for PC, mostly focusing on multi, and the original game + expansion on console.