Support NeoGAF

[drizzle]

Haha. You think in the minimum settings the game will use DirectX 10 features? The ones I bolded are the minimum requirements.

And i ask again: If you DON'T have a DX10 capable GPU, why in the HELL are you using Vista?

It's the only reason to use it right now, before SP1 comes out.

Other than that, there's no reason to use it.

 

[jmdajr]

LOL I CAN'T EVEN MEET THE MINIMUM :lol

 

[test_account]

WTF? Vista bloatware? No thanks MSFT, I'll stick to XP until I see a reason to upgrade.

I assume that the game requires more under Vista because of DX10. DX10 = more effects being used = more hardware needed.

 

[StevieP]

Better than on a normal PC I'm sure.

Stop buying your PCs at Dell and Best Buy?

 

[Foreign Jackass]

Or it might just be that this game really does require all that power.

Because it's supposed to have some pretty okay graphics, I hear.

I played the beta. The engine runs like shit, plenty of bugs all over, and we're what, a month from release? It's not even THAT pretty, because the art direction is completely disgusting. The only thing that really impressed me was the nuclear explosions, which are really well done. Apart from that, it's just a prettier Far Cry.

 

[davepoobond]

surprisingly i could actually be able to run it on my computer except for the fact it needs a 256mb video card. i only have 128.

 

[drizzle]

I played the beta. The engine runs like shit, plenty of bugs all over, and we're what, a month from release? It's not even THAT pretty, because the art direction is completely disgusting. The only thing that really impressed me was the nuclear explosions, which are really well done. Apart from that, it's just a prettier Far Cry.

Isn't that kind of the point?
This game is more about showing of than being actually good - just like Far Cry.

surprisingly i could actually be able to run it on my computer except for the fact it needs a 256mb video card. i only have 128.

Time to use some of that, i guess.

 

[Version 3.0]

I can run it...but I have no idea if it's a good game, or just pretty. I think we need a demo.

 

[jmdajr]

Stop buying your PCs at Dell and Best Buy?

you can buy some insane pcs from dell if your willing to pay the price.

 

[Kyoufu]

My comp stomps those recommended specs. The real question is if Crysis will be worth the purchase.

 

[fortified_concept]

And i ask again: If you DON'T have a DX10 capable GPU, why in the HELL are you using Vista?

It's the only reason to use it right now, before SP1 comes out.

Other than that, there's no reason to use it.

I don't understand the argument. You mean that the minimum settings in Vista will be somehow different from the minimum settings in XP? Just because you have DirectX10 in Vista it doesn't mean that the game will necessarily use its features even in minimum settings.

 

[Big-E]

I played the beta. The engine runs like shit, plenty of bugs all over, and we're what, a month from release? It's not even THAT pretty, because the art direction is completely disgusting. The only thing that really impressed me was the nuclear explosions, which are really well done. Apart from that, it's just a prettier Far Cry.

I agree, I was vastly disappointed with the beta.

 

[Acosta]

Not so bad for my 2.5 years old computer

GeForce 7800 GTX with 256 Mb

2 Gb Ram

and my bottleneck, an AMD Athlon 64 of 2,2 Ghz.

I will probably update before I get Crysis, still thinking on it.

 

[TrueReligion]

my 8800 ultra will eat this up.

 

[Doubledex]

Holy fuck, I just built a new PC and I'm barely at the reccomended cut-off.

I just bought a new computer and already recommended settings are close to my specs. This is absurd.

lol WHAT?

 

[drizzle]

I don't understand the argument. You mean that the minimum settings in Vista will be somehow different from the minimum settings in XP? Just because you have DirectX10 in Vista it doesn't mean that the game will necessarily use its features even in minimum settings.

The argument is: Vista uses more memory/ram than XP. That is fact. I could argue with you about why, but let's not pollute the Crysis thread.
The only improvement it really has over XP (right now) is on the gaming side. It's about DirectX 10.

If you DON'T have DirectX10, there's no reason for you to be using Windows Vista.
IF you DO have DirectX10, i'm pretty sure your machine is good enough to take the extra system requirements (i mean, you're not buying a 8800 and only buying 1 gigabyte of ram, right?).

 

[Big-E]

lol WHAT?

3GHZ C2D, 640mb 8800 GTS, 2GB of RAM and Vista 64.

 

[Endless]

Low



Medium



High



Very High

 

[Phife Dawg]

Eh, I had a strict budget. I bought it knowing fully well that it was a budget card, but that doesn't make this any less annoying.

But they are not even awfully cheap to begin with. If you have an SLI capable board maybe running another one would do the trick? Try to get one used or something.

 

[Xenon]

Crysis-tem confirmed

 

[MickeyKnox]

3GHZ C2D, 640mb 8800 GTS, 2GB of RAM and Vista 64.

You'll be fine.

 

[davepoobond]

Time to use some of that, i guess.

i guess instead of a macbook pro i should get a dell xps super charged desktop pc.

when money is no option, all options are available!

 

[Crushed]

Low



Medium



High



Very High

I CAN TASTE THE GRAPHICS

 

[drizzle]

i guess instead of a macbook pro i should get a dell xps super charged desktop pc.

Hmm.. no?

www.newegg.com should be your pc provider...

 

[Deacan]

Soon as my eyes gazed upon this thread, my PC spawned legs and ran off.

Lucky for me, my old back-up PC is too old to care.

 

[EviLore]

Heh, lot of folks with entitlement complexes. If the game had lower recommended settings, it would not look as good and you probably wouldn't even be as interested. You vant play it in full glory, get dual core + 2gb ram + 8800. So many great PC games this holiday and earlier this year so it's hardly a waste. The same system that tames Crysis will eat up Bioshock, run TF2 vsynced to 60 with full effects and 16x AA + 16x AF at damn near whatever resolution you want, kill UT3 and CoD4, etc.

 

[AltogetherAndrews]

But they are not even awfully cheap to begin with. If you have an SLI capable board maybe running another one would do the trick? Try to get one used or something.

Er, this one was real cheap. It's not a big deal, I'll upgrade soon enough. If the upcoming 8800 model is worth its salt, I'll go with that one.

 

[a.wd]

"while my motherboard is gently weeping"

also who here has a rig good enough to play this at peak and how much did it cost you (entirely)?

my system less than a year old and System Am Fail

 

[fortified_concept]

The argument is: Vista uses more memory/ram than XP. That is fact. I could argue with you about why, but let's not pollute the Crysis thread.
The only improvement it really has over XP (right now) is on the gaming side. It's about DirectX 10.

If you DON'T have DirectX10, there's no reason for you to be using Windows Vista.
IF you DO have DirectX10, i'm pretty sure your machine is good enough to take the extra system requirements (i mean, you're not buying a 8800 and only buying 1 gigabyte of ram, right?).

We were agreeing all along then. It's just the way you see it. I see it from the perspective of low to medium settings.

 

[WHOAguitarninja]

Heh, lot of folks with entitlement complexes. If the game had lower recommended settings, it would not look as good and you probably wouldn't even be as interested. You vant play it in full glory, get dual core + 2gb ram + 8800. So many great PC games this holiday and earlier this year so it's hardly a waste. The same system that tames Crysis will eat up Bioshock, run TF2 vsynced to 60 with full effects and 16x AA + 16x AF at damn near whatever resolution you want, kill UT3 and CoD4, etc.

Pretty much. The reason these requirements are so high is because the game is simply doing alot more than anything else out there. It's not a matter of the game being poorly optimized.

 

[Xeke]

How can people afford this...?:lol

 

[MickeyKnox]

Heh, lot of folks with entitlement complexes. If the game had lower recommended settings, it would not look as good and you probably wouldn't even be as interested. You vant play it in full glory, get dual core + 2gb ram + 8800. So many great PC games this holiday and earlier this year so it's hardly a waste. The same system that tames Crysis will eat up Bioshock, run TF2 vsynced to 60 with full effects and 16x AA + 16x AF at damn near whatever resolution you want, kill UT3 and CoD4, etc.

Hear Hear.

 

[Kabouter]

Pretty much. The reason these requirements are so high is because the game is simply doing alot more than anything else out there. It's not a matter of the game being poorly optimized.

It's probably well optimized for the high-end, but you can't tell me they couldn't have optimized more for the lower-end.

 

[speedpop]

Not too bad. I was never interested in the game but my rig can run it.

 

[Stahsky]

Jesus fucking christ, 8800 is listed in the recommended section? My 8600 weeps.

I just purchased a 8600. Ouch. Ahwell, at least I'll be able to play it at a decent setting.

 

[Dave1988]

I'll prolly get 5 fps.

.

 

[drivingpro]

Bluray vindicated?

hey is your avatar from ufo enemy unknown / xcom intro? if so. BADASS!

 

[Kaako]

Heh, lot of folks with entitlement complexes. If the game had lower recommended settings, it would not look as good and you probably wouldn't even be as interested. You vant play it in full glory, get dual core + 2gb ram + 8800. So many great PC games this holiday and earlier this year so it's hardly a waste. The same system that tames Crysis will eat up Bioshock, run TF2 vsynced to 60 with full effects and 16x AA + 16x AF at damn near whatever resolution you want, kill UT3 and CoD4, etc.

I hear you on that one.
I'm saving up right now to build my next gig in a year or so...way too many bills to pay @ the moment.

 

[camineet]

man... that hurts...

PS3 port? 360 port?

port?

more like, translation/conversion/adoption.

it would be like bringing grade-A 16-bit arcade game down to the 16-bit consoles, Genesis/SNES.

 

[Pimpwerx]

Look at you pathetic, broke motherfuckers. It's just a stack.

Pimpwerx got stacks.
Y'all already know dat.
PSP, PS3, just won the lottery.
Throw a GTS on that bitch!

PEACE.

 

[Pcenginefx]

Luckily I can play this on my video editing box which is a Core 2 Quad Extreme QX6800 w/4GB RAM and 8800GTX Can't wait!

 

[Acosta]

The very high settings make it tempting going for the upgrade... just WOW.

 

[AltogetherAndrews]

The very high settings make it tempting going for the upgrade... just WOW.

I'm waiting for Far Cry 2, damn it. It's tempting though, that much is certain.

 

[JCBossman]

Hey don't knock it till you try it, I'm running HL2 with EVERYTHING on MAX at around 60fps
That being said I'm getting an x2900 1 gb or 8800 soon

 

[Kabouter]

Look at you pathetic, broke motherfuckers. It's just a stack.

Pimpwerx got stacks.
Y'all already know dat.
PSP, PS3, just won the lottery.
Throw a GTS on that bitch!

PEACE.

Don't you mean PStriple?

 

[fistfulofmetal]

So if I play this on Low I'll basically be playing a Far Cry mod.

 

[alexel]

Heh, lot of folks with entitlement complexes. If the game had lower recommended settings, it would not look as good and you probably wouldn't even be as interested. You vant play it in full glory, get dual core + 2gb ram + 8800. So many great PC games this holiday and earlier this year so it's hardly a waste. The same system that tames Crysis will eat up Bioshock, run TF2 vsynced to 60 with full effects and 16x AA + 16x AF at damn near whatever resolution you want, kill UT3 and CoD4, etc.

I can't speak for the other games, but I don't think Bioshock will be "eaten up" so easily. I have a 3ghz Core 2 Duo E6850, 2 gigs of DDR2800 4-4-4-12 RAM and a 640MB 8800GTS OC, and I can't even get a consistent 60fps on medium settings, it averages 60 probably, but there are dips below it. At high settings I probably average around 45-50. It would take my specs and a 8800GTX at least to come close to "eating up" Bioshock.

 

[drivingpro]

Port DX10 to xp MICROSOFT!!!

vista FAILS at gaming / life

damn my computer i built last week looks to be just over recommended specs.

 

[EviLore]

I can't speak for the other games, but I don't think Bioshock will be "eaten up" so easily. I have a 3ghz Core 2 Duo E6850, 2 gigs of DDR2800 4-4-4-12 RAM and a 640MB 8800GTS OC, and I can't even get a consistent 60fps on medium settings, it averages 60 probably, but there are dips below it. At high settings I probably average around 45-50. It would take my specs and a 8800GTX at least to come close to "eating up" Bioshock.

What resolution?

 

[Ferrio]

Hey I meet the recommended, yet i still play at an unacceptable framerate in beta. Well the framerate is good, but it dips wildly mattering what's happening.