Debunking even more PC myths (Crysis) 56k warning

Looks quite disgusting to be honest:|XenoNinja

lol agreed

[QUOTE="XenoNinja"]Looks quite disgusting to be honest:|mingo123

lol agreed

yeah, I was kind of depresed at how the screenshots came out which bugs me because they do not have those stupid jaggy edges that the compressed shots showed. Gamespot decided to compress the file for some reason :?. Thes were originally took at 1024x768.

Can Crysis look better than anything on consoles? Heck yeah!

Do THOSE pics look better than anything on consoles? :lol:

What he's saying - You don't need an amazing PC to play Crysis smoothly, the devs were kind enough to give the option for lower spec'd PC's to play it, even if it hurts the graphical detail for them.

What you're hearing - LOL TEH JAGGIZ

[QUOTE="mingo123"]

[QUOTE="XenoNinja"]Looks quite disgusting to be honest:|F-14Bombcat

lol agreed

yeah, I was kind of depresed at how the screenshots came out which bugs me because they do not have those stupid jaggy edges that the compressed shots showed. Gamespot decided to compress the file for some reason :?. Thes were originally took at 1024x768.

Put it on imageshock.us

Oh, and here's a medium settings shot from my computer.

And here's a shot on all low with a decent res

Compared to my other games it's honestly pretty weak looking. Tho the trees don't look quite that horrible in reality. Great game but imo kinda useless without C2D and 8800 or something like that.

[QUOTE="F-14Bombcat"][QUOTE="mingo123"]

[QUOTE="XenoNinja"]Looks quite disgusting to be honest:|rimnet00

lol agreed

yeah, I was kind of depresed at how the screenshots came out which bugs me because they do not have those stupid jaggy edges that the compressed shots showed. Gamespot decided to compress the file for some reason :?. Thes were originally took at 1024x768.

Put it on imageshock.us

ppl can just right click and view image.

Of course they look sub-par, it's not set on maximum, it's on medium. You do need a pretty damn good rig to actually run it smoothly on Maximum, not a 6000 dollar computer, probably $1500 at the worst possible price. A $1000USD computer could run this on maximum with few, if any, problems.

The game's sales would suffer dramatically if people were forced to shell out alot of money to play this game, you don't.

Also, it looks far, far, better when you're actually playing the game, it's ignorant to judge something based on some compressed screenshots.

Also, it looks far, far, better when you're actually playing the game, it's ignorant to judge something based on some compressed screenshots.

Opacic_A

[QUOTE="Opacic_A"]

Also, it looks far, far, better when you're actually playing the game, it's ignorant to judge something based on some compressed screenshots.

EntwineX

I came back from playing it again.

Nothing like throwing a guy down a cliff face.

MAXIMUM STRENGTH.

I maxed the game out!

My specs:QX8650 OC'd @ 3,8GHz Watercooled with Zalman, Corsair 4GBDDR3 @ 1333Mhz, Triple SLI NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTX.

True story :D

^^^ No you didn't, you took that screenshot from some site from like 2005, savd it to your harddrive, and reuploaded it.....I think... Anyway, even with those resized screenshots the TC posted on medium settings, it still looks better than 90% of the console games out or coming out.Vandalvideo

Exactly. Especially considering there is no "triple" SLI. Fakeboys lol.

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"]^^^ No you didn't, you took that screenshot from some site from like 2005, savd it to your harddrive, and reuploaded it.....I think... Anyway, even with those resized screenshots the TC posted on medium settings, it still looks better than 90% of the console games out or coming out.rimnet00

Exactly. Especially considering there is no "triple" SLI. Fakeboys lol.

I was just messing arround -_-

I maxed the game out!

My specs:QX8650 OC'd @ 3,8GHz Watercooled with Zalman, Corsair 4GBDDR3 @ 1333Mhz, Triple SLI NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTX.

PullTheTricker

No you didn't. Quad Core processing and SLI is disabled in the demo :lol:

heres a shot of crysis on my computer.

Also here: http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2007/10/02/nvidia-preps-triple-sli

''Nvidia Nforce 680i and the upcoming Nforce780i chipsets will power triple SLI with the former chipset supporting PCI Express 1.1/1.0a. The latter chipset will feature PCI Express 2.0 along with a special "BR04" switch to enable more efficient operation.''

heres a shot of crysis on my computer.

XenoNinja

heres a shot of crysis on my computer.

XenoNinja

C'mon now, someone post a real high settings picture already will ya. :P

[/QUOTE/]

I hope my pc runs crysis better then that.....

Crysis AI is teh uber leet!

Maybe I'm missing something here...but it seems like you are saying it cost you $600 to play a game that looks WORSE than what 360 and PS3 offers. The 360 is $350 and PS3 is $399 or $499.

How is that debunking the "more expensive" pc myth?

Not to mention the fact that you aren't even playing the game the developers actually made...you are playing a stripped down, inferior version of what the game was meant to be. If that happened on a console, you see a hundred threads made, all saying "downgrade confirmed."

Uh oh!

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/?p=522

Looks like the "DX10 only" features do actually work with DX9 hardware. I guess Crysis is possible on consoles after all.

As for the graphics, on medium the game isn't impressive at all. It doesn't look as good as Gears of War or Killzone 2. On maximum yes, the game is very pretty, but again I wouldn't be surprised if the consoles could match that with a skilled dev team behind them.

Maybe I'm missing something here...but it seems like you are saying it cost you $600 to play a game that looks WORSE than what 360 and PS3 offers. The 360 is $350 and PS3 is $399 or $499.

How is that debunking the "more expensive" pc myth?

Not to mention the fact that you aren't even playing the game the developers actually made...you are playing a stripped down, inferior version of what the game was meant to be. If that happened on a console, you see a hundred threads made, all saying "downgrade confirmed."

ZIMdoom

Ouch. You could have said it in a nicer way but I guess the truth has to hurt sometimes.

Maybe I'm missing something here...but it seems like you are saying it cost you $600 to play a game that looks WORSE than what 360 and PS3 offers. The 360 is $350 and PS3 is $399 or $499.

How is that debunking the "more expensive" pc myth?

Not to mention the fact that you aren't even playing the game the developers actually made...you are playing a stripped down, inferior version of what the game was meant to be. If that happened on a console, you see a hundred threads made, all saying "downgrade confirmed."

ZIMdoom

Are you suggesting the PS3 and 360 copies of COD4 and UT3 are the stripped down, inferior versions of the games? Since from what I have seen, both games on a PC, on 'medium' settings looks as good as the PS3/360 versions. Then more recently, Gears of War.

Now, with that said; How many people actually go an pay $600 for a PC, when gaming is going to be the only thing they will use it for? Probably no one. People buy PCs for their wide range of functionality. With the base price of whatever PC they can afford, they can then add the price of a console to their purchase, and they are good to go.

Heck, a $600 PC is what people pay for a non-gaming PC. I think it is very apparent that these arguments always lead to idiotic statements from both extremes. Ones who say PC gaming isn't affordable for an average person, and who can buy a gaming bottom up, for the price of a console.

[QUOTE="ZIMdoom"]

Maybe I'm missing something here...but it seems like you are saying it cost you $600 to play a game that looks WORSE than what 360 and PS3 offers. The 360 is $350 and PS3 is $399 or $499.

How is that debunking the "more expensive" pc myth?

Not to mention the fact that you aren't even playing the game the developers actually made...you are playing a stripped down, inferior version of what the game was meant to be. If that happened on a console, you see a hundred threads made, all saying "downgrade confirmed."

rimnet00

Are you suggesting the PS3 and 360 copies of COD4 and UT3 are the stripped down, inferior versions of the games? Since from what I have seen, both games on a PC, on 'medium' settings looks as good as the PS3/360 versions. Then more recently, Gears of War.

Now, with that said; How many people actually go an pay $600 for a PC, when gaming is going to be the only thing they will use it for? Probably no one. People buy PCs for their wide range of functionality. With the base price of whatever PC they can afford, they can then add the price of a console to their purchase, and they are good to go.

Heck, a $600 PC is what people pay for a non-gaming PC. I think it is very apparent that these arguments always lead to idiotic statements from both extremes. Ones who say PC gaming isn't affordable for an average person, and who can buy a gaming bottom up, for the price of a console.

1) No. What I am suggesting is that the PC version he is playing is not running on the highest settings available and therefore is not the game the devs made. 360/PS3 owners who buyCOD4 or UT3 are able to play the game exactly how the devs made it for them. The developers provide as best an experience they can and console players GET that full experience...for roughly $399. The TC spent $600 and doesn't get the full experience the developer intended him to have.

ANything other than that is a graphics arguement and beside the point. Nobody denies that PCs can have superior graphics to consoles. The MYTH that is being discussed here is that PC gaming is not more expensive than consoles. It would appear the TC's own "evidence" proves quite the opposite.

2&3) Who cares? What does that have to do with the price of tea in china? You are going off on a tangent for damage control. We are talking about the constant claim made by hermits that PC gaming is not more expensive than consoles. Specifically, we are talking about the TC paying $600 to run Crysis on medium settings.

Crysis on my rig at 1280x1024 with 2xAA, all medium except shaders on high and particles on low

runs steady around 30fps at all times, except when demolish building where it usually dips a bit for a couple of seconds and everything in my rig except the graphics card which I got for 200and the power supply is from mid 2005

[QUOTE="rimnet00"][QUOTE="ZIMdoom"]

Maybe I'm missing something here...but it seems like you are saying it cost you $600 to play a game that looks WORSE than what 360 and PS3 offers. The 360 is $350 and PS3 is $399 or $499.

How is that debunking the "more expensive" pc myth?

Not to mention the fact that you aren't even playing the game the developers actually made...you are playing a stripped down, inferior version of what the game was meant to be. If that happened on a console, you see a hundred threads made, all saying "downgrade confirmed."

ZIMdoom

Are you suggesting the PS3 and 360 copies of COD4 and UT3 are the stripped down, inferior versions of the games? Since from what I have seen, both games on a PC, on 'medium' settings looks as good as the PS3/360 versions. Then more recently, Gears of War.

Now, with that said; How many people actually go an pay $600 for a PC, when gaming is going to be the only thing they will use it for? Probably no one. People buy PCs for their wide range of functionality. With the base price of whatever PC they can afford, they can then add the price of a console to their purchase, and they are good to go.

Heck, a $600 PC is what people pay for a non-gaming PC. I think it is very apparent that these arguments always lead to idiotic statements from both extremes. Ones who say PC gaming isn't affordable for an average person, and who can buy a gaming bottom up, for the price of a console.

1) No. What I am suggesting is that the PC version he is playing is not running on the highest settings available and therefore is not the game the devs made. 360/PS3 owners who buyCOD4 or UT3 are able to play the game exactly how the devs made it for them. The developers provide as best an experience they can and console players GET that full experience...for roughly $399. The TC spent $600 and doesn't get the full experience the developer intended him to have.

ANything other than that is a graphics arguement and beside the point. Nobody denies that PCs can have superior graphics to consoles. The MYTH that is being discussed here is that PC gaming is not more expensive than consoles. It would appear the TC's own "evidence" proves quite the opposite.

2&3) Who cares? What does that have to do with the price of tea in china? You are going off on a tangent for damage control. We are talking about the constant claim made by hermits that PC gaming is not more expensive than consoles. Specifically, we are talking about the TC paying $600 to run Crysis on medium settings.

How is it a tangent? It's a completely sound argument. Instead of responding with an intelligent counter argument, you have instead resorted in mislabeling my claim as 'damage control' - especially when I myself, a PC and Console gamer - acknowledged that there are morons on both extremes of the argument.

1) No. What I am suggesting is that the PC version he is playing is not running on the highest settings available and therefore is not the game the devs made. 360/PS3 owners who buyCOD4 or UT3 are able to play the game exactly how the devs made it for them. The developers provide as best an experience they can and console players GET that full experience...for roughly $399. The TC spent $600 and doesn't get the full experience the developer intended him to have.

ANything other than that is a graphics arguement and beside the point. Nobody denies that PCs can have superior graphics to consoles. The MYTH that is being discussed here is that PC gaming is not more expensive than consoles. It would appear the TC's own "evidence" proves quite the opposite.

2&3) Who cares? What does that have to do with the price of tea in china? You are going off on a tangent for damage control. We are talking about the constant claim made by hermits that PC gaming is not more expensive than consoles. Specifically, we are talking about the TC paying $600 to run Crysis on medium settings.

ZIMdoom

Id rather play Ratchet & Clank and/or Mass Effect.kevy619

The thing with PC gaming vs Console is that if you want to upgrade you have to replace everything. This isn't the case with PC gaming.

My quality corsairpower suply is bought back in 2005 and I kept in mind that if in order to upgrade any other new components I will have to buy over 500 watt. So I did exactly that. This year I upgraded to Q6600, 2GB and 8800GT and I didn't have to replace ANYTHING other then that. I allready have my Case, PSU, DVD rewriter. And theZalman 9500 cooling fan for the CPU is compatible with all processors, My Mobo allready had anythign in it that was required.

I spent

250 euros,Q6600

80 euros,Corsair DDR26561GBx2 667mhz

And just today I finnaly ordered my 8800GT for the price of 215 euros. This card performs almost equal to a GTX.

Thats 545 euros spent to upgrade. I can play UTIII, Stalker,Withcer, CoD4, World in Conflict etc etc all in 1680x1050 and highest quality.

As for Crysis? who gives a **** anyway. Until they learn to optimize their overrated **** engine... Crytek can suck it. Both Unreal Engine and Valve's Source engine > Crymeariver engine 2. there are plenty of other good games on PC.

Anyways, so inin short...PC gaming is only expensive if you don't know what you're doing.

[QUOTE="kevy619"]Id rather play Ratchet & Clank and/or Mass Effect.smokeydabear076

Its not a myth, I would really rather play those games. On top of that all the pc games that appeal to me appear on consoles now anyway, which is why Im not a pc gamer.

[QUOTE="smokeydabear076"][QUOTE="kevy619"]Id rather play Ratchet & Clank and/or Mass Effect.kevy619

Its not a myth, I would really rather play those games.

I think deep down you want to play Crysis and it's eating you up inside.

[QUOTE="kevy619"]

[QUOTE="smokeydabear076"][QUOTE="kevy619"]Id rather play Ratchet & Clank and/or Mass Effect.TiberiusKane

It would be nice, but im fine without it. I have alot of games to play already.

Its not a myth, I would really rather play those games.

I think deep down you want to play Crysis and it's eating you up inside.

Between the ps3 and 360, im busy enough to get over it. Theres about 15 games I want to play more than crysis that appear on those consoles.

[QUOTE="ZIMdoom"][QUOTE="rimnet00"][QUOTE="ZIMdoom"]

Maybe I'm missing something here...but it seems like you are saying it cost you $600 to play a game that looks WORSE than what 360 and PS3 offers. The 360 is $350 and PS3 is $399 or $499.

How is that debunking the "more expensive" pc myth?

Not to mention the fact that you aren't even playing the game the developers actually made...you are playing a stripped down, inferior version of what the game was meant to be. If that happened on a console, you see a hundred threads made, all saying "downgrade confirmed."

rimnet00

Are you suggesting the PS3 and 360 copies of COD4 and UT3 are the stripped down, inferior versions of the games? Since from what I have seen, both games on a PC, on 'medium' settings looks as good as the PS3/360 versions. Then more recently, Gears of War.

Now, with that said; How many people actually go an pay $600 for a PC, when gaming is going to be the only thing they will use it for? Probably no one. People buy PCs for their wide range of functionality. With the base price of whatever PC they can afford, they can then add the price of a console to their purchase, and they are good to go.

Heck, a $600 PC is what people pay for a non-gaming PC. I think it is very apparent that these arguments always lead to idiotic statements from both extremes. Ones who say PC gaming isn't affordable for an average person, and who can buy a gaming bottom up, for the price of a console.

1) No. What I am suggesting is that the PC version he is playing is not running on the highest settings available and therefore is not the game the devs made. 360/PS3 owners who buyCOD4 or UT3 are able to play the game exactly how the devs made it for them. The developers provide as best an experience they can and console players GET that full experience...for roughly $399. The TC spent $600 and doesn't get the full experience the developer intended him to have.

ANything other than that is a graphics arguement and beside the point. Nobody denies that PCs can have superior graphics to consoles. The MYTH that is being discussed here is that PC gaming is not more expensive than consoles. It would appear the TC's own "evidence" proves quite the opposite.

2&3) Who cares? What does that have to do with the price of tea in china? You are going off on a tangent for damage control. We are talking about the constant claim made by hermits that PC gaming is not more expensive than consoles. Specifically, we are talking about the TC paying $600 to run Crysis on medium settings.

How is it a tangent? It's a completely sound argument. Instead of responding with an intelligent counter argument, you have instead resorted in mislabeling my claim as 'damage control' - especially when I myself, a PC and Console gamer - acknowledged that there are morons on both extremes of the argument.

It's a tangent because it invites the fanboys to start making all sorts of lists where they compare the features of their console to PC features and making cost/value comparisons. But if you want cows here talking about the "worth" of PS3 because you get a BR player then please continue bringing up issues other than the original topic.

Uh oh!

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/?p=522

Looks like the "DX10 only" features do actually work with DX9 hardware. I guess Crysis is possible on consoles after all.

As for the graphics, on medium the game isn't impressive at all. It doesn't look as good as Gears of War or Killzone 2. On maximum yes, the game is very pretty, but again I wouldn't be surprised if the consoles could match that with a skilled dev team behind them.

GreenMan

Cause Crytek isn't a skilled dev. :roll:

[QUOTE="smokeydabear076"][QUOTE="kevy619"]Id rather play Ratchet & Clank and/or Mass Effect.kevy619

Its not a myth, I would really rather play those games. On top of that all the pc games that appeal to me appear on consoles now anyway, which is why Im not a pc gamer.