[QUOTE="Sammojo"]

Kuyt, your attempt at sarcastic mocking failed because your point was silly. It is not a COMPLETELY different game, but it isn't similar enough to justify only having to buy one. Just because the gamplay is the same, doesn't mean the story is.

Kuyt19

*cough*FEAR*cough*Perseus*cough*Mandate*cough*......'scuse me.:P

What does FEAR have to do with Crysis? You can't use the fact that FEAR had a sequal which wasn't that different to "prove" that Crysis Warhead will. Crysis Warhead will not be the same game. The story is different and it follows a different charater, if you buy one, then you will miss out on the other.

[QUOTE="Sammojo"]

Crysis is a classic example of how graphics made a good game excellent.

JP_Russell

Totally disagree. Crysis to me is an example of a game that's nearly perfect even without the graphics. I could play it on the lowest settings there are and still have a blast with it. The graphics are just icing on the cake.

Personally, I think graphics are a crucial aspect of any game, and are just as important as gameplay. You are using your eyes to play after all, this isn't a DOS game.

Sammojo

Disagree again. Graphics aren't very important to me. And I personally play DOS games all the time. In fact, my DOS collection is I think about twice in number to my other games.

They might not be important to you, but I think they are to most people. What I am saying is that they are important in enhancing a game. I enjoy playing Pokemon on GBC, and that isn't for the graphics. But when I comes to new age PC games, I think graphics are pretty important.

Kuyt, your attempt at sarcastic mocking failed because your point was silly. It is not a COMPLETELY different game, but it isn't similar enough to justify only having to buy one. Just because the gamplay is the same, doesn't mean the story is.

Also, what's up with the high res bashing? 1920x1200 is very realistic, and not even that expensive. Just because you have something worse doesn't mean it's unrealistic.Manly-manly-man

Thank you for some rationality.

I understand that graphics are not everything and I understand that 16AA is unnecessary and I understand that massive resolutions aren't needed. But as I explained about twice before. SOME people are interested in being able to MAX out crysis, because it is the most graphically demanding game out there at this moment. If someone wants to DISCUSS how you could max. crysis, then they should be able to without people getting angry at people who care about graphics. Crysis is a classic example of how graphics made a good game excellent.

ipph, if no-one who played crysis cared about framerates and settings, then not many people would have played it. You need to care about them to get the game running decently. Personally, I think graphics are a crucial aspect of any game, and are just as important as gameplay. You are using your eyes to play after all, this isn't a DOS game.

I would like to know what idiot plays at those resolutions to begin with.. Most don't even have a monitor to support such settings, and the ones that do there is a SMALL difference going from one resolution to the next of that size.. How bout we get realistic resolution comparisons like 1680 x 1050, 1600 x 1200, 1280 x 1024 etc etc.. You know REALISTIC resolutions not ones that must spend extra thousands of dollars just so they can "max the game".sSubZerOo

The same idiots who buy Lamborghinis. Some people have money to spend, and some like spending it on $1500 monitors (30"). We are in no position to tell them how to spend their money, because they are obviously smarter than most people if they have that much to throw around. I would just like to say, going up from one resolution to another makes a pretty big difference on smaller monitors, a much bigger difference than on larger ones actually. Going from 800x600 to 1024x768 is a pretty huge visable difference. That video used 1650x1050, so stop complaining, you REALISTIC resolutions were being used in that test. Why the hell is this thread making people so angry? Is the topic of crysis angering people who bought it only to realise they couldn't run it?

Thank you for the info JP_Russell, wouldn't that make the 9800GX2 only as good as the 8800 Ultra, because if memory serves me correctly, the Ultra gave about the same performance as two 8800GTS in SLI?

Also, who said people weren't pleased with crysis? Just because there is interest in trying to push the graphics to the maximum the game allows doesn't mean the game wasn't amazing on below maximum graphics. Stop posting if all you are going to do is whinge about the fact that its impractical to run it on complete maximum.

As for Warhead, from what I read:

It is a complete standalone game, not an expansion or sequal. It is set in exactly the same time and follows the story of Psycho instead of Nomad. They have taken out all the boring things from the old crysis and added in a few new things, basically reshaped the game from the feedback they recieved, although kept the essential game the same. They have probably removed the stupid alien fight scenes which people seemed to hate so much.

They have revamped the engine so it runs better on lower end machines, and hence will run even better on higher end machines. I have heard that they will release a patch for the original crysis, so that it also will run on this new, more efficient engine.

In regards to that screenshot, I have no idea what the settings are on. It could be an early development one. They tended to look much more realistic than the final product, if you look back at the screenshots in order of date uploaded you will see what I mean. It could be crysis running on the Ultra High settings though, someone fiddled around and unlocked a setting above very high, where the lighting system was improved, and the ground details were much better.

The important thing is being able to actually run Crysis on high/very high at 1680x1050. I thought twin 8800GTXs would be able to do that. I heard they outperformed the single 9800GX2 in actual testing. Currently, i don't think there's such a thing as a Crysis-killer because i've yet to see it run butter smooth on very high settings and at max. possible resolution.Kuyt19

The 9800GX2 is better than the GTX 280, at least from benchmarks I have seen, and it is basically two 9800GTX's in SLi. Technically, if three 280's can max Crysis out at 1680x1050 resolution, then I think Tri-SLI 9800GX2's would do the job at 2560x1600, ie. land in at at least 30 FPS (Frames per second)...

Lol, im still stuck with my ATI X1950 Pro. But when I run the demo I just have no AA and ill continue to do this when I get my 8800GT or 4850. Chris_53

Stuck? I have a GF 7300 GO (the laptop card), there is no way to upgrade unless i get a new computer entirely, that's stuck. Hehe.

Wow thanks for the vid. All I was thinking during the fly-through of crysis was OMFG, it says 77 FPS in the corner!

That sort of proves it then, Tri-SLi GTX 280's technically murder crysis. It ended with a MINUMUM of 30 FPS and an average of 60 FPS, all on Very High and at 16 AA and 1680x1050 (I guess they didn't have a bigger screen). The only thing they could have done was run it on 2560x160, but I can only see the frames dropping to about 30, which is still good. As you said earlier, that resolution is pretty ridiculous anyway.

Three 280's, what is that, like $2500AU?

I wasn't annoyed but you can't expect something from nothing and I never heard about GTX 280 being a Crysis killer.

IMO it is the same, but we will see and it really has nothing new, only 2 weapons and 2 or 3 vehicles. Crysis is enough for me, but if Warhead does perform better and if the rating drops below 9.5 and I see a GOOD review of it, I will get it, but for now I have 0 interest in it. I got Crysis as soon as it was release, because it was "the thing", but it was nothing, just like Far Cry, a mediocre good looking game.

DanielDust

Warhead apparently will perform much better (running smoothly on high with a 8800GT which are about $150-250 now :)). Basically it is the product of feedback, they took out all the stuff people complained about and added in the stuff they wanted, to a reasonable extent anyway. If you liked Crysis, chances are you will like Warhead (I am guessing), if not, then just steer clear.

Is your avatar from Bleach DanDust?

Thank you for the technical advice wood_duck, I am well aware that lower resolutions are sufficient and 16AA is completely useless and over the top, but it is the concept of being able to run it which is the interesting part.

Did you by any chance took something before posting?

Crysis killer (which the card really isn't) doesn't mean 90500x45600 with 40K AA. :|

WHO NEEDS to go past 1680x1050 maxed out with a few/all filters in any recent game? ok maybe for photo editing and stuff let's say 1920x1200, but not to actually play the game at that res.

Stop dreaming, if you want performance you have to pay, pay A LOT, if you don't want to sped money, don't post things like this, you are 2 or 3, hell even 4 years to early to to buy with relatively low amounts of money, a single card that can run Crysis at the settings you said there.

But I am sure you will say te exact same thing even at that time, if they make Crysis 2 and 3. You'll say"yeah it maxes Crysis at 1920x1200, with 8xAA, but what about Crysis 2?". You will NEVER be pleased if you think like that.

And yeah, don't get Crysis, get only Warhead, because it is better optimised (or so they say) and it does not include Crysis, but its identical anyway so you won't miss a thing, maybe it will be even better (2% better) because Psycho is more "pumped" than Nomad :).

DanielDust

Ease up turbo, you sounded like you were really annoyed at this topic existing, if that is the case, then don't post in it. Anyway. In PC gaming, to be the Crysis killer would mean a card which can COMPLETELY max it. 2560x1650 resolution and 16xAA are basically as high as you can go at this point in time, so a card which can run it on Very High, at that Resolution, is metaphorically, killing crysis. I got the title from a GPU review site anyway.

I am not dreaming, only inquiring, I understand it costs a lot, but I was interested to see if Crytek invested in insane, and dream quality, rigs in making this game. I didn't "took" anything, but you need to take a chill pill man. I couldn't understand what you said about Crysis 2 and 3, because you started waffling, but I am pleased with crysis and was amazed at it even on High settings (not even Very High).

Crysis Warhead is a completely different story, and they will be releasing a patch to fix up the originals engine, so it runs as smooth and efficiently as Warhead. It isn't identical, it follows Psycho who goes off on another storyline. It will no doubt be better, but there is no reason that you shouldnt get both.

Sorry for answering my own question, but I found a site with a lot of info, and a friend just told me alot about it. Warhead sounds great, I just wish I had a rig good enough to actually run Crysis.

BTW, did that screenshot blow anyone else away? I have seen screens many times, but I recently found that and it blew my mind.

It's now possible to play it at 1920x1200 with AA.. check this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Orsk65ib5c

s_emi_xxxxx

Hmm, thanks. That answers most of my questions. I'd still like to know about Warhead though.

I like the comment about that rig on youtube where one guy says: "very nice, hopefully once ive sold my house i will finally be able to upgrade my system to these :P "