Alas, the moment has arrived, as EA and Crytek have finally announced the minimum and recommended specs for the much anticipated PC FPS. Have at them after the jump.
I know how to make a mass destruction bomb!! I just need to insert Crysis disc on my Pc and any signs of human life or existence will be erased from Earth!!!
It cost too much to update or build a really fast computer. I don't really wanna play Crysis at minimum, that will look suck. I'm looking forward to this game but i'm not sure of building an other pc or just go get a new one. graphic cards nowadays cost so much = $400.00 to $500.00 to $600.00 Playstation 3 = $400 to $600 Xbox 360 = $300 to $400
OS – Windows XP / Vista Processor – Intel Core 2 DUO @ 2.2GHz or AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+ Memory – 2.0 GB RAM GPU – NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTS/640 or similar 8800gts 640mb!!! this game is gonna be tuff to run. time to dust off that credit card :)
damn thats gonna cost
Almost at recommended except for 8800 series have 7950GX2 512x2 single SLI CARD. SO doesnt' matter rest are equal or higher specs. CPU 3.3GHZ dual core doesnt hurt ;)
Quad Core 2x 8800gts 640 2gb ram t1hd 22" 1600x1000 I tell you what though, even with all of this, I couldn't run this game with 32 players in the beta at max out. No AA! Possible it was just a beta.....
Not worth investing in PC these days. Console prefer. HDTV if u can :)
im so glad i bought a new pc recently.... got a 3.01 c2d, 8800 gtx OC, 2gb... :)
YAY! To meet the recommended system requirements I only have to replace my graphics card!!! Wait, is that a good thing??? I heard somewhere that ATI(what is now AMD) is coming out with a mid-ranged card that will beat the pants off of the 8800 ultra. I usually read news right before I go to bed though, so I must've been relatively tired and could've easily been mistaken. It could also just be the wishful thinking of my subconscience.
ATI said that the Radeon HD 2900XT was suppose to beat the GTX...and we all know what really happened since this game is not a UE3 game the 8800GTX will probably be the best choice but at the end you might want to wait till the Crysis benchmarks are out before a final decision between NVIDIA and ATI and remember to know if the 8800GTX or the 8800GTS640 are the best for you since if you dont have a big monitor/dual and are planing on VERY high res the GTX might end up being a waste of money, also you can always buy the GTS640SC to match the GTX speeds and you save around 130 bucks
I kept up with the 2900 'saga' until recently(after the benchmarks). I don't know why, as usually this doesn't happen to me, but I seem to have some brand loyatly feelings towards AMD and ATI. Besides, I've never been one to pay that much for a video card anyways. I'll just continue to stay just far enough behind the curve to where I still get excited about new technology AND have money in my wallet. $250 is pretty much my limit for a card, though an uber-deal might convince me to go up to $300. Right now I don't have any money so I'm stuck with a low-end radeon x1300. That card can hardly even play F.E.A.R at 800x600. Maybe I should just save up and splurge.... I don't know but I'm rambling so I'm going to go ahead and stop typing.
YAY I pass the test with A+ :D Knowing Crytek they will do a fine job optimizing the game like they did with FarCry so It wouldnt end up being a system hog
Luckily I meet the recommended specs. However, tailoring your game to less than 1/10th of the market effectively turns your game into a tech demo. At some point you do have to stop looking back so you can look forward but misjudging that moment of when to make the break can ruin your effort. It also is a sharp blow to Crytek that so many publishers bought an Unreal 3 studio license. Add to that U3 is running on PS3 and 360 and you have Crytek effectively locked out. My predicition? Far Cry 2 will be a far better commercial success than Crysis. We looked at the Crytek engine and decided against it. The engine that did impress us was the Warhound engine. Much more dynamic than Crytek. The only reason we did not choose it was the engine and tools were not ready for license.
1/10 of the PC market is big in comparison to current consoles because PC market is huge. CryEngine 2 wasn't even marketed(especially the console versions) in the same level as UE3. So in no way its a huge blow to Crytek, UE3 was shown sometime during end of 2004(working on 2 6800Ultras). Besides Crytek is relatively a new kid on the block, Epic has been here since 1998. Far Cry 2 will be a good game seeing the previews but its too damn early to predict sales for both. (Far Cry 2 is also going to be focused on being a graphical behemoth, so in a way its also catering to a small percentage of PC gamers) and Who are you quoting here? "We looked at the Crytek engine and decided against it. The engine that did impress us was the Warhound engine. Much more dynamic than Crytek. The only reason we did not choose it was the engine and tools were not ready for license." @Hatchetforce, I have no idea who you are. I thought you were simply dissing Crytek and that is reflected in the tone of my above response. And no I am not in the industry, I am still doing my bachelors. "Also, while their tools are great they want $1 Million USD up front. Not what most people want to invest until they see how their game is going to be realized in engine." Makes sense, so thats why Yerli said he expects licensees next year in a recent interview(also he mentioned they are still working on ways to support licensees). Also I dont think you can dismiss Epic's past helped them significantly. Forgetting their UT series and the fanbase there(since I have no idea how it impacts dev impressions, I guess positive), UE2 had many licensees. So they already had a good reputation when they unveiled UE3. As much as I love Crytek and from the beta and the previews I am probably going to love Crysis, I have no idea if their longterm strategy with Crysis is going to pay off. I guess time will tell. Looking forward to Far Cry 2 too. If I dissed you in any way by my ignorance, apologies for that.
I am not quoting anyone. Did you see any quotation marks? You might be surprised who is on this board. You are not in the industry or else you would know that the Crytek engine has been marketed. You are thinking only of what the consumer knows and that isn't what has happened on the developer marketing end. Sorry, but you are wrong there. The engine has been marketed. Also, while their tools are great they want $1 Million USD up front. Not what most people want to invest until they see how their game is going to be realized in engine. I also clearly, CLEARLY remarked about developers misjudging the correct moment to take certain actions with software licenses. So when you talk about UE3 being shown in 2004 that is something to which I am referring. Why state that as if it were some counterpoint. It is precisely what I meant by companies not considering when they are beaten to the punch yet think that punching back immediately equals the best strategy. UE3 came along at just the right time. The Doom 3 engine actually had promise but tools were non existent. And an engine without tools, no matter how grand = worthless. Sorry again but Crytek doesn't get any breaks just because they were slow out of the gate. UE3 beat them to the punch by a long long way and now that many companies are rooted in it and the console market is swallowing it up, with Crytek not having a working console version, with consoles soundly whipping the PC market in game sales, Crytek is feeling it in the lack of interest department. You are also being oversighted about the PC market. 1/10th of the PC market is a generous estimate about those with the ability to run the game. That gets paired down mightily when you copnsider the numbers that actually would buy the title. Personally having been in on the beta since day 1 and dealt with an evaluation version of the license I am not that impressed considering the tradeoff in hardware requirements. I can get more bang for the buck from teh UE3 engine when considering the hardware potential customers must have. And frankly the current UE3 tools are very difficlut to beat. Far Cry 2 while being graphically intensive is also more hardware forgiving due to the Dunia engine. The game isn't just more accessible, it is also more appealing. If you look at the multiplayer for Crysis, they are already shooting themselves in the foot by something that has harmed other MP titles. Make advanced weapons and equipment only unlockable by advanced players and you chase away new players that are not willing to stick around and take a multitude of bloody noses. You wind up with advanced players that are dedicated to the game but, there is in the long run, very few of them. The secret to the longevity of a PC game is user friendly to the new players and modability. The original Ghost Recon proved this as did Half Life (Father of Counterstike) Half Life 2, Quake, Quake II, Quake III, UT, UT 2003, UT 2004, etc etc.
and this my friends is why i prefer console gaming. sure i dont get the gfx or FPS etc, but this is just too much hassle for me. sorry. hope this comes out for ps3 though....
I don't understand why all the broke, poor, 2001's ppl have to come post here and say the upgrade is not worth it..For godsakes, stop touting bout ur pathetic consoles and stand back and watch PC gamers play this baby.
I should have no problems running the game at very high settings!:)
This kinda makes the PS3 and XBox fanboys look like their arguing over the SNES vs the Genesis... Blast processing FTW!
other console that cant work can play this game.
how important is the video ram? Do you require more the higher the resolution you play? I have an 8800gts 320mb but will be playing at 1280X720p.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.