The game may look great on a super PC, but for those who have DX9 gaming PCs might be disappointed with the graphics... take a look.
Definately looks good
people will pick this game apart.. Just wait. It's happening already.
It still looks alright but it's not much compared to the screenshots we've seen of Crysis on high.
This thread is quite stupid, and reason the is that there is not much difference between the dx9 and dx10 versions. The basic difference is that in dx9 you can play up to High level and in Dx10 up to Very High level, but the difference is not very noticeable. The truth is, what matters is the power of the pc, not if it is in dx9 or dx10. and sorry, but the game is not worth the cost in hardware... Contributors should be a bit more carefull about citing posts from forums...
I'll take slightly worse graphics over being forced into vista anyday.
I have a 7600GT and an AMD 3500+. I can run the demo on medium settings at 1152x864 resolution and pull ~30 fps which is most definitely playable. And it looks gorgeous, these screenies don't do it justice at all.
According to what Ive read in the forums the demo seems to be dividing people in two groups the "My xxxx dollar high end PC runs it at 5-10fps, the game is a piece of CENSORED" or "My PC runz teh game INCREDIBLEZ. ZOMG teh coolestz" and aparently is has NOTHING to do with with it being high end or middle end since people with 8600GT seem to be running it great and some people with 8800 Ultra run it like crap which only points that either the demo is a F-ING mess or future drivers will fix that Knowing Crytek and NVIDIA they will sort things out I have the new beta drivers I am just waiting of the demo to finish downloading :D by the way a little tip for the people that might care there is a way to get the DX10 exclusive special effects (or at least some) running in DX9 go to GameSpot Crysis forums and look for the thread...but remember it requires editing of configuration files
1650 x 1080 with all max settings and 16XQ AA, IT LOOKS GORGEOUS. screw vista and DX10
gaming on PC makes me laugh....its like saying look how fast I can drive and shelling out on a Bugatti Veyron. Every 6 month / year you need to spend hundreds / thousands to be able to catch up. What a fantastic waste of resources. It certainly propelled the PC to the market share that it has now (M$ must be happy) but Consoles are definitely on a saner model with Developers improving their skills on the same hardware. Finite resources = tailor made / optimized results. I suppose thats what makes apple what they are and what used to be assembler under DOS when really there was not many resources available. Now just grab a bazooka to kill a fly.
Its every 6 months a new video card iteration comes out. Now if you buy crappy video cards from the beginning then yes you have to upgrade more often. Problem is those ppl who buy crappy video cards tend not to game t hat much on the PC.
the point being that playing games on a PC is nothing short of a luxury. I have PCs, Very Big ones at that, I only use them for heavy computing. it is laughable to require the same kind of configuration for a game. But thats the way the trend has been going for 20 years or so. Thats why in general goods are not require to last anymore. Buy a new TV or Fridge or car and you will see how it compares to those 30 years ago that probably still work. Buy Buy Buy....now Im ranting but what a crap society we have become.
I have to put everything on medium mode to run pretty smooth at 1280x 720
that's pretty bad, I only have one 8800GTX and can run it @ 1650X1080 a max settings. ATI fell off bigtime. Intel Quad Core @3.2GHZ EVGA 8800GTX with 768 MB ram Asus Striker Extreme Motherboard 4GB PC6400 DDR Ram 2 250GB HDD in Raid 0 config I think the quad core makes the biggest difference. The amazing thing is that if I max out the res at 1920X1200 it slows to a crawl, WITH 4GB of RAM!!!! this game is a HOG of all HOGS.
Not than impressed. (with these screenshots)
lol not a chance a ps3 or 360 can do all of these post processing effects
PS3 and 360 can run better graphics that those screenshots.
however the 360 would choke on the framerate due to its bottlenecked architecture and tiny EDRAm chip.
yea I ran it on high with dx 10 and 1680x1050 and the game is amazing looking.......360 and ps3 deff couldnt run this and if they can it would take another few years and alot of tweaking to look this good its amazing how pretty a game can be lol..... Im gonna start tryn to put the AA up and the graphics to very high soon and see how it looks. But yea dont fool yourself if you see the game in motion the consoles havnt had anything like this or close to this yet
in motion. Its so much better then. Im running everything on High +2x aa and get 37 avg fps. Some things ingame really blows you away. The explosions for instance. So damn beutiful. And no other game has motion blur and dof that feels so damn right. I see this as a transition game. The game that take all these new "effects" that we have seen scattered on several titles, sometimes good, sometimes awful and overused, and put it all into one engine and make them feel like its all part of the world instead of FX. I think its a gateway game, well see some truly awesome graphics after this, since Crytek got alot "right", the other developers will be ready to take the next step. I have uploaded some screens since the ones in the link sucked: http://www.roughcall.se/cry... http://www.roughcall.se/cry... http://www.roughcall.se/cry... The motionblur on screen 3 is really awesome. Havent seen any game getting it this good. Well TF 2 got it right but the graphics there are so different its hard to tell the quality of the MB. The cutscenes where you see your partners are quite awesome. Will grab som screens of the later. This is DX9. DX10 adds quite alot in this game. My setup: E6600 4gb ram 8800gtx @ stock Win XP
Nice shots. Did u o/c your 2.4 E6600? Cuz at stock speed with my 7950GX2 (1GB Sli) card BF2142 gives me around 30-50 fps at highest settings. But at 3.3Ghz its 90+. Since my water pump broke cudn't try Crysis Beta although i've d/l it. Just waiting for the mofo company to find me a replacement pump otherwise hv to shell out money again for new kit.
It looks great in DX10 on my comp and i haev a lower end AMD Dual Core.. 4000+ 3gbs ram 8600 GTS
You should upgrade that CPU. It's the bottleneck of your system.
My system runs just fine :) just played crysis on high
killzone owns this on dx20, too bad
Aizen, you make some of the most ignorant comments i've heard, dont get me wrong, killzone 2 looks AMAZING and has mind blowing visuals like nothing on consoles, close to CGI graphics, BUT take a closer look at killzone's visuals, very very crappy low res textures and draw distance, plus the game has a dark look so lighting isnt that much big of a deal, so the ps3 can squeeze out all of its cell juice on beautiful post processing eye candy and i agree it does look good but analyzing graphics on a whole, not from a one sided perspective, crysis is definitely far more superior and would have trouble running on the ps3 due to memory limitations
I have almost the same setup as that guy (7950GX2, Core 2 Extreme @ 3.2 GHz, 2 GB RAM). I hope it doesn't suck as badly for me.
I'll never be able to play the game with my ATI 128MB X300 graphics card and 512MB RAM... LOL.
i got the same cpu a 8800ultra and 2 gigs of corsair at 1033mhz with a 10k hdd..........it plays great on xp. im looking forward to cod4 though. im not too keen on crysis anymore.....ill still buy it though as a showcase. its basically farcry 2.0 at ULTRA HIGH SETTINGS. question: anyone know if this supports ageia ppu?
THESE PICS are on medium setting! I'm able to play the game at high setting without ANY frame rate drops. It looks pretty sweet on HIGH settings. Here's my main component specs: MOTHERBOARD: EVGA 680i SLI CPU: C2D E6600 RAM: 2GB A-DATA DDR2-800 VIDEOCARD: EVGA 8800 GTS 320MB Check out MY SCREENSHOT
2x8800ultra 768mb (each) intelcore 2 extreme QX6850 4GB Dual CHannel DDR2 [email protected] I should be able to run this game on the highest settings, with no problems at all.
I have no doubt about it bro
i was gonna pop in another ultra(i680) but the 3-4 percent increase did not warrant the 900 dollar card way back when it was first released....too bad it still doesnt offer any real performance boost over 1 ultra card. None theless i was gonna pop one in last week ( ive had this setup for over 6 months i think)for the hell of it until i heard the 9800 are soon to be released. The 9800 is supposed to offer 5-8 times the performance of 1 ultra/2-4x performance of ultras in sli. HA i already play oblivion with everything maxed on a bravia.....but im still gonna get the 9800 though ill wait for the gtx/ultra model which should kick major freaking ass.
I have QX6700 @ 2.93 ghx and 2X 8800 gtx and 2 gb ram, vista. I can run at 1920X1200 no AA with everything on high in dx9 getting about 40-45 fps. play it on dx10 very high settings framerate drops to about 10-15 fps at that rez. I have to drop rez down to 1024X768 just to get 30-35 fps! it's not worth it. I'd rather play at 1920X1200 on high. not much difference between high and very high. only thing I notice is you see the "god rays" coming thru the clouds and trees.