The crazy world of Crysis

Crysis has received such long-term hype that it's almost a shock to be playing it. It's especially a shock to be playing with such mediocre frame rates from such powerful machines, but who needs that anisotropic shit, anyway? After finishing the demo, CVG decided to start again, and find what fun the tropics have to offer the game-breaking mind.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
NRG4044d ago (Edited 4044d ago )

I just got this game the other day and I'm almost done with it. Granted I haven't spent nearly as much time as other people messing around, I haven't experienced anything very awful or terribly glitchy. The worst so far has been how easy it is to blow up the trucks sometimes.

Otherwise, this game is one of my favorite single player games ever. Incredibly immersive if you have the rig for High/Very High settings. I thought the beach assault level was of similar, epic proportions of invasions of Normandy in WWII shooters. The tank battle shortly after was incredibly cool.

Crysis has convinced me Cryengine2 has pushed the bar of standards in games in more than just graphics. Massive credit to Crytek.

LJWooly4043d ago (Edited 4043d ago )

Then again, Crysis isn't THAT much of an advancement in gaming as, say Half-Life 2 was when it came out, and when that game came out, most people could run it on at least medium detail.
Now, just about every one who spent a little money on their pC can run Half-Life 2 at maximum detail, but most people can barely run Crysis at all.

Sure CryEngine 2 is great, but the games it produces are always going to be one or two years ahead of the technology it's going to be played on.

The game's great, I played it round a friend's (on near-max detail, nonetheless) but he had to pay £1,420 for his computer. Considering I can play games of equivalent graphical quality on a £300 Ps3, Crysis isn't really worth it.

NRG4043d ago (Edited 4043d ago )

A lot of that is because Half Life 2 was delayed for so long too. The game came almost a year late because of all of the trouble they had with people taking the source code. On average, that helped a lot of people when it came to minimum requirements on the release. By then, Half Life 2 was just has impressive use of shading technology and what's still really good animations. But other games had caught up by then. The way it actually plays is why it's so successful in my opinion. There's not too many other shooters that are like Half Life.

Crysis doesn't exactly push on the same things, and to say it will run on a PS3 is arguable. Sure the cell is absolutely amazing, but the game is beyond demanding for todays generation of video cards, and those surpass the RSX.

bootsielon4043d ago

Remember, the cell processor is used for graphics too. Furthermore, when you make a PC game, you make a scalable game, and you don't optimize it for any particular platform. Looking at the minimal specs required to run Crysis (256 MB, 6800 GT), I'm sure CryTek could do a pretty good job in order to run Crysis on PS3 and 360 and get very decent ports by optimizing.

LinuxGuru4043d ago

The way they described their activities in Crysis almost made me cry from laughter....


With HDD caching, the very specialized SPUs (crysis is very physics intesive, which the SPUs KICK @SS at handling), and the decently powerful RSX, I think it would definitely be possible to see Crysis on PS3.

Maybe not at 1080p, but I see a resolution like 720p as being doable....why not, eh?

One can dream....