I can play Crysis!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Technochicken

Posts: 716   +2
just look at my system specs. I downloaded the demo, and i can play with everything on low except shader quality, physics, and texture, which are at high, med, and med, respectively, and at the lowest res. And it is actually playable -i get around 24fps. And it still looks frikin amazing.
 
I don't see that as being surprising. If it were an 8400, then I'd be throwing eggs at you for how lucky you were.
 
Most 8400GS cards have a 64-bit memory bus, which completely kills their gaming performance potential. Some come with a 128-bit bus and are essentially 8500GTs with lower core and memory clocks. For decent gaming performance, at least a 128-bit memory bus is necessary.
 
I don't like Crysis.

Really? I played the MP at a buds house and was amazed. Then again, the newest FPS story I've played WAS HL2.... so yeah, for all those sympathizers, send me some money and I'll be happy. ;) Just joking of course, but yeah, thats my life. That's why I play CS:S and not COD4, no computer I own can handle it... or it just has errors... XD

And Rage, thank you for that insight, I didn't know that. I just knew that the 8400 sucked...
 
Cod4

I can play COD4 with no problem with my secondary PC.

My card is a 8500GT. And everything except for brightness is on high level.(I dont like Crysis either. I die to quickly. Also it helps to have 2gigs of ram and a Core 2 processor, i think that it is a e2200. I'll post my secondary specs later. I have a computer lab in my house and I got too many to post about.
 
Really? I played the MP at a buds house and was amazed. Then again, the newest FPS story I've played WAS HL2.... so yeah, for all those sympathizers, send me some money and I'll be happy. ;) Just joking of course, but yeah, thats my life. That's why I play CS:S and not COD4, no computer I own can handle it... or it just has errors... XD

I don't like it because it's just a benchmark that costs $50. The story was retarded (lol aliens and Koreans) and the only thing good was the graphics, and even then it took almost half a year before anyone could even run the thing since it was pretty much designed for the 9 series videocards.
 
I don't like it because it's just a benchmark that costs $50. The story was retarded (lol aliens and Koreans) and the only thing good was the graphics, and even then it took almost half a year before anyone could even run the thing since it was pretty much designed for the 9 series videocards.


That would be why I got the free demo version.
 
Meh, Crysis' Nomad was a boring-*** "Yes Sir!" dude. Psycho's British badass-ness made Nomad look like a pansy IMO.

All in all, Warhead was all that Crysis wasn't IMO.
 
Lucky bastard. Well, anyhoo, I thought FC2 had lower system specs, or is my mem. failing again?
 
I found the original Crysis slow-paced and rather boring- I had the feeling that the game just dumped you on the island and left you to yourself, occasionally giving you objectives to complete. Other than that I had a a rather "detached" feeling from the usual hype games give me.

But Crysis Warhead was altogether different. It was packed with action from the very beginning and I rarely got bored throughout the campaign. The non-third person cutscenes absent in the original Crysis made a huge difference.

In fact, if you had the money to buy either, I'd recommend getting Warhead rather than the original.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back