OK, so I've wondered about this before... If I were to install Crysis on 
my PC, would I actually be able to play it? Or would my PC melt into a 
pile of liquid metal?

Deservedly or not, Crysis has an almost mythical reputation for being 
the most extreme test of 3D hardware available on the market. (Aside 
from purely synthetic benchmarks, anyway.) Will my feeble old rig cope?

- AMD Athlon64 X2 4200+ (Socket 939)
- 3GB RAM

My current graphics card is an nVidia GeForce 7900GT, but it's dying. 
I've just ordered an nVidia GeForce GTX 260, but it hasn't arrived yet.

The official Crysis website *claims* that anything better than a GeForce 
6800GT should work - but it that like M$ telling us that Vista will 
"work" with a Pentium III? What do you need for the game to play *properly*?

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Crysis really got a bad rap when it came out[1], but it's quite playable
on your machine.

The catch, of course, is that you can't turn all the settings up to
their highest.  It won't look as nice as the marketing screencaps, but
it'll still be pretty sweet.

[1]They "futureproofed" it by making the highest settings absolutely
insane.

...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> Crysis really got a bad rap when it came out[1], but it's quite playable
> on your machine.
> 
> The catch, of course, is that you can't turn all the settings up to
> their highest.  It won't look as nice as the marketing screencaps, but
> it'll still be pretty sweet.
> 
> [1]They "futureproofed" it by making the highest settings absolutely
> insane.

...so it's like the original Halflife? (I.e., when it came out, there 
was hardly a machine in the land that could run it at all detail, but 
today it's a trivial matter for any half-decent GPU.)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

"Orchid XP v8" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message 
news:497c5181$1@news.povray.org...

> The official Crysis website *claims* that anything better than a GeForce 
> 6800GT should work - but it that like M$ telling us that Vista will "work" 
> with a Pentium III? What do you need for the game to play *properly*?

      Define 'properly'. If you mean with settings 'mostly' turned to 
'high', then a 260GT should do it.

      If you mean 'play the game ok', then you can play it with your present 
7900GT easily - you'll probably use something like 50/50 low/medium settings 
for the best result. My 6600GT plays it fine with mostly low and a few 
medium settings.

      You'll love the game! (And then you can play my map, lol!)  :)

      And then of course, if you go a step further and get Warhead, I can 
play online with you and we can kill eachother!! <eg>

        ~Steve~ (GaussMaster)



>
> -- 
> http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
> http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> OK, so I've wondered about this before... If I were to install Crysis on 
> my PC, would I actually be able to play it? Or would my PC melt into a 
> pile of liquid metal?

  You won't be able to play it with the highest quality settings, but
that doesn't mean you can't play it at all. It has, naturally, quite
many quality settings, and if you turn them all to minimum I bet it
will play really slick. Of course it will look like crap, but that's
another issue.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message 
news:497c6512@news.povray.org...
> Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> OK, so I've wondered about this before... If I were to install Crysis on
>> my PC, would I actually be able to play it? Or would my PC melt into a
>> pile of liquid metal?
>
>  You won't be able to play it with the highest quality settings, but
> that doesn't mean you can't play it at all. It has, naturally, quite
> many quality settings, and if you turn them all to minimum I bet it
> will play really slick. Of course it will look like crap, but that's
> another issue.

     Actually warp, it's not that bad once you get used to it.

   Yes, you get jaggies, and you won't get the good stuff like parallax 
occlusion mapping with low settings, but everything looks ok as is, to be 
honest.

    ~Steve~


>
> -- 
>                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
> > Crysis really got a bad rap when it came out[1], but it's quite playable
> > on your machine.
> >
> > The catch, of course, is that you can't turn all the settings up to
> > their highest.  It won't look as nice as the marketing screencaps, but
> > it'll still be pretty sweet.
> >
> > [1]They "futureproofed" it by making the highest settings absolutely
> > insane.
>
> ...so it's like the original Halflife? (I.e., when it came out, there
> was hardly a machine in the land that could run it at all detail, but
> today it's a trivial matter for any half-decent GPU.)

Yes, except Halflife was one of the best games ever and Crysis just a bland tech
demo.

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> Yes, except Halflife was one of the best games ever and Crysis just a bland tech
> demo.

OK, so what made Halflife so great?  I have my ideas, but I'd like to hear 
from some others first.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Ouch ouch ouch!"
   "What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
   "No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."

Post a reply to this message

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Darren New [mailto:dne### [at] sanrrcom]
> OK, so what made Halflife so great?  I have my ideas, but I'd like to
> hear
> from some others first.

Couldn't tell you, I thought it was rather bland.

In fact, the puzzles were contrived and the plot cliché.  It wasn't any 
better than Duke Nukem 3D, yet it gets all kinds of praise that the other 
doesn't.

And the sequel...

...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
> > Yes, except Halflife was one of the best games ever and Crysis just a bland tech
> > demo.

> OK, so what made Halflife so great?  I have my ideas, but I'd like to hear 
> from some others first.

  This is something I have been wondering myself as well.

  IMO Half-Life is greatly overhyped. The only thing which was more or less
innovative at the time was the long, playable intro. However, other than
that the game is a rather typical straightforward first-person shooter
with minimal storytelling. IMO it wasn't even technically/graphically
the most advanced game of the time. Rather average, really. The weapons
were rather inventive, I grant you that (and something I miss from the
sequels), but otherwise there isn't really anything special.

  Half-Life 2, however, is a completely different story. Great writing
and storytelling, great technology, great playability...

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message