Crysis single player demo

[jonks]

I'm in love, again. I loved Far Cry but my middling system couldn't do it justice. My new one can for Crysis. It auto-detected everything to High on my c2d @ 3.0ghz, 8800gts640, and it ran perfectly smooth and damn it is beautiful. Best demo of the year by far, and I had more fun just with the demo than I did in all of Bioshock. Awesome.

 

[Miklebud]

I am impressed. I'm excited for this game. It played pretty smooth with some custom settings (A few high, a few medium and a few low). I can't wait for November 16th!

 

[IamClueless]

apparently if you throw a chicken and jump at the same time in strength suit its deadly.

edit - and you can shoot the birds out of the sky, enjoying it the more i play it.

 

[cmdrdredd]

I think that 90% of the people on the internet go in the game, set DX10 to very high and turn on AA and go cry that the game runs poor. You knew it would for months and months. Anyway, my point is that the game is very playable and very enjoyable if you just tweak a few things down. I keep saying shadows and post processing to medium because they are the 2 least noticable changes to the graphics. Other effects on Very High at 1280x1024 and these 2 options on medium give me 30fps averages. That's pretty good IMO.

 

[Xorp]

Can someone know let me know if the the single player demo installs punkbuster service, or any other anti-piracy stuff?

 

[pcslookout]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
I think that 90% of the people on the internet go in the game, set DX10 to very high and turn on AA and go cry that the game runs poor. You knew it would for months and months. Anyway, my point is that the game is very playable and very enjoyable if you just tweak a few things down. I keep saying shadows and post processing to medium because they are the 2 least noticable changes to the graphics. Other effects on Very High at 1280x1024 and these 2 options on medium give me 30fps averages. That's pretty good IMO.

What video card do you think will be required to play at all settings on very high in DX10 at 1600x1200 or above resolution with 4x AA and 16AF ? Ok at least 2x AA and 8x AF. Geforce 9800 GTX or the high end one after that ?

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: pcslookout

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
I think that 90% of the people on the internet go in the game, set DX10 to very high and turn on AA and go cry that the game runs poor. You knew it would for months and months. Anyway, my point is that the game is very playable and very enjoyable if you just tweak a few things down. I keep saying shadows and post processing to medium because they are the 2 least noticable changes to the graphics. Other effects on Very High at 1280x1024 and these 2 options on medium give me 30fps averages. That's pretty good IMO.

What video card do you think will be required to play at all settings on very high in DX10 at 1600x1200 or above resolution with 4x AA and 16AF ? Ok at least 2x AA and 8x AF. Geforce 9800 GTX or the high end one after that ?

I think next year. This year's cards don't seem to be able to handle the new DX10 features that well (read: fast).

I'd wait and see. If you start getting over 30fps averages in Crysis with the next wave then maybe. If not, then hold on to your current card.

Really, with AA and AF on in Crysis I'd say next christmas to make a safe bet. Can you hold off until then? Pickup the game for $29.99 then too. Then you can play it through for the first time, with DX10 on very high, at good FPS. (maybe)

Personally I'm fine aith 1280x1024 DX10 everything on very high (no AA), medium shadows and post processing. Game looks and runs fine for me. Not as fast as Quake Wars, UT3 etc. but it's very playable and an enjoyable game.

Remember, the Crytek team predicted a 6-9month span before you can max the game and get very good playable FPS. They expect everyone to run lower details until newer cards arrive to handle very high with AA etc.

 

[IamClueless]

2-8800gtx/ultras or 2-2900xts should be able to handle it, maybe maybe not who knows. this is assuming that the rest of the pc is up to par. As far as i can tell the demo doesnt use sli/crossfire or dual/quad core atm, so when its released the fps people are getting today should change greatly.

 

[duragezic]

This demo is awesome. The gameplay is excellent!! The demo was of good length as well. I pretty much only went with regular combat, so I could go through it again more blazing, more stealth, or more fists.

I think this game will be great, and whether or not the MP is doesn't matter much (Far Cry MP was well, no one played it) cause it is just an amazing SP game anyway. Though I won't be purchasing it till approx next summer when I should be graduated, working, and have a new rig.

Cause damn... 1024x768, all details low (auto detected too) and I played for 5-10 minutes, and it ran pretty good. So I put Textures, Objects, and Shaders to medium and continue playing. Ran good for part of the time, but quite a few areas it got very noticeably choppy.. downright bad in some places. So if I play through again, it'll have to be 1024x768 all low details for sure.

You'd think my Opty @ 2.7ghz, 2GB ram, 7800GT OC would do a little better, but no. I wonder how they released gameplay videos and playtested early alpha builds of this game in say 2005 or 2006 when there was not the hardware there is today (though 8800GTS has been out almost a year now) at all, cause damn is this game a hog.

So to sum it up, the demo is awesome, and this game is probably gonna be phenomenal.

Still, I think the devs could optimize more and tweak the game more, say spend another 6 months doing so. From the MP beta, sounds like they should. I think EA is pushing them to release. Honestly, I don't see how much you can accomplish in the next couple of weeks. There is so many damn good games now... it's very crowded market (and I'd guess the holiday season is enticing for sales), but I think say a Spring 2008 release would be better as it wouldn't be so crowded with other games and they'd have more time to polish it.

 

[DannyLove]

Originally posted by: Chaotic42
I want to print out screenshots of this game and roll around naked on them.

If only you could use the portal gun...

ROFL

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: IamClueless
2-8800gtx/ultras or 2-2900xts should be able to handle it, maybe maybe not who knows. this is assuming that the rest of the pc is up to par. As far as i can tell the demo doesnt use sli/crossfire or dual/quad core atm, so when its released the fps people are getting today should change greatly.

Crysis doesn't have SLi support yet so it's a waste at this point. We don;'t yet know what performance we will see in the release with SLI.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Hehe, I punched over a tree and picked it up by the trunk. I then turned on cloak and approached a couple of NKs. They basically saw a walking tree and took out there rifles. I chucked the tree at them but I missed so I had to run away.

 

[MrUniq]

I think it's pretty much understood 8800 series cards run this well. I have X1950XT and I'm running the game pretty good with 1280x1024 DX9. Most of the settings except shadows and physics are on high. I'm sure I could turn those up too but didn't want to risk performance...the game set to medium by default for my card. No crashes, ran smooth, suprised at what the X1000 ATI series is capable of becaue the graphics are the best I've seen. I sure DX10 looks awsome. Never played Far Cry...but this game was actually more tactical than I expected. I rarely went Rambo b/c of the damage...but did alot of hit and run tactics on enemy squads.

 

[Zenoth]

Hmmm ... I wanted to try out the Sandbox Editor, but for some reason it crashes every time I try to create a new map, or to load an existing one. It simply gives me one of those .EXE errors, and that the program must close. I don't get it ...

 

[Ryland]

Originally posted by: MTDEW
163.69 drivers, the 169.01 "crysis nvidia drivers" dont work for me, all i get is a black screen when i start the game.

Then Im not the only one having a black screen issue with Crysis with the drivers that are supposedly optimized for the game. I am using it with the machine in my sig.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Cheex

I read somewhere that said the full single player campaign will be about 10-12 hours long.

excuse me? ... are you sure ?


OMG, this appears to confirm it:

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2...is_release_announced/1

The singleplayer game will be approximately ten hours long for an average player

--that is a $50 tech demo, not a game ... wasn't FC a lot longer?

... yeah i going to wait ... the multiplayer better be spectacular ...
--evidently DX10 is for the multiplayer:

http://www.shacknews.com/featuredarticle.x?id=639

Shack: How significant are differences between the DX9 and DX10 versions of the game? Are there any actual gameplay distinctions?

Cevat Yerli: For single-player the difference is only in visual quality, there are no gameplay differences. Visually the imagery has more depth though 3D post processing, looks more cinematic through motion blur systems interacting and surfaces are more crisper in detail and 3D. The lighting and post processing goes through an extended next-generation HDR rendering system.

In multiplayer when you qualify for very-high settings, that is high-end DX10, you will experience tangible gameplay improvements that actually make tactical difference and lets you feel like you play single player in terms of cinematic experience.

Shack: Generally, successful multiplayer is fairly low-req in order to allow for the largest possible userbase. How do you feel about the prospects for your multiplayer mode in the face of the numerous heavy hitters releasing this fall?

Cevat Yerli: We see multiplayer in two extremes. One is the low, medium, high version that scales games low and high in regards to your PC spec, offering you a certain fixed gameplay. We try to be as good as we can there without losing the low-spec gamers.

But with very-high you will need high-end DX10 to qualify for an experience that is essentially the future of multiplayer games, but now. This means you will also get gameplay experience that pushes options, emergent gameplay through more advanced simulations and graphics that define and impact gameplay. Examples of this are breakable geometries, soft-vegetation that interacts with characters, battledust that is synchronized across users to change the atmospherics, day-night cycles that can change tactics completely as you play.

 

[pontifex]

i can't play it, it keeps crashing after i hit any key to start the mission.

i do have the 169 drivers. i tried it with the 163 drivers and got the same thing.

i was able to play the MP demo though...

 

[postmortemIA]

Originally posted by: Ryland

Originally posted by: MTDEW
163.69 drivers, the 169.01 "crysis nvidia drivers" dont work for me, all i get is a black screen when i start the game.

Then Im not the only one having a black screen issue with Crysis with the drivers that are supposedly optimized for the game. I am using it with the machine in my sig.

I have black screen (locked screen) if I use 64-bit binary, 32-bit one works ok.

 

[MTDEW]

Black screen problem has been solved.
If you force v-sync in the drivers, the game will start with the 64bit binary.

Whether or not you want v-sync on is another story...LOL

 

[ProfJohn]

1.7 gig!! This thing is huge.

I wonder what will take more time:
The download of this
or tonights world series game.

Last nights was over 4 hours so it is going to be close.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: MrUniq
I think it's pretty much understood 8800 series cards run this well. I have X1950XT and I'm running the game pretty good with 1280x1024 DX9. Most of the settings except shadows and physics are on high. I'm sure I could turn those up too but didn't want to risk performance...the game set to medium by default for my card. No crashes, ran smooth, suprised at what the X1000 ATI series is capable of becaue the graphics are the best I've seen. I sure DX10 looks awsome. Never played Far Cry...but this game was actually more tactical than I expected. I rarely went Rambo b/c of the damage...but did alot of hit and run tactics on enemy squads.

Go get a copy of Far Cry!

 

[pontifex]

let the game decide my video settings and it worked fine.

pretty cool. reminds me a lot of Far Cry though and I wasn't too fond of Far Cry.
I'm getting really tired of the monsters/mutants/aliens type crap in FPS games. Just give me regular human enemies and real world weapons. Maybe that's why I like the WWII FPS games so much.

the SP demo is 10x better than the MP. I may wait until it comes down in price though.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: pontifex
pretty cool. reminds me a lot of Far Cry though and I wasn't too fond of Far Cry.
I'm getting really tired of the monsters/mutants/aliens type crap in FPS games. Just give me regular human enemies and real world weapons. Maybe that's why I like the WWII FPS games so much.

Yeah, I wasn't too fond of Far Cry either. Playing outside in the jungle with humans was ok, but once it got to cramped quarters with genetic monsters it got boring.

I also hate hate hate the stupid damage system in these games. Enemies are either at 100% or they're dead. No in-between. In Crysis it takes 1 headshot to kill. About 8+ body shots to do the same. I found myself laying prone off in the distance just tapping my rifle at this guy 7 times. Each time the guy would do a brief "ouch" animation and then go back to his regular "search and destroy" routine. No wounding effects. Guy doesn't slow down. He doesn't lose courage and run away to hide. He doesn't limp. He doesn't bleed to death. He doesn't drop on the ground and roll around in agony. You shoot his legs 6 times and he still runs like normal. You shoot his arms 6 times and he still holds his rifle like normal. I hate these plastic enemies.

I also found a bug where bullet damage turns to zero at a certain distance. I was popping off shots at enemies a pretty long distance away with my rifle. Each shot would cause the enemy to do their "ouch" animation, but after 40 shots the enemy still wasn't dead. The same thing happens with the mounted machine guns. However, the speed boat guns don't have this distance limitation and can cause serious damage from an unrealistically long distance away.

 

[jonmcc33]

Originally posted by: pcslookout

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
I think that 90% of the people on the internet go in the game, set DX10 to very high and turn on AA and go cry that the game runs poor. You knew it would for months and months. Anyway, my point is that the game is very playable and very enjoyable if you just tweak a few things down. I keep saying shadows and post processing to medium because they are the 2 least noticable changes to the graphics. Other effects on Very High at 1280x1024 and these 2 options on medium give me 30fps averages. That's pretty good IMO.

What video card do you think will be required to play at all settings on very high in DX10 at 1600x1200 or above resolution with 4x AA and 16AF ? Ok at least 2x AA and 8x AF. Geforce 9800 GTX or the high end one after that ?

I don't think you'll ever see a 9800 series from nVIDIA because ATi has the 9000 series already named. Wouldn't want to confuse with the competition, eh?

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: jonmcc33

Originally posted by: pcslookout

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
I think that 90% of the people on the internet go in the game, set DX10 to very high and turn on AA and go cry that the game runs poor. You knew it would for months and months. Anyway, my point is that the game is very playable and very enjoyable if you just tweak a few things down. I keep saying shadows and post processing to medium because they are the 2 least noticable changes to the graphics. Other effects on Very High at 1280x1024 and these 2 options on medium give me 30fps averages. That's pretty good IMO.

What video card do you think will be required to play at all settings on very high in DX10 at 1600x1200 or above resolution with 4x AA and 16AF ? Ok at least 2x AA and 8x AF. Geforce 9800 GTX or the high end one after that ?

I don't think you'll ever see a 9800 series from nVIDIA because ATi has the 9000 series already named. Wouldn't want to confuse with the competition, eh?

Uh, both had an 8500 card.