There are only two things exciting about Crysis:
1)The suit.
2)The graphics, if your computer can handle it at it's highest settings.

I tried Call of Duty 4 and I can safely say that it's the _best_ FPS I've played in years and it truly gives you a gaming experience unlike others.

In other words I'd take CoD4 any day even if my computer could handle Crysis (on the highest settings).

If only I could afford another 8800GTX. My single GTX only gets about 18-25 FPS through most of the game play with shadows on medium Textures on very high and everything else on high... brutal.

Nuff said...

And it is F---ing Amazing! Start to finish, even at at medium settings, its beautiful, incredibly fun, absolutely makes you go "wow" like when i cloaked, and climbed up a sentry tower, killed the sentry with a silent strength punch, but before switching back to cloak quickly, i was spotted by a Heli, which gave me just enough time to jump from the tower, and switch to armor mode for the landing, before the tower came crumbling down accompanied by the sound of exploding rockets. Now i just had to deal with the 20 infantry i alerted by destroying a good portion of their base.

Fing brilliant game i say.

This game is for Single Play only, the Multiplayer part of the game is the biggest peice of junk I have every played. YOu can't use the high graphics at all or even medium with a decent rig to get FPS type of needed framerate, and even when you get your FPS up the gameplay is horrid. This game supposedly have "professional" gamers help plan it and tweak it, but honestly, they musta pulled that story out of their ass cause the game is just boring, the gun fights are completly off and I can't really explain it, it's just boring. Anyway Single player definatley had some cool factor to it, but if you buy the game wanting a good Multiplayer game go with COD4, that is until Frontlines and UT3 come out, they will take over the MP side of the coin.

Hopefully its not like most EA FPS's where you might as well wait 6 months and a dozen patches before its polished enough to actually be worth playing.

You will have to tweak the CFG files for good performance, nice game

Anosh, sounds like Infinity Ward or Activision signs your paycheck. No pun intended for CoD4 but there isn't a damn thing wrong with Crysis.

Wonderful for people who can't stand games like call of duty, which is just DELTA FORCE BLACK HAWK DOWN, but with better graphics. No thanks, I'd much rather play a game that lets me blast apart trees and buildings, in open environments, with a super charged editor. Can you imagine the mods we'll see within the next year?

Crysis is simply amazing, and I am surprised to see that the call of duty fan boys hate this game as much as they do.... hmmm......

http://go-dl.eve-files.com/med...0x1080.wmv

Call Of Duty 4 owns this game. It's not all about graphic, and i have to say Call Of Duty 4 have amazing graphic too and it's an example of the project being executed well, with perfect performance/quality ratio. Team behind Crysis did project called Crysis with lack of logical reasoning behind it. Anybody can throw DX9.0/DX10.0 effects around, but that's not the point. Another game which is really overlooked is Timeshift. Sierra pulled it really good. Maybe Crytek should look at that game and see how some things are done and optimised well. Timeshift brings some amazing texture quality (displacement mapping etc).

CoD4 is so I wanna make another war time FPS. I have so many war time FPS I would rather play WoW then CoD4. The graphics in CoD4 are good, but no where near Crysis level. The gameplay in CoD4 is very linear and very tired, compared to Crysis where you are able to do so many different things to acheive your objectives. Crysis is the clear winner with its superiour graphics, superiour AI, superiour gameplay. This will be GOTY!

Clearly you don't know what you're talking about. CoD 4 was a good game but it doesn't compare to Crysis. CoD 4 has a linear playing envirnoment, by that I mean there's multiple ways of getting objectives done in Crysis. ie, stealth through the bases, raise hell and kill everyone, attack different points through land, sea, the list is endless. Go play CoD 4 and tell me you can do that.
Don't get me wrong it's still a fun game, but Crysis beats it hands down.

COD4 doesn't even compare. I guess that is your style though to want to be led through a fixed path in a game where AI spawns from no where and all run to the same point each time. Crysis is so open to do whatever you want. Just the AI alone doesn't even compare. The gameplay...sheesh. COD4...no way.

If Crysis is played as a run-of-the-mill shooter, it's pretty but nothing all that new.

Playing Crysis like a normal shooter is an absolute crime.
What you put into the game will determine what you get out of it, if you decide to play just like the other thousand shooters you've played in the past, things will feel very familiar, albeit much prettier.
If you delve deeper and experiment with your suit's capabilities, a whole new world of possibilities opens up.

When someone calls the game bland or says it does nothing new, I realize they're bereft of imagination and have to pity them a little.

I'd still cut down a tree to have it land on their heads in MP, but I assure you I'd be pitying them inside, just a little bit.

Just bought COD4 it'll be awhile. What was cool about the demo was the variety of ways you could play and the destructive effects of the objects and vehicles.

played the demo and wasnt fun after playing Crysis MP Beta and SP Demos. CoD1/CoD2 (which I played) gameplay was fun maybe 5 years ago but things have moved along since then. I was dissappointed because the CoD4 videos looked real impressive. I'd buy CoD4 if it was $30, not when $50 can go to Crysis

If you like console shooters, than COD 4 is the cream of the crop. If you were expecting a return to the PC for the COD series, then you will be sadly disappointed. Don't get me wrong, the game is fun and I do not regret spending the money on it for a instant, but the game has a lot of critical flaws that will not be able to be addressed in a patch. For example, the PC version loses out on some of the features of COD 4, such as Prestige mode. The semi destructible environments advertised prior to release simply do not exist ( a car that blows up is not destructible, that is what they are supposed to do), and the stats for your character are stored on your computer, not a master server like any modern day PC FPS. The worst thing by far though, is the size of the maps. Yeah you can play with 32 players on the PC version, but it does not work that welll when the maps were designed for 20 players max.

Overall, I felt like I was playing a game designed for the 360 the whole time. It was still fun, but I spend a thousand dollars a year in PC hardware for a reason. Crysis is one of those reasons.Just waiting for EBworld to call to tell me my preorder arrived).

or else you wouldn't be trashing a great game. Please don't bash it just because it's EA or not some other first person shooter. The game is great, and it's what it is, no comparisons to your XBox or Unreal needed, thanks. Multi-player will likely rock. One thing I noticed about the demo is that it seemed to do a pretty good job of automatically adjusting my video settings. My FPS never dipped below 25. For the demo I ran my stock Opty 185 (2.6ghz sock 939) with 4 gigs of PC3200 ram (WinXP Pro x64), and a super-clocked 8800GTS-640meg card. I attempted 4x AA and AF just to see what difference it made and my frames dropped to about 16, but the game wasn't so un-smooth that I couldn't run around and shoot. The engine for this game rocks, and most new games are still unpolished. Cut it some slack. It's a great game.

Only a couple hours in, but so far so great! tweakguides gives some very good advice especially in the last page of their guide. I have a 8800GTS640. 1680x1050, everything on high except shadows (medium), some special effects turned to very high (see tweakguide) and it runs great. Was only getting 16-20fps with AA at x2 so turned AA off and now get 22-27fps which is great for this game.

Go and play this game. So far there tons more to this game than just the suit and the graphics. And like Blah mentioned you don't have to play on highest settings for it to look very good.

The demo ran fine for me all high settings 1920 x 1200 res and got an average of 20 to 25 fps. It is a game thats scaled years ahead of current hardware so its no surprise it takes a toll on even the highest PC setup. . .But it was very playable and the detail is amazing. Yes COD 4 is kick ass as well, excellent game as Ive already beat the single player. I think Crysis and COD 4 will be close for game of the year! Looking forward to get my copy of Crysis this Friday.

I'm sorry, but CoD games suck, "Oh, let's go twenty years in the past and hurl tons of respawning, boring enemies at the player until an objective is completed!" and that's every CoD game, I played 4, and it has some neat stuff, but it doesn't even compare to Crysis. The level of interactivity with enemies and the environment, the amazing suit which enhances that interactivity to a new level, not to mention Multiplayer - Wow!

I'm not sure what you are talking about. CoD4 is a great game, but Crysis blows it away with graphics, game physics, and just all around ingenuity.

The single-player demo had me screaming for more.

While I'm sure COD4 is probably fun if you haven't played many army war games. I think this genre is getting rather tired.

I guess the BF42 series quenched all my needs for an army game. They are just old news, and any new one is just the same old thing rehashed.

Crysis-- I've been waiting for this game for what seems like years. Haven't played the demo as I don't want to "spoil" the game in any way. After playing FarCry that was revolutionary when that was released. Even then the war game theme was in full tilt, but this game was a "fresh idea".

If all we ever do is spend our money on old rehashed ideas then the game developers flood the market with the same old shootem up fps.

After I play crysis my opinion may change, but I wouldn't count on it.... ;)

This next weekend is going to be a long explosive one... lol.

I have Quad Intel Core 2 with SLI 8800GTX and 4Gb of RAM and i can play Crysis with everything very high with no problem. Still, i simply don't like the game and performance/quality is just simply unbalanced. Again even though it's playable 30 FPS is unacceptable for me. It just tells me that the game is not optimised well...i guess even 8 core CPU wouldn't help there cause developers just sucked.

As far as gameplay, the game is linear as well. Of course you have big maps, so you have more options but the bottom line is the game is linear. When I was talking about COD4 i said that the project is executed well, much better then Crysis and btw COD4 multiplayer is so fun.

Next generation graphics and physics does not mean the game is necessarily as good as many has claimed it to be. Heck, if anyone remembers that CG movie Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within, that movie had by far the most mind blowing graphics and details of its time. There sure was a big hype about it with its previews,interviews, and trailers before people actually were able to watch the complete movie. Was the movie good? I would say no.

I'm not saying Crysis would be a hype, but in all honesty, unless someone has beaten the complete game already, I think your comments are as good as hot air.

"I'm sorry, but CoD games suck, "Oh, let's go twenty years in the past and hurl tons of respawning, boring enemies at the player until an objective is completed!" and that's every CoD game, I played 4, and it has some neat stuff, but it doesn't even compare to Crysis. The level of interactivity with enemies and the environment, the amazing suit which enhances that interactivity to a new level, not to mention Multiplayer - Wow!"

Exacly, thats the problem with all WW2 games, too repetitive, same old game play and boring. I wouldn't go that far and say it sucks, but COD4 is not something to brag about.

And now our new exciting game, things are realistic, the ground blows up like its suppose to and billions of people don't pop out of no where.

In COD4 Don't you think its just odd that 45 ton tank gets stuck by a measly tree? :/

Every one of their FPS games are revolutionary. They come out with a new revolutionary FPS game approximately every 13 days (I'm rounding). EA games just works on too many games at the same time. It took so long because of all of their other projects and all of the other games they created and then failed to support because they had too many other games to create. The game was much better off in Ubisoft's hands. Is EA the only company making games now?

What? Anyone that can look at Crysis and think "boring" would probably enjoy watching paint dry. The videos for the game look amazing, the game play and physics of the game ... simply spectacular. You can say graphics/physics don't count, but graphics and physics add DEFINITE depth to game play. That's like saying that playing tennis on the SNES has more depth than playing tennis in real life. Yes, definite logic behind that statement.

I downloaded the demo on a whim. I think it's vastly important to ignore the benchmark hype. This is a well made, lean running, game (as far as the demo is concerned). It likes double core processors... my X2 4400 seemed to have no big problems with it. Medium settings and low resolution, look far better than I ever imagined.

I would say that even at 480P on my 1200P 24" LCD ... it still wows me at times where HL2 Episode 2 at 1200P kind of doesn't.

I really enjoyed the Demo. It plays smoothest at 480P or maybe 600P (whatever that res is) on my 8600GT with Medium Settings. I seriously doubt anyone has to go beyond medium settings even on an 8800GT unless they're monitor is small (mine is 1920 x 1200... I'd obviously up the res on Crysis if I could). Ultra-high is just there for benchmarking, and it's really quite stupid to spend $1000.00 on graphics alone just to say you did. I'd stick with medium through and through... it's NOT yesterday's medium setting, it looks awesome.

Low settings suck... yeah, high settings would be nice, but medium settings and 720P is probably as good as you've ever seen on an PS3/XBOX 360 game if not better.

The surprising thing to me is that even at 480P ... the environments and graphics WOW me as I play. If I buy this game right now, it'll be the first time a demo shows me that I need better hardware ... but it's still fun enough to buy... way fun for that matter.

Heck it's looking like in the next few weeks we'll be able to maybe get in on some 8800GT loving or the new ATI cards for $200.00 on the dot. Not bad.

I would say I'm buying this game for certain, just don't know if straight away or in a few months when I refresh my hardware. If my computer COULD never be upgraded for some reason, I'd buy it now. Though, that doesn't say much since technically my PC is not all that bad (2GB, 8600GT is like 3 months old, dual-core).

Anyhow, part of the reason that people like consoles is that experts decide for you what will look best while playing smoothly... don't be a dweeb and select the wrong settings for your computer's hardware b/c you just end up ruining your own experience.

Yes! if you have an 8800GTX and are getting 15FPS on Crysis ... you're a dweeb and you need to change your settings.

actually bobby, a tree is maybe not a measly as you think. Not that I am claiming a sapling is going to stop a tank, but consider this:

I have been contracted to remove trees damaged in car accidents on several occasions. I have seen, with my own eyes, a twelve inch diameter pine (a softwood!) tree that was struck by a 50,000 pound truck doing about 60mph in an interstate median strip. This phenomenon tends to scuff off the bark at the point of impact. I've seen trees struck by similar speeds on many occasions, and I've yet to see one that I thought would not survive. In fact, I've seen a tree where a car hit it so hard the bumper met on the backside, but the trees always seem to absorb the impact, somehow.

I've also seen a man push a medium-sized oak tree over with a thirteen ton front end loader, but the bucket was used some fifteen feet off the ground... this provides leverage that a tank would lack, pushing it lower. In these circumstances, the tree NEVER fails itself, it's always the soil around the roots that fails. They don't break, they uproot. Also, the root system on the backside, away from the loader, is always dug up first. I've even seen a heavy equipment operator dig the roots all the way around a tree before pushing it. What I have never seen is anyone just push on a tree, ever.

I suppose my point is that it is DAMNED ASTOUNDING what abuse a regular old tree can take. In a tree service career that spans almost twenty years, I have yet to see a single tree broken by an impact of any kind.

"...everything very high with no problem. Still, i simply don't like the game and performance/quality is just simply unbalanced. Again even though it's playable 30 FPS is unacceptable for me."

Which one is it? Is it "no problems" or is it "unacceptable"?

If I give $500,000.00 you don't have to go spend them today. Same goes for the nice developers at Crytek that gave you the option of chokin up your system for an added 5 to 10% visual improvemen.

Trust me dude... just trust, decrease your setting to high or even medium. Don't be weird and insist on Very High before late 2008. Don't let stubborness keep you from a better game, b/c Crysis is a 95 while COD4 is an 89. (Those are my personal scores).

Ummm... in terms of developers "just sucking"... wow. You really have no clue huh? You think it's like flipping the switch or something... a game that's already a 95... runs great from day on... you think it's easy to make it a 99... or a 100?

Dude. It's FAR EASIER TO LOWER the settings. I wish developers would lock these highest settings ... so that newbs couldn't mess up their work out of sheer ignorance.

It happened in Doom 3... the "Ultra" setting looks identical to the second highest setting but it just uses hardwar inefficiently by not compressing. Seriously, read up on this: NO VISIBLE DIFFERENCE AT ALL... yet performance numbers plummet.

I'm sure in Crysis it's not "identical" but it starts looking damn good at Medium settings... the highest settings are meant for longevity and freedom of choice. Don't abuse that freedom.

The original Quake could be run at higher than 1920 x 1440. It didn't mean that was a good setting to run it on!?! It doesn't mean I couldn't run that res now. In fact, I could run that setting without 3d hardware acceleration and it would still be smooth.

Try to understand that spending a few extra hundred dollars on computer hardware doesn't make you the next John Carmack in terms of your coding expertise level.

I'm a n00b, so please no flames :)

How do you run timedemos/show FPS on Crysis? is there a way or do you have to use FRAPS?

Unfortunately, with all things PC - the game is not going to hit my required 60FPS average, until the next generation of GPUs are launched. This game will rock severely, but not until the hardware catches up.

The PC has one major problem on its hands right now, non of the super expensive hardware is fully itilized, and the developers are having to compromise so much to make it work across the spectrum of different hardware. The PC almost need a GAME hardware spec, where every three years, all PC games will be 100% optimized for the spec, and our huge investments will yield a guaranteed 60 FPS in every game... it would be like a DIY console, but the games cost half as much and sell twice as many... of course, how you ensure fair competition, I have no idea!

Forget this game. It looks great but thats it. There's no real gameplay, team play or purpose to multiplayer. The maps are small and confused and everyone just solos and runs round like headless chickens doing their own thing. The promised 12 hour matches never materialise - the average game is 10 minutes of confused cr*p. There's no learning curve or skill involved. One of the worst games I've ever played!!

Ummm, why do you guys waste your time putting a game down? It's almost like somehow EA is personally attacking you... which they arent. They are trying to satisfy your DEMANDS!!! The same thing with Activision and half a dozen other production companies. I know you guys like commenting, who the hell doesn't, but JESUS -H- CHRIST... STOP F#CKING WHINING! Crysis has been released, go get the game and play it!!! COD4 needs to be played too... GO PLAY IT! ENJOY THEM! Damn! They are both marvels of our time! If you dont like it, go play Atari 2600 or something. Buncha bitches I tell ya...

While it's true graphics don't make a good game. Doom3 is a good example, not that doom3 was bad, but it still was the same old idea of previous doom games, nothing really new or exciting.

Half life2 was the first to have destructable throwable objects, but you had little choice to stray off course.

I think the best game so far not counting crysis that allows non-linear game play is Age of Empire series. I think after playing that game the game experience was put on such a high level that alot of games have a hard time stacking up against it. I still can submerse myself in a game of AOE for hours on end.

Not sure yet how crysis will stack up in this regard and I've heard you have to look for different ways to play it. If you approach it as another linear game then that's what it will feel like to you.

Even still I'll have a sandbox editor to play with if the game somehow lets me down. I'm surprised more games don't include options like that.

I have not had the opertunaty to play the game as of yet but have read pleanty to know what i am on about.

Many of complaints on performance vs graphics is mainly down to the operating systems. Everyone knows that Vista at present is buggy, a good looking OS but none the less a poor performing OS, especialy when it is requiring a min of 1G/2G of ram just to run in the background, forget about gaming! This coupled with diver issues for dx10 and optimisations leads to poor performance of crysis on Vista which may i add simply cannot be run on full gfx (tech does not exist yet). Until the Vista service packs comes out and 9000 serries nvidea cards, i will stick with the more stable XP to run this game. You will likely get the same level of gfx with dx9 at full setting, than dx10 at low/medium with far smaller/stable performance hit to your pc.

Roll on the new tech so we can play it on dx10 at full glory.

i played the demo,
i call it Far Cry with good Graphics,
from the guys shooting from the boat,
to the caves,
shame game

graphx haterz are jealous they can't work their hardware properly. Boo hoo. Stick to Pac-Man, youz can’t handle the big gamez

The company is called Crytek...EA only published their game for them. That is why this is not a "typical" EA game..it's actually good.

Mike's right, enough b!tch'n and whining. We're all game'n bros...let's enjoy these new magnificent games for what they are.

my laptop can play the game fine
Specs are
Dual Core 2.0ghz
7900gs go 256mb
2gb ram
80gb 7200rpm drive

Plays fine for me!

my laptop can play the game fine
Specs are
Dual Core 2.0ghz
7900gs go 256mb
2gb ram
80gb 7200rpm drive

Plays fine for me!

The demo is so much like far cry I will not buy it for a modded refresh.
Install the demo on vista and right click the game in the game folder and choose dx10 and enjoy.

I've played the demo for a bit and have to say the environment dynamics is simply amazing. Like shooting a tree until it falls to the side of the mountain and then I shoot it some more it behaves what a real tree would do. Kudos in this department.

With the editor it would be possible to create mods. So in a nutshell Electronic Arts actually sold us the Crysis Engine not the game itself. They gave us the ability to create our own environments and the engine simply reacts with it.

This idea isn't new. Look at UT2004. They threw in a editor and look how many mods for it now.

Pretty amazing stuff. Sorry for folks who can't play the graphics at the highest setting but even at medium setting it's still impressive.

From the console:

r_displayinfo 1

Use a 0 to turn it off.

It's good to see someone actually back to paying attention to single player.

I won't spend $20 for a game that is primarily a multiplayer shoot out. Sadly, it seems like all the cos are cashing in on multiplayer, charging you just as much for half a game (no AI, story, etc).

Thanks for correcting me on who developed the game. Props to CRYTEK. I think they did a hell of a job creating this game.

Now, just gotta upgrade my CPU to the new Intel Q6600... this 3200 @ 2.5ghz is getting old. The 8800GT helps out alot though.

Jim L, I agree. The reason I hate multiplayer is more often than not a certain demographic develops cheats or exploits holes.

I can't stand games that cheat let alone Multiplayer cheat tactics. I have got better things to do with my time then play with a bunch of cheaters or people that join a game and just quit for whatever the reason.

Single player games are where it's at for me. If I want the game to be harder then toggle the difficulty settings. AI is getting to the point now where it's almost perfect.

Rock on Crytek!

Nothing to wow about really. I shoot a tree, it falls down. I throw a grenade at a tree, it falls down. I shoot a nuke at a tree, it lifts 2 metres off the ground, and falls down (while ever other tree is just fine).

Buildings, well they aren't much better. The wood doesn't break apart nicely, the walls just fall down (theres alot of falling down in this game) in large pieces. I punch a table, the whole thing just collapses in, rather than breaking off the corner or putting holes in it. I mean, I can bring an entire building down with an oil drum, what gives?

This is experience from the demo, maybe they made the physics adequate in the full version.

I'm running it on a Core Duo 6850. 8800GTX. 4gb 1066 Patriot RAM and Vista Ultimate 64.

It runs but I had to turn the effects down a little and reduce the res from 1680x1050 to 1280x900. It's running smoothly now and still looks awesome. Like everyone else said this game is going to awesome in a year or two. I suppose if I got a second 8800GTX and a Quad-Core Extreme it might run well but that's just crazy talk.

It is a fun game and I'm still amazed everytime I'm using a turrent gun and trees get chopped in half by it, Predator style.

It's worth it.

Crysis looks fun but I'm more looking forward to a BF2 or WW2 style game using the CryEngine 2.

For the people arguing which is better COD4 or Crysis.

Crysis= better graphics
CoD4= funner more intense gameplay

CoD4 Cryeengine2....priceless

I got COD4 a week ago and as soon as I got paid I went out and bought it, its absolutely worth the 9.7/10 rating. love it. I played the crysis demo, its got a bit of cool factor to it which is fun, the first time you play the game, but once youve finished it, where to then? go spend $3000 on a new sytem so you can do it all again with pristine graphics? I only see minimal advantage of the crysis graphics over the COD4 graphics.

theirs fanboi's on both sides of the fence, Im neither. I just play whats good. once the overal rating of crysis is reviewed, then youll have your answer.

if I didnt know better though, a year from now, crysis will be in the shadows with no attention because people only loved it because of the hype.