BongoBob Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 Plus, they could always go back and turn it on. Blowing it up, while insanely more fun, is also smarter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swphreak Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 Am I the only one who hijacks a boat just to admire the water? I've noticed a few small things like walking/driving through some objects, and the water splashing through the bottom of the boat. I realize this is just a pre-relase demo. Just hope it's not in the final build. Has anyone else modified the config file to allow infinite cloak? It's awesome to see how the AI reacts when they get picked off one by one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 Hey, SWP: What are your system specs and/or what might you be doing differently to make this hardware-breaker of a game run smoothly? Inquiring minds want to know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acdcfanbill Posted October 30, 2007 Share Posted October 30, 2007 I'm betting water will come thru the bottom of the boat in the final build and in most games until they can find a way to make a cheap water particle system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swphreak Posted October 30, 2007 Share Posted October 30, 2007 Hey, SWP: What are your system specs and/or what might you be doing differently to make this hardware-breaker of a game run smoothly? Inquiring minds want to know. Specs: XP Pro SP2 Intel Core 2 Quad CPU @ 2.6 Ghz 2GB RAM GeForce 8800 GTX with drivers from April - I should probably update them. Running the game at 1024x768 on High. I'll give 1280x1024 a try and see if that effects anything, but either way, I usually play my games at 1024. Edit: Yeah, it looked like it was stuttering more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Groovy Posted October 30, 2007 Share Posted October 30, 2007 anyone who spends $3000 on a PC is either rich or a fool. You can build a great gaming rig for under $1K. Most prebuilt computers are going to screw gamers in two areas, parts, or price. Groovy got screwed on parts, while the 6150 cards are from 2005, the GeForce 6000 series was introduced in 2004. Essentially, you got a cheap integrated version of 3 year old tech with your computer. I really should have ran it by you before I bought it. You and I have been talking shop about computers for years. Then I got sucked into consoles and forgot about PC Gaming until Crysis came along. I have had my eye on that game for quite some time. I agree with Billeh, I should have built it myself. These days I just don't have the time to do it. I am NOT going to say I don't have the money or the resources, just over all lack of free time. My last compy was bought in 2002, or 2003. It ran it's life, and had at least 2 or 3 upgrades. I weighed in the price of future upgrades vs, another prebuilt pc, and I could not pass up the sale they had that week. I guess you get what you pay for. I also agree that PC game developers should stop trying to out do each other and take a step outside of the box for a minute. If all these parts were more affordable to the general public, then PC games would be more popular. Games like Crysis appear to be developed for hard core pc gamers that have no problem what so ever at spending a week's pay check on a top of the line gaming rig. I am sick to death of the guess work. PC games have faulty misleading info on the boxes they are packaged in. They advertise what you need to run it. Sure it will run at minimum specs, but will run as a slide show. Rarely do you get "recommended" specs from any other source, other than forums, or websites. These companies want to sell the games, but they don't give a damn if the customers are satisfied with the end result. I am pretty honest with my customers, and I am also sympathetic to customers who bring back games that don't run. I loose money on those returns, but at the same time, I warn them before they buy it. Usually they exchange for an older game that is not so demanding of a system. Don't even get me started on Bioshock for the PC... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IG-64 Posted October 30, 2007 Share Posted October 30, 2007 anyone who spends $3000 on a PC is either rich or a fool. I spent over $3000 on a PC, and I'm not rich. However, I did not just buy it for games, I bought it for 3D stuff. The games are a bonus for having a really good comp (which is why I kept it to gaming parts). Stuff I'm doing: Stuff I'm doing: Chopping down trees with my fists. Running like a girl from any koreans. Admiring the graphics. Trying to get it to work with my comp so it wont run like drunk snails. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kjølen Posted October 30, 2007 Share Posted October 30, 2007 Well, I just found 2GB of DDR2 800 SDRAM on Newegg for $40 after a rebate that ends today (clickie) and paired it with a new Athlon 64 X2 5000+ 2.6GHz Black Edition (Unlocked multipliers). Hopefully the kick-ass processor will get rid of the bottleneck of my current 2.0GHz 4000+. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Jones Posted October 30, 2007 Share Posted October 30, 2007 Long gone are the times where you fought clock and timing settings for many nights until you managed to run your DX/2 100 processor at virtual 110MHz and that actually was like a day/night difference. What I wonder is why would the same game needs higher specs for Vista as it does for XP? Makes no sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BongoBob Posted October 30, 2007 Share Posted October 30, 2007 Because Vista is a hueg resource hog? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Det. Bart Lasiter Posted October 30, 2007 Share Posted October 30, 2007 because dx10 has xtreme grafix. YOU CAN SEE THE BEADS OF SWEAT ON YOUR ENEMIES' FOREHEADS RAYSTON SO YOU KNOW IT'S WORTH THE EXTRA CASH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TiE23 Posted October 30, 2007 Author Share Posted October 30, 2007 Lots of anti-Vista bitterness going on in this thread. If you can't run this game, well then too ****ing bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoxStar Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 Is there not an Xbox 360 Version in the works? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BongoBob Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 If you are smart and don't like running an OS that takes 12 gigs to install and requires at least 2 gigs of ram to run smoothly and is as stable as Britney Spears at best, too f***ing bad. Fixed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TiE23 Posted October 31, 2007 Author Share Posted October 31, 2007 Not a problem. I have 700gb of space on my computer. And I have a "TV Shows" folder that weighs over 180gigs alone. And the 2gb for my computer only cost $60. And Vista owns XP no matter what you say. You shouldn't judge an OS from downloading the open beta from a year ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnpp Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 Minimum system requirements from Crytek and EA OS - Windows XP or Windows Vista Processor - 2.8 GHz or faster (XP) or 3.2 GHz or faster* (Vista) Memory - 1.0 GB RAM (XP) or 1.5 GB RAM (Vista) Video Card -256 MB** Hard Drive - 12GB Sound Card - DirectX 9.0c compatible Oh noes. Let's start from the start: OS = Fine. Processor = Not fine. Memory = Not fine. Video Card = :| Hard Drive = Fine, though I'll have to free some space. Sound card = Fine-ish. This will never run on my Gecube 9600 ATi Radeon, will it? 512 Ram, anyone? How about 1.7 GHz? I need to upgrade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrWally Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 Not a problem. I have 700gb of space on my computer. And I have a "TV Shows" folder that weighs over 180gigs alone. And the 2gb for my computer only cost $60. And Vista owns XP no matter what you say. You shouldn't judge an OS from downloading the open beta from a year ago. If I remember correctly Bongo had Vista installed on his machine... what? Last month? Last week? It was quite recent... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Jones Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 No one said anything against Vista. I just found it interesting that with Vista you need 50% moar powah to run the same game coming from one and the same installation DVD. Either way, tonight I'm going to download the demo, and check if it will run with WINE and linux. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TiE23 Posted October 31, 2007 Author Share Posted October 31, 2007 Well, XP is 5 years younger than Vista. So I would guess a RAM increase would be needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Groovy Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 Is there not an Xbox 360 Version in the works? Nope. Otherwise I would not even be in this discussion. Going to have to sit Crysis out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BongoBob Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 Not a problem. I have 700gb of space on my computer. And I have a "TV Shows" folder that weighs over 180gigs alone. And the 2gb for my computer only cost $60. And Vista owns XP no matter what you say. You shouldn't judge an OS from downloading the open beta from a year ago. A) Vista does not own XP no matter what I say. It uses more resources than XP no matter what anyone says. No OS should use up that many resources. All that does is take away resources from other applications. Such as games. Explain to me why I got an average of 25 fps on the CS:S stress test with Vista, and then booted into XP and got an average of 60. And this was from the finished product, not the beta. There's just no reason for that **** TiE. In addition to the annoying as hell UAC asking me for permission every time I tried to move a f***ing file (it's done it on all 4 computers I've ever ran vista on), f*** that. I have no reason to ever use that steaming pile of s*** called vista. B)I'm not judging it from the Open Beta. I'm judging it from my experience with the finished product on 4 different computers, 3 of them being within the last 2 months. C) Yes, I had vista recently. It came on my laptop. However as soon as I got to an internet connection, I downloaded an ubuntu disk and a windows disk (couldn't find mine, using my license and key though) and got rid of it as soon as the disks were burnt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrWally Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 On operating system should be something that simply runs in the background of your machine that you should never have to deal with. Sure, it can look beautiful and have nice effects but if it's going to do that then it shouldn't have to use up tons of resources. Just take a look at Gutsy Gibbon. In my opinion Gutsy looks much better than Vista with all the effects turned on and you can do much more (and much more useful) things within the operating system itself. However with Gutsy my computer has NEVER slowed down once while performing any normal, standard actions or even while abusing all of the nice special effects of beryl/compiz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TiE23 Posted October 31, 2007 Author Share Posted October 31, 2007 Wall of text. My computer doesn't slow down from any of the settings. And the first thing I ever did on Vista was turn off UAC- it takes 2 minutes and a reboot. And personally, I'm not sure Ubuntu would really do it for me, I use way too many Windows only applications right now. And if someone tells me that I can run them on Linux using some sort of emulator program, that's just an extra barrier that I don't want to have to deal with. I was raised on Windows and I think I'll stay that way for a little bit longer. And lastly, I didn't even know you even had a laptop. And you should have gotten a OS-less laptop if possible, or a one with XP for a better price. But alas, I don't know the situation around that. And anyway, the BEST OS EVER has already been made, and it's called Windows ME OS X Leopard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrWally Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 And anyway, the BEST OS EVER has already been made, and it's called Windows ME OS X Leopard. QFT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TiE23 Posted November 1, 2007 Author Share Posted November 1, 2007 Lol. Actually, I'm at ends with no one now. Seriously, strong computer for Vista? More of a system hog? Hell yes. Ubuntu has a ton of cool **** that if you take the time to integrate can make it an Uber computer? Totally. OS X Leopard one of the smoothest pieces of programming to come out in years? Definitely. It's really all personal preference in the end, and using whatever OS you like is your decision. I know that Anthony at one time had a Window, Linux, and a Mac all at the same time. Bongo clearly, along with many others, lurves their Ubuntu partitions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.