Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

anyone else excited for crysis?

jamesi

jamesi

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Sep 13, 2005
595
2
Davis CA
even tho i will be playing it on my PC...

The system requirements are kinda steep i would say, considering how well team fortress 2 on my old computer compared to my new one. i think i will probably buy it the day it comes out, ive never seen a game look so good since maybe the days of the early doom 3 leaked beta.

what system setups will everyone be playing it on and how well can you expect it to run. at first it made me wish i had a DX 10 card, but then i realized i would have to upgrade to vista. needless to say, DX 9 all the way
 
I'm excited!

Whether I'll get it is another story. I hope to be able to play it on my 2.2 MBP at medium settings with decent framerates, although probably not even close to full res.

And apparently you don't need Vista to use DX10. I just don't know how.
 
When I played the Demo and Beta, I was a bit disappointed.
Its not a very efficient game. By which I mean it won't look great at all if your computer isn't up to the latest spec.
I've got the 7800GTX (the previous generation's top end) and at decent, playable FPS (~50), it looks worse than older games like BF2.

Gameplay seems fun, effects seem very cool. Not much net lag at all. I wish some of the models had more polygons/looked less boxy though.
 
Im very interested and am thinking of targeting my next system for this one. PC gamer's new issue just gave this one a 98 out of 100 and says it blows away ALL other 1st person shooters. Crysis looks awesome but Apples hate of the GPU means there might not be a Mac that can run this thing with everything on. Apple has to expand its cheesy GPU options.
 
crysis

i played it on my mac pro (2gig ram, 1900xt, quad core) with bootcamp windows XP home edition (so only two out of 4 cores) i tweaked the demo files so that it actually looks like dx10 but using a dx9 card.

and howly cow it looked amazingly

next week i'll instal vista ultimatum so that it reads all the cores, it should improve the frame rate, though it was alleady verry playeble

I really loved it allot, though i would give it 98/100, its just a great game, but without the amazing graphics it would just be an OK game
 
I'm excited for it, but I don't go for graphics or anything like that. It's the AI and this story that I want to play through. But this won't be till I build my next PC in God knows how many months/years.
 
I'm really excited for the game. I love the demo and have been playing with the editor adding aliens and vehicles for about a week now. It's great fun.

Those who say that they are disappointed with the demo and the beta need to be reminded that what has been released is the demo and the beta; the beta ran like crap and the graphics were really toned down; the demo doesn't run as well people would like because it is only taking advantage of one core--many people are playing the demo with awesome dual core and quad core rigs but experiencing crappy fps because the demo is thinking they have a single core processor with a relatively slow clock speed.

I can't wait for this game and Mario Galaxy!
 
God, I can't wait for this to get ported to the 360 (which, unfortunately, will probably take a couple years). Ah well, at least in the mean time I've got Assassin's Creed, Mass Effect, and Call of Duty 4 to sustain me. But GOD I wanna play Crysis :rolleyes:.
 
Anyone played it yet on a SR MBP 2.2 yet? What quality settings do you use and FPS do you get?

Also, if you install it on Vista, do you have the option to play in DX10 or DX9 mode ... or are you forced to play it in DX10 mode?
 
emikshe said:
Anyone played it yet on a SR MBP 2.2 yet? What quality settings do you use and FPS do you get?

Also, if you install it on Vista, do you have the option to play in DX10 or DX9 mode ... or are you forced to play it in DX10 mode?
Click to expand...

I set the demo to everything on high except for Shaders and Shadows, which have to be on low, at native res. It gets 15-20 fps, which is OK. I'm hoping that the retail version will perform better. It auto detects Medium... but Medium is unplayable. (The only two settings that affect performance are the two that I set to low)
 
I beat the game yesterday on hard difficulty. It's amazing. I am going to replay the entire game tonight.

I am played with everything on "high" at 1280 X 800, with no AA. I was getting between 15-25 fps; for the most part it was very playable and looked amazing. Later in the game as the action intensified, I had to lower the shaders to medium and then I was getting between 25-40 fps constant. It's the game's shaders that really blog the GPU down.

If my X1900 XT were to be clocked back up to its normal clockspeed of its PC counterpart, I'm sure I'd get between 25-40 fps with everything on high.


I'm disappointed the with game's use of multiple cores. I'm only going up to 60%, which means that almost two cores aren't being used at all. This game is a ram hog though... Uses up to 1.6 GB of ram.
 
I'm interested to know if there's any way of getting the game to run at 720x450 resolution. If so, I'm sure my 2.2 could handle the game with medium shaders and shadows. Also, seeing as this would be exactly a quarter of the res of the screen, it shouldn't look too crap. Maybe if the retail version gets AA working, it might be worth going for this res with 2xAA and low shaders and shadows for what should be double the FPS, no texture noise, and no edge aliasing.

So, anyone know how to get the game running at a resolution (720x450) not offered by the game?

EDIT: Got it running at 720x450 with medium settings, and it looks like crap. If I do end up buying this game, it will have to wait until my next computer to be run at anything but low quality, at 1440x900.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back