LATEST CHATTY HEADER
Subscribe to Shacknews Mercury starting at $1/month!
Chrome Shack Community Guidelines Chatty Search
Scroll down to join the conversation.
New to Shacknews? Signup for a Free Account
Already have an account? Login Now
Subscribe to Shacknews Mercury starting at $1/month!
Chrome Shack Community Guidelines Chatty Search
Scroll down to join the conversation.
there has been much debate about this, and are they "too much?"
At first i was like "fuck the haters" because we spend all this money on our PCs and finally a game comes a long that actually justifies that expense. A hardcore, fuck the newbs, system-killing game.
All praise Crytek. Raise the bar and all that shit.
But then again, I was able to play EP2, Portal, Bioshock and Cod4 at 1920x1200 with everything maxed at 60fps, and I liked it.
Crysis? I have to play at 1600x1200 with a mixture of medium and high settings, and it runs at about 30fps. It's playable, but barely.
So on the one hand I praise the move to the next gen and how it will really push technology. But on the other hand I wish it was a bit less demanding and ran better on very high end systems like my own.
So I'm conflicted.
Thread Truncated. Click to see all 147 replies.
Also, those 3 cores in the 360 aren't all being used fully. And the video card is two year old technology. The 360 is not more powerful than PCs - not since Core 2 CPUs and 8800/ATI HD video cards were released.
Also, all the recent UE3 games I've been playing - Bioshock, UT3 Demo, Gears of War PC - all run at 1600x1200 on my 8800GT and rarely drop below 50fps. Crysis runs at a much lower frame rate and I would argue it doesn't look THAT much better than these games. I'll still play a lot of Crysis, I'm sure, but Crysis is still a hog that doesn't benefit from DX10 like Crytek said it would (I'm starting to think DX10 was 100% hype and BS rather than 50% like I used to).
The post has been reported. Thank you!
You must be logged in to post.
You must be logged in to post.