Quote:
Originally Posted by Neural Net
So the most graphically impressive game ever made runs like crap on old systems and it's apparently poorly coded? Where's this quote, is it in reference to Crysis Warhead?
You go on about COD4 when it's just a glorified whack-a-mole contest. Sure it's a good game but the gameplay in the singleplayer is appalling - it's all about the multiplayer. If you like playing games with (relatively) pretty facelifts with the same gameplay going back to 2003 then that's fine.
Not to mention nearly every review site uses Crysis as a benchmark, including Anandtech... Of course, they don't have a clue either can they. If it were poorly programmed it would not scale with better hardware - it does.
I guess you're forgetting the old days when an SLI system couldn't run Oblivion at a high FPS at a decent resolution, or have you forgotten?
You make it sound like it should run as well as COD4, which is, odd. Even on medium Crysis is far superior in terms of visual fidelity and will easily run on hardware a few years old.
FYI, strength does kill the floating aliens with one hit. |
Once again it's Neural Net vs The World.
This time around I guess it's about 4 million people are wrong and you're right.
Should Crysis run as smooth as COD4? Considering the amount of money that was poured into it... it should run BETTER than COD4. Or at least AS smooth as Fallout 3... or any of the other games to come out recently. How else do you account for the fact that newer games are running far smoother than the almost two year-old Crysis?
But it's all good in the Neural Net I guess... Crysis is this stylistic masterpiece, supremely coded for maximum efficiency with flawless multiplayer and the most memorable battles of our generation
