I thought EA squashed that rumor. Let me check again though.

Wikipedia says PC only and Incrysis.com does too.

http://incrysis.com/crysis/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=223&Itemid=2

looking very good

So...you play as a Jedi?

looks good,


wheres all the idiot comments of "OHHH ANOTHER FPS... BOOOO"


haha

James, you only see those kind of comments on digg.

I don't want to upgrade... ;-;

though, hopefully, by that time, I'l really need to upgrade finally.

im getting a windows vista capable computer later in feb. Maybe a ALIENWARE! need to pick this game up and halo vista!!

i love this game, so what if alot of fps's are coming out. majority of pc gamers play fps.

nope.
nvm.
they play WoW.

Well namelesstetd, this game looks beautiful, especially in the gameplay, but I'm not sure if I could trust EA with online capability. Take a look at the older game BF2:MC for the PS2. The online play can be good, but the way it's built is TERRIBLE. Not to mention during certain times of the day it's impossible to join a server. And thousands of people still play it too. So, overall I'm skeptical about the other additions to the game when it comes to online play and such. Still makes me want to buy it after just watching that trailer, lol.

keyword "for the PS2." The PS2 has a shit online system. But EA isn't going to completely fuck up online for the PC.

That looks like fun.

EA is just the publisher. It's actually Crytek's ip.

[quote=Arro]And from this video, it looks as if this is a clanboy's dream game with super speed and extreme bunny-hopping 3.0. [/quote]

my thoughts exactly. I'm pumped.

If killing North Koreans is wrong, then I don't want to be right.

Holy shit, you can see the motion blur effect in play when he turns around quickly a few times. I just wet my pants

Pretty graphics but not really impressed by too much. I guess I'm too jaded by PC gaming. I find more "realistic" graphics to be less immersive. I think my threshold for suspension of disbelief goes down and I find myself getting pushed out of the game world more often than not. Frankly, I find a more stylized approach to graphics to be much more immersive.

Eh. Not worth upgrading my PC for.

i had the 7600 for a week or 2 cus i switched from an agp 7800gs and the performance was about the same you can run any game at 1024x768 and high detail, 1280x1024 medium detail. though i am running into the same problem its your cpu limiting your gaming experience i run the 805d(2.66ghz), 1900xt(stock) and a gig of ddr2-667 and i can play rainbow six vegas and it look awesome except the shadows lick balls and i didnt think games were all about the shadows but when i saw my bro rig runnin the game with his shiny new core2duo,7900gto and 1 gig of my memory it was the shadows that made such a difference in realism

@zaqu

There is a problem though. My 7600 GS overclocked has 512 MB of on-board memory but it's supposedly slow so that might not help really. Still though, are you absolutely sure that you didn't notice much difference in performance?

@skruloos and Husky Hog

Isn't that a bitch? You think like me! Games are supposed to be escapism. For me when a game becomes too realistic it kind of draws me away from playing it because I go to games to get away from reality, not have it shoved in my face again.

I will get this game but it definitely isn't that good enough to warrant even so much as $30 good in my book. I'll wait until it's $20, which should be years since EA likes to charge people out that ass for their games and keep the prices up (Sims 2 in some locations staying at $40 even after 2 years, not including expansion packs).

" icarus says:
If it wasn't made by EA, I might give a crap. "
Well, then good because its not made by EA. They're publishing the game, but its made by the Crytek team.

What? It looks good on YOUTUBE?? Is that even possible??!?!?

What Icarus said.

I would have to completely disagree with Icarus on this one. the weird thing is that i used to hate EA with a passion, just about the same amount i hate SquareEnix now. But EA has been turning around slowly. Yes, they may rush a game from time to time, but they aren't going to put Crysis out before its ready. Yes, they are going to put a deadline on the game, but everybody has to do that except for Nintendo. Halo had a deadline and they came close to not making it and it turned out to be an extremely fun game.

Alot of people forget that this game has been delayed only because of Vista taking so long. They have had extra time on top of what they already had to polish the game. EA so what there publishing the game. Im sure Crytek won't be rushed as they are the ones who make the decisions as this is a massive title for EA and they don't want to p*ss off one of the few top notch developers they have.

On the topic of people saying the gameplay isn't there you can only laugh. Have you played it? I seriously doubt it so how can you tell what the gameplay is like by watching video of some one else playing? Watching some one else play a game is sh*t full stop but these Crysis video's still impress me.
Since when could you jump onto a roof of a building and punch through the top of it on another game? That bit in itself made me chuckle.
The game is like Farcry you can do things how you like which in itself seperates it from practically every other fps around. The AI will be no doubt the best every seen as the first farcry imo still has of of the best AI in a game and that was released years ago so Crysis will improve on that no doubt. Why am I even stating why the gameplay will be fun. If you have watched the aircraft carrier video then you will know. How you cannot find fighting a giant alien mech with visuals like Crysis I don't know as please state to me another game around which even comes close?

On the 360 side of things it might do but if it does it will be seriously toned down. The 360 struggles at times on Gears of war and they are small enviroments which simple AI and hardly any physics. Crysis? The complete opposite.