I have been reading up on Crysis since the first rumours were spread.
IMHO this is how the story goes:
Crytek made a fantastic game called Crysis for DX9 and XP.
They showed us wonderfull ingame videos and, they "sold" the game to EA.
There it all went wrong (déja vu?)
EA wanted them to make the game also for DX10 and Vista.
BUT, Vista does not sell as they have thought.
Hard and software is not ready for Vista,...
It will take them a lot longer to get the game ready then the official release date.
AND it will take them a lot of patches. EA pushed and asked too much.
Most (maybe the only) complaints on the beta are involved in Vista/DX10 hardware.
Explains a lot to me.
Sorry for the bad english here.
BTW, I almost forgot. Keep up the great site guys, and dolls
Errrr, after two minutes you guys show a preview like thingie in your second take discussion.
That is a real life take dudes, this is not an ingame movie.
Look at the leaves and the cars. LOL.
Honestly the Video card requirements seem pretty fair, 6800 is fairly old and its relatively cheap to upgrade to a decent card.
What more concerns me is the processor requirement, although part of that has to do with the futility of giving CPU requirements in GHZ, when between Pentrium IV, Core Duo, Core Two Duo, Athlon 64, Athlon 64 x2 etc etc can have a processor with half the given clockrate of another processor, perform better in nearly all scenarios. - Fortunately they covered with dual core vs single core, but ever since the sucessors to the P4 hit the market, the PC industry has been in need of a better benchmark for performance (for the average user, which is Bigger number is better than smaller number.
I just wanted to say that the minimum requirements for crysis are actually not that bad. Normally when you see Minimum requirements on a game's package and you try to play it with hardware like that it'll run really really bad, even if you set the details as low as you can. It's barely enough to launch the game and view the main menu.
But for Crysis, if you PC meets those min requirements then you can play it. I'm in the multiplayer beta, and tried it on my 2 year old laptop which was mainstream back then. It's a turion 64 (single core) with 1.8ghz, a Mobile Radeon X700 with 128mb and 1gb of ram.
When I set everything to low, with textures at medium it runs well.
It doesn't slow down and it looks so much better than anything else that I can run on that old laptop.
So well, yeah, I just thought I'd let you guys know because it amazed me.
World in Conflict for example slows down a lot even with everything at low on my laptop so I really didn't expect crysis to run properly, but it does.
A 6800GT isn't going to cut it frame rate wise, I know, just don't ask me how!
As for the system requirements being too high, how did you arrive at that conclusion Tom's?
Crytek always said it would run on a "high end system" of 2 years old, note the words high end - yep check the interviews! A 2 year old high end system would be a 7800GT or higher so it seems they have achieved that.
...and that seems generous as you can't expect to play the latest games on a 2 year old GPU. Most serious gamers change their GPU every year.
For comparison, I get 8 fps on the COD4 SP demo on a 6800GT 256mb at the last stage of the demo level. Is that also overspecc'ed or could it just be that what I said above about the latest games.
So far as the optimum system for Crysis is concerned, you need look now further than their early demo system - the Dell HC20. At the time of the early stage / show demos it was running the top quad quad core processor heavily overclocked and dual 8800GTX's in sli (for the ultimate now of course you'd have to substitute Ultra's).