Will you be buying Quake Wars or Crysis?

[JiggaJigga]

Well there you have it,

I think im going to get Quake Wars because to run Crysis I would need to buy vista plus the 8800 Nvidea Card just to RUN dx.10

That would cost me $300 for vista and $400 for the 8800. Thats $700 and i haven't even bought the GAME yet. Lol so im going for Quake Wars. $60.00 No problem.

 

[Glacier]

Since I have Vista, I will probably buy Crysis. I'm hoping to have an R600 when Crysis comes out.

 

[stemnin]

Neither..


UNREAL TOURNAMENT! That and Crysis.

I will need a new computer though...... except for QW. Good ole GST cheque and Income tax comon!

EDIT: Just watched a QW interview... I totally forgot its also a console game (like UT3, which is made by the guys behind UC2.. ugh... the console invasion is going to destroy my beloved pc game future.)

 

[tmeacham]

Both! And a new computer to run it all! And...and... a 42 inch HDTV to play it all on!!

 

[engrpiman]

Quake wars is not a console game.. It was made for the pc and is being ported to the XBOX 360 and the P36 ..

so everyone wins.. i agree games made of the console suck but i have no problems with games that get ported. QW is beeing ported by different companies and the PC version will not get changed or altered in any way.

 

[Kronos]

Keep faith, Nvidia may package Crysis with their 8800 video cards.

 

[Kronos]

Oh yeah...I plan on getting Quake Wars. Awful damn hard to beat Carmacks texture and colored shadings in the games he builds. Yes..I know Crysis is a DX10 formulation, and eventually will own it, but QW comes first!

 

[stemnin]

I'm still getting quake wars though, as much as I bash it.

 

[Twisted_Sister]

I thought Cyrsis was DX10, but could still run DX9???

Any event, I'm looking more for a cool multiplayer... so quake wars first. But hey, why not both??

 

[Deth]

I'm thinking about getting Crysis, not sure if my computer can handle it though.

 

[lordaardvark2]

i'm so pumped for Crysis, i've been looking forward to it for forever. i've been needing to build again for a while, and Crysis is my reason to build. i'm going to wait till its closer to the launch time and see what prices are like and how certain tech runs it... but I NEED CRYSIS!

...and quake wars looks okay, never really been into quake, but it looks like fun.

...and UT3 IS GONNA PWN!!!! omg. it looks insane. can you say...HOVERBOARDS!?!

 

[kanoobie]

Maybe both.

Time will tell.

same here

If they are both good, I will pick up a copy of each.

 

[yas]

omg, definately both although I dont wanna play crysis on minimum settings which I know I will have to do

 

[Deth]

You and I both minimal settings are lame.. I'm thinking about getting the 8800 ULTRA in SLI when Crysis comes out.. unless the 8900 series gets released

 

[lordaardvark2]

yeah all minimum is NOT the way to go... i had to do that with the steam games (half life 2, CSS, DM, etc.) until i got a better graphics card...

and i don't really think that SLI is the way to go, either. we'll see how these "dx10" cards do in actual dx10 when crysis comes out, but i don't believe that SLI will be worth it even then :?

 

[Deth]

I hear SLI only gives 10-15% performance increase in some cases, but why so little? Shouldn't it theoretically be +50% increase?

1. If each video card renders every other frame, shouldn't the workload be cut in half and thus, 50% more performance?

2. If each video card renders half the screen, and the other video card renders the other half, 50% more performance?

3. Isn't 2 better than 1? Performance x 2?

I never had SLI and I probably never will. Especially hearing the benefits are SO LITTLE and its a pain to configure. It just seems to me someone isn't programming the SLI right to make the most out of it.. And out of the 3 things i mentioned earlier, I think it was #1 that made the most sense. But the part of it being only 10%-15% more performance doesn't make as much sense to me.. unless there is a bottleneck somewhere?

Enlighten me on why SLI sucks, thanks!

 

[lordaardvark2]

you know what, i'm not quite sure, either. i mean, your logic is optimistic, but not off base. i wouldn't expect 2x performance, but you are totally correct in saying 10% is not right.

apparently there are different SLI modes, where the cards work together to do different things. there should be more than 10% improvement, but 2 isn't always better than one. for example, 2-core processors don't work twice as fast. and would you rather have 2 STDs than 1? hah. i think not.

for me, SLI would never be an option, because i couldn't fathom paying for the same card twice. that just seems like a waste of money to me. and the speed at which the graphics market moves makes it seem even more dumb to me.

i did some research on the topic, because i wanted to know, too, and i didn't want to wait until someone else came by and answered. wikipedia wasn't much help, but i found an interesting article here on Tom's from when SLI first came out ( Link! ). apparently CPUs have never had enough juice to keep a SLI setup well fed enough to see sizable benefits. so, you basically have to play at very high rez or... play at very high rez to see a benefit from SLI.

i never knew why it wasn't 2x as fast, and i kinda do now, but it still seems like an obscene waste of money to me.

the current dx10 cards should do Crysis FINE, trust me. think about FarCry, it did a similar thing with dx9... it came out very early and played okay on a variety of cards. crysis will be designed FOR those cards, and those cards for crysis, so worst case scenario would be you wait till the game comes out, there are new cards from both companies, and everything is fine.

 

[illuminatirex]

crysis wil run fine on windows xp, teh minimum specs will not force u to get a 3k pc lol, it will run fine on a 7900 nvidia card, check the latest leaked info, btw itll run fine on a single core p4 3.0 on almost all settings maxed out on 16xx resolutions, so that means the crytec guyz did a nice job on optimizations, ant this was all used during an pre alpha stage of the game, so teh beta, and later on the final game should be working fine on a midlevel pc of today

 

[Glacier]

crysis wil run fine on windows xp, teh minimum specs will not force u to get a 3k pc lol, it will run fine on a 7900 nvidia card, check the latest leaked info, btw itll run fine on a single core p4 3.0 on almost all settings maxed out on 16xx resolutions, so that means the crytec guyz did a nice job on optimizations, ant this was all used during an pre alpha stage of the game, so teh beta, and later on the final game should be working fine on a midlevel pc of today

I hope you are right about Crysis working fine on a 7900 card. That will save me some hard-earned cash!

 

[picture_perfect]

8O

Both. Crysis will be optimized for single player, taxing computers with the latest & greatest eye candy; ragdoll physics, destructible environments, DX10, HDR, physics card freindly, quad-core support, simulated blur ect.

Enemy Territory QW is an online game only. Teamplay, FPS & netcode are first priority so any new breakthroughs will be in those areas; "megatexture", "area of relevance" ect... For online gaming, the eye candy mentioned above only slows down computers and hinders vision. Client side physics and destructible areas in particular are problematic for any multiplayer game since players need to be on the same page and be able to complete the intended objectives respectively.

 

[illuminatirex]

i think it was on the crysis-online website, or another crysis one, someone from teh dev team said that they used that for one of the shows, and teh pc at teh office on which they run the game had that card and it worked fine on a resolution above the 16(whatever it is, im not shoor precisely what it was)