Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Call of Duty 4 > Crysis.

Last response: in Video Games
Share
November 26, 2007 3:53:17 PM

Hello all, first I'll start off by saying that Call of Duty 4 is a much better purchase than Crysis. Allow me to explain why that is, and how I came to this conclusion, which is based on Single Player and Multiplayer aspects, graphics, overall performance, and game play.

The single player campaigns for both games are quite nice. I had a lot of fun with Crysis and CoD4 alike, however there were some problems I had when playing the Crysis single player campaign. When running on optimized settings, I encountered several areas where I got no more than EIGHT frames per second. That made that entire portion unplayable unless I turned the graphics ALL the way down, to something which looked on par with F.E.A.R on 800x600 @ Low Settings. Comparatively, Call of Duty 4 single player I blitzed through the whole thing with frames ranging from 60-90+, and those graphics were on par, if not the same, than Crysis graphics at Medium settings. Overall the single player campaigns were fun, but I enjoyed the Call of Duty 4 version better because I could play it with more stability.

Multiplayer, for most, is a big, big thing to have in a game for people. And I am no exception. Crysis multiplayer reminds me of a game that is in an immature stage. It's fun, but it has potential to be much more and mature into a multiplayer that is amazing, something like that of World in Conflict (which has dozens of tournaments and is action packed). Call of Duty 4 multiplayer is essentially the entire reason I bought the game, and I bought the game for it's multiplayer because the multiplayer in Crysis was just not on par with what I had expected. Call of Duty 4 has several game modes, whereas Crysis has two. Call of Duty 4 also allows unlocks and customization, whereas Crysis doesn't really expand on this all that much. The maps are really nice in CoD4, there's tons; Crysis has only 4. To me this is just unacceptable for a game of its prestige. Overall the fun factor of Crysis multiplayer versus Call of Duty 4 multiplayer, while both are fun, is like comparing apples to oranges, it's not even in the same ballpark really.

Graphics are what everyone loves, that's why we spend hundreds, if not thousands of dollars on our custom PCs that we game on. Crysis is a BEAUTIFUL game, but it's horrible when it comes to scaling. Absolutely horrible. Call of Duty 4 delivers on par with Medium Graphics in Crysis, only at 60+ frames a second on my old GPU. Why is Crysis displaying on par with CoD4 but taxing the system so much more? I do not know, but I think the game is unoptimized and potentially released to early.

Game play is also another issue I had. While the Call of Duty 4 manual is almost worthless to look at, the Crysis manual is roughly the same. I encountered certain things that I had questions about while playing the game, turned to my manual for Crysis only to find no documentation on the subject, which I felt was important, at all. Call of Duty 4 is easy to play, but the controls could be a lot better, but some fiddling and tweaking fixes that. Crysis and it's controls are much better in my opinion. It was easier to get the feel for things right away than it was in Call of Duty 4. The HUDs in both games are very nice as well. I wish I could take certain elements from one and put it to the other when I play either of the games.

If I was to pick a game and only purchase one of them based upon what I know now, I would purchase Call of Duty 4. I liked Crysis for it's single player a lot, but hated the multiplayer, I liked Call of Duty 4 and it's single player and multiplayer a lot as well, but favored the multiplayer greatly over the single player. Crysis and it's single player treads on ground I haven't played on since the original Half-Life. And Call of Duty 4 offers probably some of the best Multiplayer I've ever played. Hands down though when comparing each of these games it comes as no shock why I bought Crysis; it was the hype. Call of Duty 4 delivered on everything I had heard of, Crysis only delivered on the graphics, and that was about it. CoD4 > Crysis.

More about : call duty crysis

November 26, 2007 4:34:44 PM

excellent post, very well written! I think I will now buy COD4, I could not make my mind. Multiplayer is what counts for me, I will not play SP at all.
November 26, 2007 5:51:50 PM

I would've liked Crysis a LOT more if it would run better. I just don't see how CoD4 can look just as good on my system yet give me such higher performance. it really makes me question the game and whether or not it was released to early.

CoD4 multiplayer is bar none, the best. Haven't played as fun of a multiplayer game since Counter Strike...not source, I'm talking CS 1.6. :lol:  CoD4 is just great; it's stable, packs great multiplayer options, and it fun. Worth every penny.
Related resources
November 26, 2007 6:31:27 PM

You ever play Oblivion? The difference can be seen going from outdoor to indoor.

I like to drive vehicles and run teammates/enemies over that either try to steal it or kill me.
November 26, 2007 9:31:24 PM

The reason Crysis runs so darn slow at times is the vegetation and grass ETC is interactive with the wind. This makes a TON of screen refresh necessary every frame rendered. Your CPU and GPU are chocking on calculations. FarCry didn't do this so much unless YOU hit the plants with whatever. Oblivion, as mentioned, has the same rendering calculation issues inside to outside.

Does this one labor intensive aspect of the game add or take away from the game? Well, I'd rather have still vegetation and a better story line than a CPU/GPU test engine to tell you the truth. Being able to turn off "active vegetation" or whatever you want to call it would hardly change the game visuals any at all, and make it far easier to play on a less than killer PC. Even great PC's chock on this game, and for what, a not so great story line? I don't get it.

Sacrifice was a great example of a great game with pleasing visuals. The game interaction was great and 100% open ended to meet an objective. It had a great story line and game play. I almost ALWAYS find this a better option over bleeding edge graphics. It pays to pay the writers a kittle more, not the programmers. They can't keep up as is. A more fun "game" and sooner, beats a complicated program nightmare that is a YEAR or more late.

I've also heard COD4 is a good game, and from many people.
November 27, 2007 1:25:37 AM

Exactly. There's no reason a tree branch or two moving 2 inches because of "wind" should tax my system THAT much. Given there's a ton of bushes and what not, the fact remains that it's not worth it. People have lost so much in performance it's almost unplayable. I liked a lot of things in Crysis. But I disliked even more. Haven't found a flaw yet in Call of Duty 4.
November 27, 2007 4:25:59 AM

I'm happy that I can play COD4 with my lowly 7950gt @ 1900x1200, with most of the eye candy on, 50+ fps. I'd give another shot at Crysis if I could play above 1280x1024.
November 27, 2007 5:23:41 AM

All of Crysis's graphical features can be adjusted by editing the config files.
With all due respect I found COD4 sp to be as dull as dogsh*t. There is only ever one way to go.....
November 27, 2007 7:23:25 AM

I remember when Quake4 came out; my old machine could hardly handle it at all. You could JUST about play it if you turned all the settings to minimum. Once you'd done that, it looked a lot worse than Quake3, which ran at over 100fps!

I look forward to playing Crysis maxed out @ 60fps in about 2 years time when a mid range PC will have all the power you need. :p 
November 27, 2007 10:21:18 PM

woodeneye said:
All of Crysis's graphical features can be adjusted by editing the config files.
With all due respect I found COD4 sp to be as dull as dogsh*t. There is only ever one way to go.....


Well therein lies the issue: should we have to tweak files to get good performance and visuals, or should the devs have done this from the get go? I personally feel that if I have to manually go in and fix what the guys who got paid god knows how much to do, makes me quite a bit upset. It shoudl've been designed like that from the start. But my problems with Crysis are not JUST the system tax it has on your PC, it's the story line, or lack thereof, the ending, and the multiplayer. Crysis has its pros and cons like every other game out there, but in comparison to CoD4, IMO, CoD4 is just a more solid, better designed game form the ground up.
November 28, 2007 1:14:24 AM

I agree. The main selling point of Crysis is its next-gen graphics. I'd be glad to get a 8800gt, but even that will choke on Crysis. Turning down the eye candy, lowering the resolution etc doesn't interest me. If I want that, I might as well play Far Cry. By the time I turn everything down, it might look the same, who knows. But, to each his own.

I just wonder what kind of setup did they test Crysis on before release? A supercomputer?
November 28, 2007 1:31:12 AM

Sugarcane said:
I just wonder what kind of setup did they test Crysis on before release? A supercomputer?


You actually raise a good question. In fact, they ran a Crysis trailer featuring an early DirectX 10 API, via CrossFire X1900XTX's that emulated DX10 and the unified shader architecture. Amazing that they could run it on DX9 cards and an emulation, but an 8800GTX with an extreme edition quad core struggles to push great frame rates. Baffles me...
November 28, 2007 1:57:35 PM

maybe they were pretesting quad crossfire for ATI :lol: 
November 28, 2007 2:05:21 PM

Cod4 MP > Crysis MP
CoD4 SP < Crysis SP

SP < MP

=Cod4 is the best
November 28, 2007 3:32:20 PM

oh c'mon, cod4 single player boring, you can't tell me that you did not get a cold shiver during the sniper stage when the enemy was walking past you. Or a sick sense of happiness during the ac130 stage????
November 28, 2007 8:39:49 PM

The Sniper Stage was incredible!! I've never played a mission liek that in an FPS. What realyl shocked me was not the initial guys or APCs, but right as I was about to follow the Captain another APC popped out of nowhere and I literally said out loud, "Holy &%$#!!!" That kind of surprise and suspense is the sort of thing that makes CoD4 SP better to me. And the AC-130 mission was new territory for me in an FPS. Absolutely loved the game.
November 28, 2007 9:35:54 PM

CoD 4 FTW!!
November 29, 2007 3:27:14 PM

I read your first paragraph and decided to cut to a responds. I AGREE. I bought Crysis and the Single player is nice and fun if you can run at a minimum of medium settings. The multiplayer sucks though. I really like the COD4 multiplayer much better. looks so much better.
November 29, 2007 4:00:40 PM


I knew about 6mo. ago that the gaming scene this winter would be one of the best of all time. With this information in hand and finally being in a position to build a serious gaming rig (Wife's permission included!) I acted. I dropped nearly 3.5K on my system (E6600,4GB RAM,8800GTS,RAID 0+1 300 x 4 HDD, Vista64U, 27" LCD). I enjoyed playing HL2EP2, BioShock, TF2 but was really struck by CoD4 and couldn't wait for Crysis.

Now that I've finished both CoD4 and Crysis I've got to say what upset me about Crysis was that my hardware simply was outpaced by this game yet CoD4 which at times looked as good graphically speaking maintained 60-90FPS. Spending the kind of cash I did on a PC and playing a game not more than 6 months after I built my machine with top notch hardware and watching my hardware be brought to its knees simply isn't fun.

It's like I no sooner built a machine and am forced to focus on the next upgrade which when all is said and done will cost another 1K. :-(
November 30, 2007 3:35:47 AM

the single player in COD4 was amazing! the ac130 mission was my favorite mission behind the sniper mission. both were incredibly realistic; I really felt like I was"there". the graphics are amazing: I can run them high def with max settings, and stay above 30 FPS the entire game. I have only two minor gripes about COD4: when I sidestep my screen stutters like mad, and a few areas I found myself dying multiple times. Hardly big problems at all.

Crysis on the other hand.... pros: sandbox gameplay cool nanosuit features, some parts were really epic, the Koreans were pretty smart. I love sneaking up cloaked and pulling off silent assassinations. if I lower all the settings to get 30+ FPS the gameplay quite intense. Cons: horrible drop in performance during the middle and end of the game, looks like crap on my machine, and the game ended way before I though to would. It's like cutting off your favorite song seconds before the chorus. I was like what? did the game just really end? I really though the ending cinematic wasn't the end.

COD4>Crysis
November 30, 2007 11:27:10 PM

I haven't touched crysis since i bought COD4.
December 1, 2007 12:03:30 AM

Once I saw the spectre gunship camera views from COD4 i have to purchase it.... great innovation to put all those types of game play in it....


I've done that stuff in real life and it looks very much like the real thing....

sweet.......


December 1, 2007 12:22:57 AM

would have bought COD4 already but im waiting for the nvidia 9 series cards to build my new pc... i dont want to get it for xbox because Call of Duty will always be a pc game in my heart...
December 1, 2007 1:30:47 AM

Call of Duty 4 is definitely better. What with the fact that my computer runs CoD incredibly well, and for some reason can't even load the skybox correctly in Crysis, CoD 4 gets my vote. It's better than Halo 3 and Assassin's Creed for the 360, the SP is fun and has an outstanding narrative, and the MP is better than Halo 3's best.
December 1, 2007 3:45:41 AM

I've been playing CoD4 multiplayer absolutely non-stop. It's incredible!! The P90 seems a bit over powered but when i look at it fomr a realistic point of view it isn't OP at all: the gun is just that good. CoD4 seems to take realism and blend it into a gaming perspective. Using the environment and playing more like a person and less like a run-and-gun CS Source style gamer becomes quite apparent very quickly. I was noticing that using smoke grenades and flanking maneuvers is now much more beneficial and has a better outcome and affect in CoD4 than in any other shooter I've ever played. I'm not trying to sound like a fanboy but by all means the game is allowing me, personally, to play in ways I haven't been able to play in what seems like forever.

The game is just so much fun that I bought a copy for my friend last night so that he and I could game. He doesn't play online games that much but last night he played till 5:30AM, so I think it's quite clear that CoD4 is a great online game.

In my opinion...game of the year. No questions asked.
December 1, 2007 6:44:16 AM

i didnt play crysis yet. but i loved cod4 so much. it was fascinating.
December 1, 2007 7:43:40 AM

Rob liked this topic enough to do a video on it.
December 1, 2007 9:22:29 PM

Yeah in the video he pretty much covered everything as to WHY it's a better game. Think he did a nice job on that one. What servers does everyone play on??
December 3, 2007 12:01:42 PM

that's my one gripe the server selection interface blows especially in comparison to say ones like bf2142. You shouldn't need xfire to connect to friends games, you should be able to see recently played servers. Hardcore/Oldschooled (never even played old school) servers should be searchable (shouldn't have to pick them up by the actual name of the server). Overally I think cod4 would greatly benifit by revamping their server list selection to that of battlefield 2142, other then that the game rocks. I was never impressed with crysis, I actually expected a lot more in terms of the interactive environment especially since what they offer seems to kill resources well enough, they might as well go all the way with it. Multiplayer on Crysis far inferior to COD4 although I gotta say sniping in Crysis > sniping in COD4 based on the fact you can lie in a bush a mile away from the action and pick people off who have no clue where they were just shot from... however I'm not a big fan of sniping so it doesn't hold much weight with me.
December 3, 2007 5:51:41 PM

Agree, when you enter on the alien ship, game over, at least for me, a desilusion after that, COD4 its far more emotional.


PS: Sorry for bad english. ;-)
December 3, 2007 7:57:41 PM

I think they both look great games (havnt got either yet) I like the look of crysis because of its open environment, which lets you roam, and i like the added features such as the powers and incredible physics and interaction available. This is where cod4 might let me down, as its linear and doesnt offer the same interaction with the environment or graphcs.

On the other hand, im sure cod4 is more fun to play the single player, with a better story line and better multiplayer. I cant wait to try it out, but saying this i didnt really enjoy cod2 and still go back to playing cs 1.6 over all my other games.

Personally im very excited about buying both games :D 
December 3, 2007 8:31:19 PM

justinmcg67 said:
What servers does everyone play on??


I play on my clubs server most the time.

Server = <((V))>Hardcore/TDM

Game name = <((V))>AcucracK


December 3, 2007 9:12:08 PM

Personally I reckon a decent FPS, or any game at that rate, can only be judged fairly and squarely if played at the decent FPS (fremes per second) and high texture/rez it deserves. Impossible for Crysis. If you have a megga fast car you can't diss it coz the roads are to small to go at its fastest speed. It reminds me of x3 Reunion on my old 5900 )-; - about 5 frames per sec or low rez - which more or less equated to x2! So, I'm gonna hold on for another 6 months or even a year or so for a card that's at least twice better than the 8800 gtx/ultra (whatever) and only then finally give Crysis it's "deserving" seeing to! I enjoyed Farcry "far" too much to cry at Crysis - spoilt for me by sh=tty Frames per second. Let's rejudge Crysis and cod4 when they are BOTH topped/maxed out at hi rez?

I'm not sure what them fremes are!?
(-;
Ryan Adds
December 4, 2007 12:40:30 PM

I can run both CoD4 at 1680x1050 and max settings, and Crysis at 1680x1050 max settings plus the DirectX9 tweak to get "very high" settings. Frame rate in Crysis never dips below 30, and in CoD4 averages around 150 or so.

I've finished Crysis and am about 2/3 through CoD4 so I'm in a good place to compare the two in a fair and even manner. I'll likely write about it in depth on my blog, but for now I'll say that although I enjoyed both games immensely I'm actually enjoying CoD4 a bit more.

Crysis bills itself as a sandbox, with free open gameplay but if you think about it... it's not. CoD4 is an action movie and the player is the star. Very linear yes, but there are some awesome, awesome moments.

I think I said "oh wow" or "ohhhhhh ****" two or three times in Crysis, and so far at least four or five times in CoD4 and I'm even finished yet.

-ab
December 4, 2007 9:20:00 PM

these games arn't even close.

CoD4 looks better as a whole then crysis does. not to mention runs better.

it plays better then crysis because it's not in 1 location for hours on end.

i honestly enjoyed medal of honor airbourne more then i am enjoying crysis.
December 4, 2007 10:45:44 PM

I haven't played the full version of COD4...only the demo. I have bought Crysis.

I must say that I think its funny how people compare the looks of COD4 vs Crysis...its not even in the same league! Look at a soldier in COD4 (at the highest setting) and tell me the skin and the look of them is even close to the Skin shaders of soldiers in Crysis and I will call you a liar.

If you compare High settings in COD4 vs low (or medium) settings in Crysis then yes... you may be right.

Don't get me wrong, COD4 looks very good...but perhaps compared to Crysis at the same highest settings, its not even close.

From what I hear, the gameplay seems a lot better in COD4 however. I can't wait to try it!
December 5, 2007 8:20:45 PM

maybe you need to go and buy CoD4 and play the whole thing before saying the game is no where near crysis.....

the demo level would have to be one of the worst looking parts of the game.

as for the character models ........... mate. go have a close look at the models in crysis .......... they are VERY simple and do NOT look that good.

another thing CoD4 walks all over crysis is the shadows..... yes crysis has nice shadows, but play the stealth/sliper level in CoD4 and you'll see what i mean.

as i've said before. think back to Doom3.... everyone LOVED that game for about a month. everyone loved for it looked and the gameplay.... now everyone hates it.

wonder if crysis will be the same .......
December 5, 2007 10:33:58 PM

spac13 said:
maybe you need to go and buy CoD4 and play the whole thing before saying the game is no where near crysis.....

the demo level would have to be one of the worst looking parts of the game.

as for the character models ........... mate. go have a close look at the models in crysis .......... they are VERY simple and do NOT look that good.

another thing CoD4 walks all over crysis is the shadows..... yes crysis has nice shadows, but play the stealth/sliper level in CoD4 and you'll see what i mean.

as i've said before. think back to Doom3.... everyone LOVED that game for about a month. everyone loved for it looked and the gameplay.... now everyone hates it.

wonder if crysis will be the same .......


You obviously haven't played Crysis at very high settings then.

**Edited I have played the Demo*** and I have seen HD videos (at a convention) of COD4 and although the game looks very nice, it isn't Crysis on a graphical standpoint. On the other hand, graphics aren't everything.

Again, not trying to pick a fight or anything kuzz from what I hear, the gameplay is awesome and I can't wait to try it. I just don't think the graphical comparison is legit. I guess I disagree with most people that think COD4 has better graphics than Crysis...maybe its just me.

Nota: When I talk about everything in Crysis looks better, it excludes the "technicians" alien because I think they look bad.
December 5, 2007 11:06:27 PM

i was not impressedwith crysis but i loved call of duty 4 so much the single player is one of the best i have ever played it was like watching a movie
December 5, 2007 11:32:37 PM

Alex The PC Gamer said:
You obviously haven't played Crysis at very high settings then.

I have seen HD videos of COD4 and although the game looks very nice, it isn't Crysis on a graphical standpoint. On the other hand, graphics aren't everything.

Again, not trying to pick a fight or anything kuzz from what I hear, the gameplay is awesome and I can't wait to try it. I just don't think the graphical comparison is legit. I guess I disagree with most people that think COD4 has better graphics than Crysis...maybe its just me.

Nota: When I talk about everything in Crysis looks better, it excludes the "technicians" alien because I think they look bad.


Crysis is better on high settings and that's it. Not everyone has 8800GTX's in SLI or an Extreme Edition Quad Core to get, oh gee, 30 frames a second on high!!! Sorry, but I'll take a marginally less looking game that gets me great frames and performance over a better looking game that has horrible game play any day of the week.

CoD4 is a must-buy title. Buy it, play it on high, take screen shots, and compare. I've personally favored CoD4 graphics over Crysis because my system runs Medium Crysis settings and High Call of Duty 4 settings. CoD4 looks better, while at the same time; performing better.
December 5, 2007 11:52:16 PM

well if u play crysis on higher setings then me you must have a computer with a GFX chip not released to the public....

i run a Q6600 with 8800GTX in sli......

u dont get higher then very high DX10
December 6, 2007 9:45:26 AM

When i play a game i dont want it to feel like im playing a game.

I want to be immersed in the game, even 30 FPS is not good enough.
When i play crysis it feels like im sitting in front of a PC playing a game, pressing the Esc key every now and then to turn the graphics down is not being immersed, its balls!

Release the game when its ready man, come on!

COD4 IS AWESOME!
December 6, 2007 2:17:29 PM

Poopsmasher said:
When i play a game i dont want it to feel like im playing a game.

I want to be immersed in the game, even 30 FPS is not good enough.
When i play crysis it feels like im sitting in front of a PC playing a game, pressing the Esc key every now and then to turn the graphics down is not being immersed, its balls!

Release the game when its ready man, come on!

COD4 IS AWESOME!


I agree with the whole gameplay and experience. Its the reason I can't wait to get my hands on this game. I played MOD Airborne but I though it was way to short! COD4 provides better everything compared to MOD.

And I'll admit that most people can't take advantage of Crysis' full potiential graphics-wise but anyways...like I said, graphics aren't everything. I still play Diablo II everyso often!
December 6, 2007 8:28:13 PM

it is not just about graphics it is about gameplay also
December 6, 2007 9:13:09 PM

well to me crysis looks to have good gameplay, wheras cod4 looks to have a good storyline.
December 6, 2007 9:14:50 PM

Crysis gameplay is mediocre, if even that. CoD4 game play is intense and immerse.
December 6, 2007 10:15:23 PM

i posted the praises of call of duty 4 in an earlier post from the perspective of a vet, please read for full detail i'll save u the link hoping and cut and paste it:

....
....
....

WOW

....
....
....

i don't even know where to begin to start on this thread. I have played and beaten every call of duty out there, yes even the lame one not worth naming. not to mention moah, DoD, Battle Field...etc. Up until now i would have said call of duty 2 was the most emersive well designed "war simulator" to date. while it can be argued some are more realitic weaponary wise or another has better AI. Call of Duty 2 had a personal feel none of the others had. Then i got call of duty 4...Again WOW. the single player story line while competely fictional, in contrast to pervious incarnations...was all to plausible and very compelling. I don't want to spoil the game for anyone but i do have to say that the relationships between many of the characters and there interactions to get things done was the most realistic thing i have ever seen in a game of this genre. I served, i don't want to even get into peeps asking what i did or did i kill someone....point is this. That game is the most accurate representation of military personal (pysche wise) and the slight of hand uncle sam is all to good at while bringing some of the best graphix for the genre to date. I urge any and all gamers to get this one....


now in my post i was primarly addressing the single player campaign. i think the mulitplier setup is the best to date in the series as well. i like the fact ou have to actually earn rank, guns, etc... that said i just finished crysis today...

Crysis (when taking in to perspective that it is a planned trilogy) was an excellant game, yes the graphix seemed a bit to immature for the systems at release. i was able to use the patch/hack that allows you to emulate dx10 on xp. while i used it at times maxed out, 90% of the time i had to drop to meduim settings for a decent frame rate. though i admit it looked d@mned pretty when i could get away with max settings. as far as graphix in regards to COD4, i would say meduim crysis is COD4 maxed out. which is fine, and yes in COD4 you get better frames. the storie linesd are far from apples to apples and i think both excel in there given genre. crysis is the most fun i had in a scifi shooter since halo...cod4 is by far the best military sim i have ever played. if i had to pick just one, i would get COD4, only cause the hardware is there to support it with all the eye candy (i play @ 1080P so its hard in any game to turn it all up) but COD4 managed all the same minus one or two areas. COD4 is not better than Crysis, but it is ripe for todays hardware...wait for 9800 series to hit before getting into crysis if u can be patient...or not like me and just deal with the frame rates and peroidic crashes related there too.

December 8, 2007 6:47:48 PM

Dont forget the map editor in crysis!!! This will add more depth to the multiplayer with custom maps available, and will also mean single player missions can be created. I cant wait to try and make my own missions and scenarios. This makes up for what crysis lacks imo.
December 9, 2007 10:36:50 AM

You can't say crysis is a poor game because you got low frame rates.
Its like I will say that on my system Facry runs great at 50fps on All High but I get unplayable 8 fps on med settings when playing COD4.

Ofcourse you will have a crappy experience playing a game with choppy frame rates.

Crysis is a visualy intence first person shooter, you cant enjoy a FPS game with choppy frame rates.
Please get your self a deasent rig, replay the game and than write a conclusive review.

BTW to enjoy hi settings and hi fps in crysis, you can get an inexpencive 8800GT wich does the job great... All of you saying that you need a super computer to play crysis, live in the past. ITS TIME TO UPGRADE.

This is why getting the 8800GTX and the HD2900 was a huge mistake,
When they got out, there were no actual DX10 games, and they turned out to be at the level of the 8800gt which costs Half the price of the 8800GTX...

December 9, 2007 11:28:16 PM

Most of the complaints about Crysis have had nothing to do with how many FPS people are getting. Even with the highest end SLI/Crossfire rigs it still gets bad FPS and is still buggy as hell and unfinished upon release. The storyline is utter garbage as well.
!