said by Dentist :

/dodges troll bait

Your point doesn't change the validity of my point that the very high setting is worthless, and that crysis is terrible at hardware optimization.

Games like Bioshock, WiC, COD4, look GORGEOUS and are PLAYABLE at the equivalent of very high settings. I would argue the boat scene in COD4 visually trumped any scence from Crysis. What did Crysis really have? Pretty leaves and grass?

Crysis = broken, which is why people have been waiting for patches to fix framrates since it was released.

said by Mchart :

Either you are forgetting the vast number of games we have always had this same issue with until real next-gen hardware was released; or you dont recall at all.

Quake 2, Quake 3, Doom 3, Anarchy Online, etc.. The list is very long. In every case I remember my top of the line hardware not running these games on their highest settings. It was not until the new generation of hardware that could more easily deal with the games that playing these games on max settings was possible.

Keep crying dude, no one cares.

said by Dentist :

What is the point in having a very high setting if no one can run it even on top-end rigs? Your argument doesn't make any sense.

The game is effectively "broken" at the very high setting.

Who cares if a game has great graphics if no one can run the game at those settings?

said by Mchart :

Who cares? So what? I'm stating the facts. It's not my fault you can't deal with using High settings instead of Very High. Christ, there is hardly a difference between the two other then color accuracy. The problem is that current-generation GPU's are not very good at running SM4.0/D3D10.

said by Dentist :

Then who should be able to? Guys with 3x Ultra 8800's couldn't even do it. By the time a rig comes along that can, no one is going to give a crap about Crysis anymore.

said by ken225 :

I hate to say it, but I think a lot of people get angry when Crysis won't run on their machines, and take it out on the gameplay itself. I found it to be a wonderfully open-ended game. I would replay many of the major fights two or three times, using different techniques. The game let you play using brute-force or stealth. It let you pick guys off from afar with a sniper scope, and blast guys up close with a shotgun. You could steal a boat or truck, or decide to "hoof" it and sneak along in the forest. Even in the level where you got to drive a tank, you could opt to get out and use rocket launchers instead.

I actually preferred it to more "consolized" games like COD4, where respawning guys meant you couldn't play as a sniper, unless the game forced you to do so during the mandatory sniper levels. Lack of quicksave meant you had to replay certain parts over and over if you died. Obstacles blocked your path so you couldn't flank around and attack from behind, while Crysis allowed you to tackle a base of baddies in a bunch of different ways. Crysis allowed you to destroy a satellite tower any way you like. You could drive a car into it, shoot it again and again with a gun, throw an explosive barrel into it, etc. COD4 had you destroy things by using a giant flashing beacon that you had to run up to and press the "use" key.

I found the "openness" of Crysis refreshing. Sure, it had it's faults. The AI wasn't great, and I really didn't enjoy the alien levels nearly as much. However, overall, I think it was a very good game. I wish all games had destructible environments and allowed the player to tackle it any way they wished. I'm tired of being told exactly how I need to play each mission.

said by Mchart :

As for your computer not running it on Very High settings - It shouldn't be able to.