It's not very good. But for $5 almost any game is worth it unless it's completely unplayable shit.
Quote:Worst PC port evah
Not really. More like "worst AMD driver issue ever".
(06-10-2012, 02:32 AM)werewolfyman Wrote: [ -> ]I bought Crysis 2 for $11.
It seemed to be worth about $25 to me.
I got Crysis 1 from a friend, it wasn't worth the time. Horrible sf wannabe from such as JJ Abrahams and James Cameron, who think their fantasy stuff is actually scifi and that the technology around us has nothing to do with quantum physics and that the relativity's just for inventing green/purple/silver holes for a more scientifically aberrant Star Trek.
I was "beg forced" to play Crysis 2 by the same friend, he should pay me money!!!
Quote:I got Crysis 1 from a friend, it wasn't worth the time. Horrible sf wannabe from such as JJ Abrahams and James Cameron, who think their fantasy stuff is actually scifi and that the technology around us has nothing to do with quantum physics and that the relativity's just for inventing green/purple/silver holes for a more scientifically aberrant Star Trek.
That sentence makes no sense. Can you rewrite it?
Not to mention I have no idea how this relates to crysis 1s plot considering the only high tech stuff in it would be the alien suits/machines which float around and shoot lazers.
(06-10-2012, 12:41 PM)NaturalViolence Wrote: [ -> ]Quote:I got Crysis 1 from a friend, it wasn't worth the time. Horrible sf wannabe from such as JJ Abrahams and James Cameron, who think their fantasy stuff is actually scifi and that the technology around us has nothing to do with quantum physics and that the relativity's just for inventing green/purple/silver holes for a more scientifically aberrant Star Trek.
That sentence makes no sense. Can you rewrite it?
Not to mention I have no idea how this relates to crysis 1s plot considering the only high tech stuff in it would be the alien suits/machines which float around and shoot lazers.
The Crysis series is actually very good.
Too bad most use it for benchmarking.
I play with shaders on medium and everything else on high/very high.
(Ruins the point a bit, I know.)
(06-10-2012, 08:51 AM)NaturalViolence Wrote: [ -> ]It's not very good. But for $5 almost any game is worth it unless it's completely unplayable shit.
Quote:Worst PC port evah
Not really. More like "worst AMD driver issue ever".
I played it on a games convention with an i7 and a gts 550
The textures took too much time to load, so you could see them blurried for a fraction of second when you turned the camera. Pretty awful. As all PCs there had this issue I assumed it was a port issue. I asked to one f the booth guys they said tyhe game was like that. Now looking at the youtube seems this doesnt happen to the average user.
Fuck ups, fuck ups, fuck ups !!!
I rage at them
Quote:I played it on a games convention with an i7 and a gts 550
The textures took too much time to load, so you could see them blurried for a fraction of second when you turned the camera. Pretty awful. As all PCs there had this issue I assumed it was a port issue. I asked to one f the booth guys they said tyhe game was like that. Now looking at the youtube seems this doesnt happen to the average user.
You mean GTX 550 don't you?
The issue you're describing was present with current AMD drivers at launch but not with current nvidia drivers. Some nvidia users with older cards/drivers experienced the issue but nearly everyone reporting it was an AMD card user. Was this convention before the games launch or after?
I've been hating Crytek for a couple of years now. All I want is Timesplitters 4! Do it already!
And speaking of Rage, I actually got the xbox360 version a couple of days ago. It felt weird at first, but I got used to it quickly. Incredible game considering it was like 12-14 bucks!
Yeah, Rage was pretty awesome for the little I've played.
I've never experienced the texture issues on my end.
The only problem I had was the incompatibility with the new OpenGL dlls from AMD.
Mayor Clayton would spazz all over the place.