S
SlitheryDee
Originally posted by: KMFJD
Originally posted by: Darklife
Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
Originally posted by: SunnyD
Crysis. Hands down. Major hype, craptacular performance, horribly inefficient graphics engine, and WAYYYYY not "groundbreaking" in either genre or graphics/technology.
x2
I wouldn't really say the graphics engine is inefficient. I don't understand how people can call it's graphics engine plain , compare the visuals of the snow levels with those of any other game on the market. Crysis wins hands down.
I think they are calling it an in-efficient graphics engine because it is/was damn near impossible to run it at highest settings.
Geez. I actually think some people would have liked the game better if Crytek had simply left out the highest graphics setting. Even though there IS a noticeable increase in visual detail for every setting, people wouldn't feel so bad about their shiny new $500 graphics card not being able to run a current gen game, and therefore wouldn't be going on about Crysis' "inefficient graphics engine". It runs more or less like I would expect it to considering how it looks. That makes me feel just as disappointed in my rig as it does anyone else, but some people seem to think that because Crytek didn't dumb the graphics down to the level of mainstream cards they did something wrong.