But Can It Run Crysis 3?

MojoKid writes with Hot Hardware's summary of what it takes to run the newest Crysis: "We've been tracking Crysis 3 for a while, from the trailer a few months ago to the recent alpha multiplayer preview. The game is available for preorder and it will launch in February. Crytek has now listed the minimum system requirements for Crysis 3 and they're as follows: Windows Vista, Windows 7 or Windows 8, DirectX 11 graphics card with 1GB Video RAM, Dual core CPU, 2GB Memory (3GB on Vista). Those aren't particularly stringent parameters by any means, but as we all know, 'minimum requirements' rarely are. Crytek suggests upgrading to a quad-core CPU, 4GB of RAM, with examples of CPU/GPU combinations that include Intel Core i5-750/NVIDIA GTX 560 and AMD Phenom II X4 805/AMD Radeon HD5870."

Comments

Crysis 3 leaked some time ago

[anethema]

On private torrent sites at least. Can't find it on TPB.

Just download it yourself and see if you can run it.

IF I had pirated it and played about half the campaign already (which I haven't I'm too moral!), I would say it runs perfectly on my system. Quad core i5 2500k and Geforce 670, but that is fairly high end, no idea how it would run on a lower one. Or mine..since I haven't played it.

Re:Crysis 3 leaked some time ago

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Or mine..since I haven't played it.

So...what are your unopinions? Have you enjoyed not playing it? Could you non-tell us if the storyline is any good?

I nominate this thread title

[neminem]

Best use of Betteridge's Law of Headlines yet.

These really aren't much

[Dyinobal]

These really aren't much in the way of system requirements. Which just shows how this extended console generation has had an affect on PC graphics development. Though I'm not complaining it saves me money in the long run, and forces programmers to learn how to do more with less hardware which isn't a bad thing for the most part.

Re:These really aren't much

[futuresheep]

Amazon has a GeForce 210 with 1GB RAM for 29.99. Not exactly high end.

http://www.amazon.com/EVGA-GeForce-Express-Graphics-01G-P3-1312-LR/dp/B00498305G/ref=sr_1_10?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1354638062&sr=1-10&keywords=geforce+1gb

is the game worth it?

[alen]

it seems the game consists of walking/running around with only part of your weapon visible on the screen and shooting stuff with the object to save the planet or the galaxy or something else. anything different then all the FPS games over the last 20 some years?

or are people going to spend close to $1000 upgrading their computers just to be wowed by some extra graphical detail?

Re:is the game worth it?

[Kelbear]

The Mona Lisa is not highly regarded because it is detailed. There are many similarly detailed paintings, and many far more detailed paintings. A high-resolution photograph of a sitting woman would be far far more detailed than any of those paintings. That's not what adds value.

There comes a point of diminishing returns where increasing levels of realism adds less to the experience. Artistic touches go a long way in defining a distinctive and memorable look for a game. Battlefield 3, Call of Duty Modern Warfare ___, Medal of Honor, they are all working off the same modern-day source material and have only minor visual details to distinguish one from another. Kane & Lynch 2 : Dog Days, which had terrible reviews (deservingly so), and Splinter cell: Conviction are two other games also set in the modern day but have taken effort to add stylistic touches. KL2: DD for all of it's flaws implemented a distinctive "caught-on-camera" perspective throughout the game, as though the viewer was watching the protagonists by chasing them with a camcorder, shaking as they run, static distortion in the camera when explosions go off, and film bleeding effects for emphasis on the sleazy scraped-from-the gutter atmosphere they sought to achieve. They put thought into the game's visuals, not just time. Splintercell conviction projects objectives, text, and video of events happening elsewhere onto surfaces in the world that the protagonist moves through the environment, and mapped the timing and positioning of each of these to coincide with the player's likely orientation and pacing through that environment. Both games identified a theme to differentiate themselves, even if they only wanted a subtle touch, and made efforts to maintain thematic consistency throughout the game. This is very different than a simplistic dogged adherence to replicating what already exists in the real-world.

Stepping outside of the realm of modern-day game settings. Katamari Damacy or Okami has a tiny fraction of the budget spent on graphics that these other games do. But both have a far more memorable visual experience. One glance at a screenshot of these games and there's no mistaking what you're looking at. I'd rate the visuals of these 2 games above all others mentioned here, despite less technically complex.

recommended?

[The Grim Reefer]

Crytek suggests upgrading to a quad-core CPU, 4GB of RAM, with examples of CPU/GPU combinations that include Intel Core i5-750/NVIDIA GTX 560 and AMD Phenom II X4 805/AMD Radeon HD5870.

Those seems like pretty low recommendations to me. Certainly relative to what was needed for the original Crysis when compared to the hardware at the time. I haven't replaced my entire system (bumped my ram up from 4 GB to 8 GB two years ago) in several years and haven't had any difficulty with games at all, not that I have time to play them often these days. I have a GTX 250 that I put in the system when I originally built it and still haven't had the time (or need actually) to put in the GTX 465; that's been sitting on my desk for close to two years now.

My guess is that due to the need to run on laptops, most game manufacturers are not pushing the limits of bleeding edge hardware anymore. No one is going to replace their entire laptop every year just to play the latest and greatest game.

Re:Wil it run under Wine?

[jones_supa]

Crispy winter night, glass of cabernet sauvignon, and Crysis 3. Ahh...

Re:There was a Crysis 2?

[ifrag]

PC gaming should be using ray-tracing by now, all these 1000 core GPU's and multi-card [solutions] should be able to process ray tracing calculations, yet there are no ray traced games out showing that there has been little innovation in PC gaming for the last 10 years.

No, wrong, Carmack has explained the issues involved with ray-tracing at least a dozen times. But clearly since you've worked out a better solution, maybe you should sell it and get rich?