a 8800GT is good enough to play at a decent resolution. love this card.
This is nothing for anyone to really whine about. DX11 will probably add better AA (if they even add it to the graphics menu and almost nobody will use it anyways), better motion blur (barely) and some tessellation... which also probably wont be used. Chances are, DX11 will do nothing but lower your FPS unless you utilize aforementioned options.
Pretty sure gamer is low, advanced is medium and hardcore is high?
Right click on the game in steam library > properties > set launch options.
I liked one of the comments in there
Seriously, how many people have systems that could run it in DX11? How m any people are still running XP as their OS? How many people actually h ave "cutting edge hardware"?
Same here, especially since I think it goes Gamer > Advanced > Hardcore in the menu
Yea, and on my end they all/most have Amsterdam or .de in the server name
-Loads of PC games are ****ty console ports with 65 FOV
-Loads of PC games are ****ty console ports with 65 FOV
-It really couldn't take that long to make a graphics menu like that of Crysis. It's just plain lazy and their excuse I'm sure is to make things more user-friendly. (SOUNDS A BIT LIKE THE WONDER THAT IS IW.NET)
and then there's..
-Weapons. Recoil almost doesn't exist which caters largely to thumbsticks. Sniper rifles are pointless unless you're on the really large maps but even then that is arguable.
-Most of the maps are small. Fit for the small 6v6 of player-hosted matches on consoles. The large maps will get played a lot less, but that bit isn't entirely Crytek's fault.
-The menus glare with consolization. Seriously, if you can't see this, then it's gone to your head.
The weapons in Crysis 1 definitely had a bit more recoil and were a bit harder to use... barely. So they making them even easier is kinda... well you know. Nobody here is saying Crysis 1 multiplayer is any good anyways.
Yes but those are just a few. But 90% games on consoles are 24 players or less. It's just common knowlege that PC is better for large player counts while consoles tend to use smaller numbers. You don't have to be a fanboy of any platform to know that. Sooo when you see a game moving towards small matches when the highlight of the engine, single player and previous game was much more large scale... it certainly doesn't make it look like it's for PC. (I honestly don't care, I don't expect Crytek to make the game feel like an exclusive when it's obviously not. Most people prefer smaller matches anyways) Not to mention all the games you listed run like **** without a dedicated server. Resistance and MAG can only handle those kinda numbers on a hardware level because they actually make better use of the PS3's processing power than most titles and all the extra space bluray provides for large levels. I know MAG uses dedicated servers (which also means one day you wont be able to play online) though and clusters battles together in separate 64 player battles? (not the 256 or whatever they were originally advertising) I wouldn't be surprised if Resistance used dedicated servers too. If it doesn't, I don't even want to see what a client hosted game for 64 players looks like.
Of course it's not hard to navigate, but it's still a giant mess of ****ery. Kinda like the HUD. It's all clearly designed for a television and not a monitor. Nobody likes anything but SOF2 in the SOF franchise anyways.
