Do not buy

[Thel]

---WARRNING this game will not run properly.---

The game is unsupported.
The game only uses half of you avalible prossessor and as such runs very slow. It can no use Dual Core. So take your rating and half it. you will need a 6gig dual core for anything likne playablity.
The Physics engine is flawed. The very first door you come to is some times impassable. Players have had to noclip and then share the save files just to get started.
The game festures a "Head bob" that makes aiming unsteady. but if you don'w have the aforemention 6gig prosessor your streeen will appear to jump up and down 2-4 in game feet every 1-2 second.

DO NOT BUY THIS GAME
C-1 Games does not support it's title.
AVOID

[Marky]

---WARRNING this game will not run properly.---

The game is unsupported.
The game only uses half of you avalible prossessor and as such runs very slow. It can no use Dual Core. So take your rating and half it. you will need a 6gig dual core for anything likne playablity.
The Physics engine is flawed. The very first door you come to is some times impassable. Players have had to noclip and then share the save files just to get started.
The game festures a "Head bob" that makes aiming unsteady. but if you don'w have the aforemention 6gig prosessor your streeen will appear to jump up and down 2-4 in game feet every 1-2 second.

DO NOT BUY THIS GAME
C-1 Games does not support it's title.
AVOID

That's complete hogwash! I just completed the game on a Core 2 Duo E8500 and a GTX 260 with no problems. The games makes use of every two cores, not fully, but at a load from between 60 to 80 percent...

Please don't spoil this game, it's really great, especially the story!

MfG

Marky

[Shadowimpact]

Marky,
i would be cheap to call you fanboi , but man , i m tempted,

amd 9950 quadcore black edition, 4 gig ram, 4870 ati 1 gig, and the game IS NOT PLAYABLE ON MY MACHINE, accepting to play at 15fps half the time isn t an option

Futhermore, the game DOES NOT SUPPORT MULTICORE CPU, so you saying it does on your pc makes you a liar.

i have a second pc with a good spec on my second pc, with a brand new gts250 1 gig nvidia in it and i tryed the game on the 8800gtx i had before that too , it s the same story , just awfull fps. ACCEPTING to play at 15 to 30 fps ISN'T RUNNING THE GAME WELL

And since you allready lied about your multicore cpu reading don't bother telling me you run it at 60 fps.

THAT THIS GAME HASN T GOT MULTICORE SUPPORT AND EVEN DIDN'T FIX IT IN THIS PATCH OR EVEN ANNOUCED A FIX FOR IT SOON IS SHAMEFULL, DO NOT BUY THIS GAME, DON'T LISTEN TO THOSE IDIOT FANBOI, THE DEVS REALLY COULDN'T CARE LESS ABOUT THIS GAME.

the solution is simple, with so many other game to enjoy, just play those and make a mission to all tell at least one of your firends to not buy any 1c game as they don't care about the communoty at all.

In 5 years time, i m willing to bet most regular or serious gamer will not even really remember 1c, only their out of job devs might.

[GregP]

Getting unplayable performance even after tweaking in any game is frustrating, so I understand your anger here. But as Marky pointed out, it's just flat-out wrong that the game doesn't run.

I've got a Core 2 Duo E8500 at 3.8 GHz, 3GB of PC-8500 RAM, and a GeForce GTX 280; I run at 1920x1080 with all graphics options maxed, and I got what I considered "playable" framerates, meaning 15-30, as you say.

Bottom line is, there's a lot going on in this game, so it's going to take a strong machine to run it. Unless you're overclocking your CPU, I'd guess that's the weak point in your setup, followed by (possible) the 4870, which is a good card, to be sure, but seems to trail the GeForce 280 by 10-25% in most games.

In the end it comes down to what you consider playable. Sure, I'd have loved to play the whole game at 60 FPS, but it's just not possible. Given that, I'm OK getting a steady 20.

[Shadowimpact]

A phenom quadcore 9950 black edition is hardly a weak point, and as for the card, on StalkerCS it worked better than anything nvidia had to offer then and franckly since i run both crysis on max setting with 40 to 45 fps at all time (gpu-z and cpu-z recording) i ll say i'm still running a system that more than above average here and still in the overkill zone for most game,

More importantly though, if i sold cars where i simply didn't bother to make the fifth gear work, i would be sued and go bankrupt real fast, because issues of quality matter in all sectors in most industries, and so, are watch and legaly monitored.

Movies, toys, electronic equipements, all that is under regulations to offer what it suppose to offer on purchase; video games sadly is one of the very rare industry that is lagging behind.

The price of a new game cost me around 2 hours work as an estimated compare to my salary, why should i accept to part with money that costed me 2 hours of work (and i know i'm privileged here as it cost some people 4 or 5 hours work or more, but value of money doesn't diminish with age in my case) for a product that doesn't deliver what it was suppose to deliver ?

do not tell me a game running under 30 fps with above recommended spec on all minimum setting and resolution is a game that give you what you are paying for. There is a line between apriciation of quality and objective judgement. If you had a "playable" time with it doesn't mean that all the other that you see complaining of unplayablility are wrong about how bad the game is optimised, even serious website like [hard]ocp warn against it!

If this game is significantly better on nvidia hardware (witch on my second pc isn't true) why isn't this written on the box?( especialy a specific brand of nvidia!!)

why wasn't i aware that i was paying for a product that make patch designated for a specific brand ? (though the shader issue for ati card was fix there, but that about it)

A very small percentage of poeple are happy with this game , and the rest, feels cheated out of there money by a compagny imcompetencie to provide an actual product.

If you have come to accept that a high end pc costing hundreds of pounds more than the recomended system runs at ONLY 20 fps, then my friend, you have become a sheep, and you will join the herd of those that accept to pay subpart games and then defend them, even minimize their flaws, forgeting that, in truce, YOU are the customer, and you should never accept a product that simply isn't finnished.

PS: No multicore support in this sort of game is shamefull and lazy, defend this decision and the fact they didn't even bother to rectify it yet and you will be only good enought to buy yourself a fanboi tshirt my dear sheep.

[Marky]

Marky,
i would be cheap to call you fanboi , but man , i m tempted,

amd 9950 quadcore black edition, 4 gig ram, 4870 ati 1 gig, and the game IS NOT PLAYABLE ON MY MACHINE, accepting to play at 15fps half the time isn t an option

Futhermore, the game DOES NOT SUPPORT MULTICORE CPU, so you saying it does on your pc makes you a liar.

i have a second pc with a good spec on my second pc, with a brand new gts250 1 gig nvidia in it and i tryed the game on the 8800gtx i had before that too , it s the same story , just awfull fps. ACCEPTING to play at 15 to 30 fps ISN'T RUNNING THE GAME WELL

And since you allready lied about your multicore cpu reading don't bother telling me you run it at 60 fps.

THAT THIS GAME HASN T GOT MULTICORE SUPPORT AND EVEN DIDN'T FIX IT IN THIS PATCH OR EVEN ANNOUCED A FIX FOR IT SOON IS SHAMEFULL, DO NOT BUY THIS GAME, DON'T LISTEN TO THOSE IDIOT FANBOI, THE DEVS REALLY COULDN'T CARE LESS ABOUT THIS GAME.

the solution is simple, with so many other game to enjoy, just play those and make a mission to all tell at least one of your firends to not buy any 1c game as they don't care about the communoty at all.

In 5 years time, i m willing to bet most regular or serious gamer will not even really remember 1c, only their out of job devs might.

Hi,

unfortunately it seems to be a tendency of the developers to release unfinished and poorly optimized games as it could be seen like for example on STALKER and STALKER CS and, to be more actual, ARMA II.

What`s concerning me, i am not satisfied about the performance too. I run the game with f.e. 40 fps average, and i sometimes had framedrops to below 20.

But it's in my opinion not that worse like you stated it and maybe you should not exaggerate things.

Ok, forget that about the multicore support i wrote; maybe i wasn't able to evaluate the core utilization-graph correctly.

In fact, a game that favours a certain brand of vga cards is in any case a bit doubtful. The certain problems you encounter originate from the fact of using an ATI card... This game is regretfully not programmed an optimized for ATI cards. Try turning off the anisotropic filtering if you haven't already done so, it improves performance considerably...

One thing is indeed true: In times of triple and quadcore-CPUs, it should have been no problem letting the PhysX effects calculating (calculate ??) by the remainig CPU cores.. These effects aren't that complex as if they could not have been generated by the CPU... So there would bo no need to put the Nvidia PhysX feature on top of the line.. Perhaps the devs have been paid by nvidia...

Nevertheless, i find the game and the atmosphere great, and if you want to call me a fanboy or a member of a herd of sheep, i can not prevent you from doing so.

B.t.w, in case my english is incorrect, i am from Germany...

Greetings

Marky

[Shadowimpact]

ah man !!!!!

Arma2 runs bad ????

i just ordered that from Amazon !!!!


*^&*^%*&^*&%*^% !!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Marky]

ah man !!!!!

Arma2 runs bad ????

i just ordered that from Amazon !!!!


*^&*^%*&^*&%*^% !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hi,

check out his article i just found on PC Games Hardware. There you can read more about this issue...

www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,685770/Armed-Assault-2-Graphics-card-benchmarks-and-visual-quality-compared/Practice/

Greetings,

Marky.

[jaywalker]

The game uses nvidia's physx technology so it will run significantly better on nvidia gtx video cards

Check out these benchmarks. The GTX260 is almost 3 times as fast as the 4870x2 when running the game
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/cryostasis_techdemo_performance/page4.asp
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/cryostasis_techdemo_performance/images/cryo.gif

[saturnotaku]

The game uses nvidia's physx technology so it will run significantly better on nvidia gtx video cards

Check out these benchmarks. The GTX260 is almost 3 times as fast as the 4870x2 when running the game


Timedemo benchmarks for this game don't mean squat. The timedemo runs great on my system (Core i7, GeForce GTX 285, GeForce 9800 GT PhysX), but the actual retail game runs terribly. It's barely playable at 1680x1050, which is a shame because the gameplay and atmosphere are top notch.

[secondlanguage]

The game runs like melted butter on my system, smooth as silk with everything on high and this company does provide support, as a matter of fact i had the blackness problem when i contacted customer support at 1c, not only did they send me an email with the version of direct x i needed but walked me through step by step to get this game running. I've never seen such dedication before to be honest. A great game with no technical difficulties at all. I have the steam version by the way which supposedly has the patch from what 1c has told me.

[BAXTER STOCKMAN]

While i am fan of 1c games i must say that Cryostasis is not optimized. As you can see from my signature my pc is 3+ years old and Cryostasis is the only 1c game i can not run on max settings. Even Resident evil 5 benchmark runs faster than that.
RESIDENT EVIL 5 MAX SETTINGS 1280X1024=52 FPS AVERAGE! See? And dont forget that RE5(PC version) on MAX SETTINGS HAS WAY BETTER GRAPHICS THAN CRYOSASIS MAX SETTINGS!! My pc can run RE5 perfectly and still it can not run THIS???: (:twisted::twisted::twisted::twisted::twisted::twi sted::twisted::twisted::twisted::twisted:

[secondlanguage]

I don't understand how optimization has anything to to with you being able to run a high end game with settings on high using a 3 year old system? I also don't understand how you can say resident evil 5 looks better when you haven't even played Cryostasis with all settings on high. Resident Evil 5 was designed for a console, so, at the end of the day no matter what tweaks they give it for the pc release its bottlenecked designed to run on a lower end console, be it Ps3 or Xbox. Also, 1280 resolution is not that high and if your statement shows anything, it's that you need to seriously think about upgrading your system.

[BAXTER STOCKMAN]

I played cryostasis with all setings on high but it was run slow that it was impsible to play ! When i tested the RE5 benchmark it gave me 52 fps average and 64 fps max on max setings 1280x1024. Iam sure it looks better than cryostasis on max settings... Anyway RE5 is coming to pc on september 15 so i suggest you to try it then and see if it is better than Cryostasis or not. And while my pc is 3 years old i can run 99% of games perfectly on max settings!!

[secondlanguage]

Well the same thing applied to me when crysis came out with my old pc, i didnt sit and slam crysis due to the fact it wasnt optimized properly, my system was just out of date. Resident Evil will in no way push pcs unless they are going to redesign the entire game from scratch, which i highly doubt with the cost involved. The problem once again is that its designed for consoles which limits it heavily in the advanced graphics category. If you think it looks better than Cryostasis then that is your opinion but ive not seen anything that has the lighting and detail this game has, its an amazing game and is at no technical fault.