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."

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.

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?

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:is the game worth it?

[greg1104]

It's a game where you move around shooting. There's nothing different from all the games in the last 50 years [wikipedia.org], there's just more graphical detail.

Re:is the game worth it?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

People have been doing just that for many years despite the fact that in terms of gameplay, the FPS genre hasn't moved forward a single inch since the days of Quake.

Re:is the game worth it?

[Cinder6]

Well, I enjoyed Crysis 2. It was nothing too special, but I got it on a Steam sale for somewhere under $10, so it was worth it. It actually had a decent gameplay mechanism for allowing multiple different kinds of approaches to areas, from stealth to brute force, and the level design facilitated this aspect. I'll get Crysis 3...but not until it's on sale for $20 or less. Given how quickly PC games drop in price, I'm expecting that to be only a couple months after release (or sooner! Some games have steep discounts if you preorder them).