What i think about Crysis.

[Asuka]

Well let me just say it was a good game, but with that said im very disappointed. I was one of the main supporters of the game while in development and i just have to point a few things out.

First, so much was cut that was talked about in interviews.

1. The sky dive scene where you would be able to drop anywhere on the map
2. The extremely revolutionary END that was suppose to take place in the ship
3. The weather scene? (It was in the game but they made it sound much more epic)
4. The whirl pool scene? (Same as above)
5. Having your team with you most of the game.
6. Having it so whoever dies or survives effects the ending.
7. Multiple Endings
8. Why oh why was there no nuke scene like in the Tech demo?
9. Did anyone get to shoot the tire of the Humvee and make it grind the floor like in the trailer?
10.

I know companies cut a lot, but like Valve they cut things that are not fun and they tell people along the way. Like why they did it and what they replaced it with. Crytek took a HUGE bit and ended up chocking. Again, they achieved so much but sometimes in the wrong places.

I don't care for short games, like COD4 was a perfect length but a game like Crysis really felt short in the wrong way. The horrible ending and boss fight probably made me feel it that much more. I mean the whole game is pretty much revolutionary in gun play and open world tactics. Yet the last battle goes back to the Doom days.

I would rate the game 8.2/10

Highs

1. Best looking game EVER and probably for years to come.
2. Gun play and powers felt PERFECT
3. Cinematic scenes

Lows

1. Mediocre story
2. Short
3. Horrible ending
4. Aliens weren't as great and revolutionary as they were said to be. Especially the final fight.

I'm sure I'm missing a lot of things they cut that I'm pissed about, there were a few i really wanted to point out. But I'm getting tired so I'm going to end it here.

All in all it was a great game at times a good game for the rest. Just isnt what Crytek had hoped for, probably because they were pushed for a release just like FarCry. Hope they work off this and make Crysis 2 that much better, especially now that they have the engine at 100%.

Btw, i played the game with:

FX55
1GIG of ram
8800 GT BFG OC
22" HP Monitor (w2207)

All Settings High
1280/1024
2x AA

20-40 FPS Only a few times i really had a hard time playing it. It really is EXTREMELY well optimized.

I will post about the MP when i get a chance to play it.

 

[McCoy]

I don't have the game yet, but I practically own it knowing about all the information and spoilers in Crysis. It looks fun to play, even though there are some sore points in the game itself. What about Multiplayer? What do you have to say about that?

 

[Acepilotf14]

I hate how it takes 40 shots to take down a soldier if you don't hit their head. But delta difficulty is fuuuuuuuuuuun. Finally, a way of making the game harder without giving the enemies super accuracy!

 

[Ridge]

The multiplayer is decent at times and crappy in others...you have to buy weapons each time you spawn, you gain credits for killing enemies or capping flags and lose credits if you kill a friendly...

There is no shortage of jerkoffs online that just hop into the nearest vehicle and proceed to drive over everybody in their base...

If you want a new vehicle like a helo or tank, you have to have enough personal credits and be in the right place to spawn it...so you get very protective and stuff because you are trying to save up for a freakin tank, etc...

The online maps are simply awesome...one takes place out in the desert in Colorado, another takes place in Korea in a rainy refinery, and the rest are jungle...

However, the maps are not destructable online. You can drive into buildings or punch trees all day long and they wont fall down...I guess the physics are turned off in MP to cut down on lag and data transfer...

EDIT: Oh yeah, everybody can buy a nuke online...

 

[Seppo]

this game looks very very awesome, but unfortunately my computer could never handle it. I need new components, especially a new video card

 

[Zeus]

Yeah it was a good game in the beginning. But it died off after the middle. The second half just felt like this stereotypical, on-a-rail type shooter.

Spoiler

The Koreans just completely disappear, no more tactical combat, your suit pretty much becomes useless, all the tactics you learned throughout the game just..disappear. And the ending was terrible

 

[Ridge]

Ive seen the video of the boss battle, and I gotta say, it does kinda suck...it poses no actual threat to you, just the smaller guys do, and does move more than a few yards at a time...also the final moment of the game is just stupid...

Spoiler

How many times does Prophet get taken away by aliens that kill everyone instantly, yet still somehow survives?

 

[Nemesis6]

A whole team of X against one Y with a supersuit who has to accomplish an objective or more, with that gamemode, Crysis wouldn't suck in multiplayer.

 

[A True Canadian]

I thought that the ending happened at a completely illogical time based on what was happening in the story at that point.

WARNING: HEAVY PLOT SPOILERS CONTAINED IN THE SPOILER TAGS

Spoiler

To me, Act 1 was landing on the island, the rescue operation, and then everything up to the downfall of the Korean General. That point marked the end of the Korean involvement and marked a turning point in the gameplay and the story.

Act 2 was the exploration of the alien ship, the evacuation of the island, and then the battle on the boat. Again, there's a turning point in the story that should have set up a final confrontation and a proper ending to the game.

It felt like the entire third act was missing. But it may have been for the better as the gameplay started to deteriorate through much of what I deem "Act 2". It seems like Crytek worked themselves into a corner and decided it was best to end the game there before more damage was done. This is a shame because I thought most of the game was first-rate entertainment.

What I can't seem to figure out now is how they're going to extend the plot from where the game ended to cover Crysis 2 and 3. There doesn't seem to be enough material there to get it done, unless you completely remove the tropical island as a setting.

 

[Krynn72]

The only part I didnt like about the end was when they were flying around so they could help you, but then were all "Shit nomad get these guys off us!"

Meanwhile im running around on foot, with next to zero ammo, 15 enemies all attacking solely me, and now I have to save the asses of the dipshit assholes who are supposed to be helping ME.


**** those guys, I hope they die in the next game. Which I wont be getting, because this game was pretty lame tbh.

I hate how I always have to know how things end, even if they suck. Like, if my friends want to walk out of a theatre because of a bad movie, i have to stay and torment through the whole thing, otherwise ill spend the next 3 days wondering what happened. Thats kinda how crysis was for me.

 

[Stigmata]

I just turned on a bunch of cheats and fired the missile launcher off endlessly at all the buildings and enemies.

Still haven't gotten around to finishing it. I have to say though, the writing is fairly poor.

 

[Nemesis6]

If I can address one complaint; That they cut a lot of stuff. That is definitely true, but for the best in one specific case: A lot of people noted that the graphics we saw in the videos were quite different than the final outcome; Crytek apparently removed a lot of the heavy shaders because they were just too intensive.

Anyway, the hummer grinding - That is indeed there. Try finding a North Korean outpost that you know have access to reinforcements, alert them to your presence, and just wait untill the car comes, and experiment a little with it from there.

Also, about the nuke - I read that the effect is actually there, but it's just disabled in the weapon's config/whatever file.

 

[Krynn72]

Btw, i played the game with:

FX55
1GIG of ram
8800 GT BFG OC
22" HP Monitor (w2207)

All Settings High
1280/1024
2x AA

20-40 FPS Only a few times i really had a hard time playing it. It really is EXTREMELY well optimized.

Bullshit it is. I was playing with a Quad core 2.4ghz processor, 4 gigs of ram, and a 7800gt, all settings on medium, 1024x768 and I was getting 10-20 fps.

 

[VirusType2]

If I can address one complaint; That they cut a lot of stuff. That is definitely true, but for the best in one specific case: A lot of people noted that the graphics we saw in the videos were quite different than the final outcome; Crytek apparently removed a lot of the heavy shaders because they were just too intensive.

Well, that would explain why the min/max requirements were cut in half from what they originally declared long ago.

I couldn't believe when I look on the Crysis box, and it said my computer met the minimum requirements.

So that would explain it. They axed the graphics?


Remember E3? I thought they were running it on a QUAD video card setup and it was still loosing frames? So I guess they figured no one could play this game for a long time so they lowered the graphic quality before releasing it?

 

[Stigmata]

Bullshit it is. I was playing with a Quad core 2.4ghz processor, 4 gigs of ram, and a 7800gt, all settings on medium, 1024x768 and I was getting 10-20 fps.

To be fair, Crysis does generally have a lot more going on than most games. Trees and rocks and grass everywhere, and dozens of enemies at a time. If all your settings were on Medium, you were having dynamic shadows drawn for all the 3D objects in your field of view which is what causes the biggest FPS drop for me. My system is fairly similar to yours (2.4ghz dualcore, 2GB DDR2-800, x1900XT 512MB), and I only get slightly higher performance than you.

And another thing, just because the game is on Medium settings doesn't mean it'll run like any other random game also set to Medium, even if the two games were developed and released at the same time. There's no guarantee they'll perform anything like each other. Furthermore, the visual quality and computational complexity of a game's Medium settings has been increasing steadily since the advent of the 3D accelerator. It's silly to expect to get 60+ fps in Crysis on Medium settings just because you can get 60+ in Half-Life 2 on High.

What you should really be paying attention to is whether or not you're still running games at the same level of visual quality as before. That's how you really tell whether a game is well-optimized or not. If my Crysis on Medium and 30fps (with the sheer size of the environments) can look twice as good as TF2 on High at 60fps, then I'd say the game runs pretty well.

 

[Llama]

It's still bullshit.
I'm on an 8800 GTS with an E6750 and 2gig Ram. That was *supposed* to run Crysis at max settings (When it didnt look as shit as it does now in releation to the promo media).

Basically, Crytek lied through their teeth, or they couldn't be bothered to optermise. Thank god the undeserving little shits only sold 80,000 copies.

 

[Ridge]

I'd say that more goes to EA...they always bullshit minimum specs...

Im running 2.13Ghz Dual core, 4Gig RAM and an 8800GTS 320mb overclocked, I run all medium settings and I get playable fps...

 

[Nemesis6]

Remember E3? I thought they were running it on a QUAD video card setup and it was still loosing frames? So I guess they figured no one could play this game for a long time so they lowered the graphic quality before releasing it?

Actually, I don't think they ran SLI back then. To this day, Crysis still doesn't support SLI.

By the way, I don't know how many of you have kept up with the interal affairs of the Crysis community, but here's something interesting: Windows XP can run the DX10 mode of Crysis BETTER than Vista, and the difference between them is slim to none, and that's not an exaggeration. Essentially, you can enable all the features of the DX10 version of Crysis on XP, and you will never notice the difference between running XP with DX9 and Vista with DX10. Check out the difference between the DX9 hacked version and the DX10 Vista version in these two shots -

Don't see a difference? Me neither. DX10 in Crysis is essentially a big sham. The only thing it does is allow you to use better graphics which are available on DX9, too.

 

[Krynn72]

To be fair, Crysis does generally have a lot more going on than most games. Trees and rocks and grass everywhere, and dozens of enemies at a time. If all your settings were on Medium, you were having dynamic shadows drawn for all the 3D objects in your field of view which is what causes the biggest FPS drop for me. My system is fairly similar to yours (2.4ghz dualcore, 2GB DDR2-800, x1900XT 512MB), and I only get slightly higher performance than you.

And another thing, just because the game is on Medium settings doesn't mean it'll run like any other random game also set to Medium, even if the two games were developed and released at the same time. There's no guarantee they'll perform anything like each other. Furthermore, the visual quality and computational complexity of a game's Medium settings has been increasing steadily since the advent of the 3D accelerator. It's silly to expect to get 60+ fps in Crysis on Medium settings just because you can get 60+ in Half-Life 2 on High.

What you should really be paying attention to is whether or not you're still running games at the same level of visual quality as before. That's how you really tell whether a game is well-optimized or not. If my Crysis on Medium and 30fps (with the sheer size of the environments) can look twice as good as TF2 on High at 60fps, then I'd say the game runs pretty well.

Well, when I compare performance to say... COD4, I get 40FPS on all high settings, 1280x1024, and it looks much nicer than crysis. UT3 runs 40-50 fps on high, gears of war is 30-40 on high. All of them look better than crysis did on my computer, and ran better. I mean, there was never a point where I said "Wow, this looks great!" Which I did in COD4 and gears. There was actually one time where I was impressed. When we were talking the Captain M (cant remember his whole name, he was the head honcho on the carrier) and we could see his face up close. That looked pretty cool, but I wasnt very impressed since I was going at like 6 or 7 fps at that point, and the audio was about 2 seconds ahead of what was rendering.

 

[Llama]

I'd say that more goes to EA...they always bullshit minimum specs...

Im running 2.13Ghz Dual core, 4Gig RAM and an 8800GTS 320mb overclocked, I run all medium settings and I get playable fps...

nonono, I mean those specs were given by Crytek staff. Cevat Yurli (The big cheese) or however you spell his name.

Also, yeah I play it fine on medium...but it's no where near how it should be played. It's especially infuriating next to the fact that these visuals are heavily toned down.

 

[Cheomesh]

I ran it really well on high.

I blogged about parts of the game:

Spoiler

Weapons are normally the bone I pick with most shooters. Most of the time there is little to no thought put into what weapon the enemy uses, especially if they're a "real" enemy. While the weapons in the game are not bad, they don't make sense in their distribution, which is a bit of a breaker for immersion. I do applaud Crytek for having Ironsights, as well as a wet-reload ability, though they, like 99% of shooters, use the roundsInMag / maxAmmo model vs roundsInMag / magsLeft model.

Pistol -- this is a 9mm pistol used by both sides. I don't know what happened to the concept of having different pistols for each of the two factions, but this did insure me a healthy supply of handgun ammo. Downside to this was the dual-wielding. It's a gimmick I'm not fond of and in if you pick up a second pistol for ammo, you automatically dual wield. Dropping the new one results in losing the ammo in it. While dual wielding, you cannot enter ironsight mode, which makes you use the red dot laser sight. It has a single and two round burst firing mode, and having both on trb results in quite a few pistol rounds flying down range quickly. It attaches a silencer, red dot pointer, and a flash light.

SCAR -- this is the US's rifle, apparently standard issue in the USMC as well as what ever special forces branch you belong to. It has a 40 round magazine, fires fast and accurate, and has good iron sights. It attaches all of the scopes, laser pointer, UGL, flash light, tranq, and silencer. It's obviously an XM8 assault rifle with fully automatic but they decided to call it the SCAR anyways, which looks totally different (both of which are real weapons). It is my favorite assault rifle in the game, and has the coolest firing sound between the two assault rifles.

FY-71 -- This is the standard issue of the KPA ground forces. You see it in the hands of every type of unit they deploy (I've seen a regular infantry type, as well as some form of scout you see a lot of later). It has a 30 round magazine and sports all of the attachments the SCAR can have, with the addition of incendiary rounds. It packs more punch per round but it appears to be more difficult to kill with it vs the SCAR. It could be that the FY is a 7.62 round and the KPA forces seen in the game are wearing body armour (the 5.56 round was developed as a method of turning body armour into a liability as opposed to a protective asset). The incendiary rounds are useful, and appear to have a damage bonus against the aliens seen in the game. It is a serviceable weapon, firing in single or fully automatic.

SMG -- Not sure why they didn't call it the HK MP7, because that is what it is, down to the details, save the magazine capacity. It's a great weapon, sporting a 50(!) round magazine, and having a high ROF. I prefer this in CQB to the shotgun, in all honesty. It hosts all of the scope attachments, as well as the laser pointer, flashlight, and silencer. It fires in full or single shot mode. A funny thing to do is to mount the 4x/10x sniper scope on it and try to get long range kills. This is oddly seen in the hands of KPA forces, especially ones seen near vehicles, using nanosuits, and in trench zones or forests. I wish they had used a different SMG as I doubt NK, the most isolated nation in the world, would import German SMG's.

Shotgun -- This shotgun looks strange. It has two fire mods, full choke and no choke (distance shots and CQB respetively). It mounts all of the scopes and optics (best of which is the red dot), as well as the flash light and laser pointer (has the second fewest upgrades of any human weapon). Seen in the hands of all KPA forces.

Precision Rifle -- seen in the hands of KPA snipers, it's a powerful weapon, though difficult to use. It kills you in very few shots even at full suit power. I never liked it much, to be honest, as it had too much scope sway.

Gauss Rifle -- the USMC's DMR as it appears. Powerful as hell, but takes for ever to chamber a shot. Fits everything the SCAR does, except the silencer. My preferred anti-hunter weapon.

Minigun -- It's a POS. Somehow the KPA got some for their nanosuit users. I hate the damn thing as it takes too long to spin up, and considering the difficulty I play on it's a great way to die fast. Makes you move slow, and requires you to be in strength mode, removing your suits armour protection. Mounts the laser pointer, which you need to aim it, never overheats (!) and has a 500 round magazine, but screw this thing.

MOAC -- Basically the miningun that shoots ice shards. It's an alien weapon. Has unlimited ammo (uses the air), but it overheats! Not sure how this happens, maybe it's supposed to be "frozen" but I hear the sound of heated metal when this happens. Used it during a mission because I had to and hated the damn thing.

Missile Launcher -- a three round disposable missile launcher. Laser guided. It's a nice concept, and a great weapon but makes little real life sense -- you're forced to carry this thing with all three rounds already in it. Must be heavy as hell. Takes no upgrades (disposable).

C4 -- It's C4.


Frag Grenades -- Love them. Crysis has a Halo-Like system where frags are thrown with their own button, so you don't have to switch through all the weapons.

Smoke Grenades -- Supprisingly useful against AI. I hardly ever use them.

Flash Bangs -- Also useful. Hardly used by me, though.


That's it for weapons.

Game AI -- I played on DELTA, the highest difficulty. The AI liked to pull nasty little tricks on me like flanking, the bastards. Later in the game when they started using red dot pointers themselves, or at some points, flashlights, they could put 2 and 2 together and realize I was cloaked in front of them. When I sheathed away they would spray around and if they hit me, would follow the blood it seemed. Also scripted to call in backup. Good shots on Delta, especially with their jeep MG.


Suit functions -- I loved each suit function in their own way. I preferred to stay in armour mode, naturally. Second to that was stealth, for pulling nice little raids off on isolated outposts. Strength was useful for high jumps and demolishing buildings, and speed for getting into cover fast.


That's about all I really need to reflect on, really. Gameplay was fine, save the last boss battle being a tad cheesy, and the fight against the Korean General being NO SWEAT.

I really missed the "drop anywhere" idea. Would have been HOT. My main issue was the (standard now in shooters) lack of any military sense in my enemies and allies. The guy commanding me after Jester buggered off is somehow a mix between infantry officer, armour officer, and airman. You don't fight a ground war with a mass of generic riflemen backed up with the occasional designated marksman. I dunno about you, but that just bugs me.

 

[VirusType2]

My main issue was the (standard now in shooters) lack of any military sense in my enemies and allies. The guy commanding me after Jester buggered off is somehow a mix between infantry officer, armour officer, and airman. You don't fight a ground war with a mass of generic riflemen backed up with the occasional designated marksman. I dunno about you, but that just bugs me.

I haven't played Crysis, but I know what you mean.

After finishing Call of Duty 4, now when I play FEAR, it's kind of funny.

FEAR is still fun, but, for example, in the expansion, "Perseus Mandate", when my teamates are using military jargon, it's just not as believable. I mean, it's OK, and I don't think it detracts from the game, but CoD4 uses much more convincing military jargon. I didn't really notice it until after playing CoD4 though.

CoD4 really sets the bar pretty high for game developers. They really did their homework. Developers will have to do some extensive research in future military games I believe.

 

[elrasho]

game is just a tech demo, nothing special at all. This optimising patch should never have to be released, they should have just waited and optimised it first before. Ive stopped playing it and wont touch it until the patch is released.

 

[2real]

game is just a tech demo, nothing special at all. This optimising patch should never have to be released, they should have just waited and optimised it first before. Ive stopped playing it and wont touch it until the patch is released.

god forbid they release a Patch to make it run better



Hl2 had the sound lag bug etc,it took a week to fix it,Not that I was bitching about it.....I'm not bitching about Crysis either.

 

[elrasho]

god forbid they release a Patch to make it run better

Or they release and expansion pack with the same shi1ty performance

 

[DEATH eVADER]

I liked the whole of Crysis except for the physics bugs that crop up. On more than one occasion, my vehicle blew up, just by driving over a debris field of helicopter rotor blades. They should tone it down so it only blows the tires

 

[DEATHMASTER]

Well finally with a freaking decent driver by nvidia I can turn shader and shadows on low to get some decent frames. Those two things hindered it the most, I can have everything else on high.

 

[Javert]

To address "optimization", I do not believe it. A hardware website ran Crysis with SLI 8800 Ultra's, and only achieved an average of 35-40 fps. Not bad, but not good either.

 

[DEATHMASTER]

It really is EXTREMELY POORLY optimized.

About the only change I'd make, I gave it a 8/10 on gamespot.

 

[VirusType2]

About the only change I'd make, I gave it a 8/10 on gamespot.

Gamespot? Why, what did they give it, a 10?


Gamespot has no credibility.

Kane & Lynch Kane & Lynch Kane & Lynch Kane & Lynch Kane & Lynch Kane & Lynch Kane & Lynch Kane & Lynch Kane & Lynch Kane & Lynch Kane & Lynch Kane & Lynch Kane & Lynch Kane & Lynch Kane & Lynch Kane & Lynch Kane & Lynch Kane & Lynch Kane & Lynch Kane & Lynch Kane & Lynch Kane & Lynch Kane & Lynch Kane & Lynch Kane & Lynch Kane & Lynch Kane & Lynch Kane & Lynch Kane & Lynch Kane & Lynch Kane & Lynch Kane & Lynch Kane & Lynch Kane & Lynch Kane & Lynch Kane & Lynch

 

[Deleted member 56031]

They gave it a 9.5.

Meaning it is tied 2nd highest rated pc game on gamespot :|

 

[Rapstah]

What's #1 then? Kane and Lynch possibly?

 

[Nemesis6]

To address "optimization", I do not believe it. A hardware website ran Crysis with SLI 8800 Ultra's, and only achieved an average of 35-40 fps. Not bad, but not good either.

As I said, it doesn't support SLI.

 

[Asuka]

I thought that the ending happened at a completely illogical time based on what was happening in the story at that point.

WARNING: HEAVY PLOT SPOILERS CONTAINED IN THE SPOILER TAGS

Spoiler

To me, Act 1 was landing on the island, the rescue operation, and then everything up to the downfall of the Korean General. That point marked the end of the Korean involvement and marked a turning point in the gameplay and the story.

Act 2 was the exploration of the alien ship, the evacuation of the island, and then the battle on the boat. Again, there's a turning point in the story that should have set up a final confrontation and a proper ending to the game.

It felt like the entire third act was missing. But it may have been for the better as the gameplay started to deteriorate through much of what I deem "Act 2". It seems like Crytek worked themselves into a corner and decided it was best to end the game there before more damage was done. This is a shame because I thought most of the game was first-rate entertainment.

What I can't seem to figure out now is how they're going to extend the plot from where the game ended to cover Crysis 2 and 3. There doesn't seem to be enough material there to get it done, unless you completely remove the tropical island as a setting.

Thats how i felt, i wont be surprised if they cut the entire chapter due to time.

If I can address one complaint; That they cut a lot of stuff. That is definitely true, but for the best in one specific case: A lot of people noted that the graphics we saw in the videos were quite different than the final outcome; Crytek apparently removed a lot of the heavy shaders because they were just too intensive.

Anyway, the hummer grinding - That is indeed there. Try finding a North Korean outpost that you know have access to reinforcements, alert them to your presence, and just wait untill the car comes, and experiment a little with it from there.

Also, about the nuke - I read that the effect is actually there, but it's just disabled in the weapon's config/whatever file.

Its all the lighting in the game, they just didnt make it like that one video. Here are some shots from a custom map.

http://www.incrysis.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=16096

Bullshit it is. I was playing with a Quad core 2.4ghz processor, 4 gigs of ram, and a 7800gt, all settings on medium, 1024x768 and I was getting 10-20 fps.

Well, i know what i played with and how it felt. Probably something wrong with your pc and not the game dude.

 

[Deleted member 56031]

What's #1 then? Kane and Lynch possibly?

Diablo II

 

[TCfromBN]

Diablo II deserves it, there are still thoudands of people playing thousands of games of Diablo II on battle.net at any given moment.

 

[Nemesis6]

Its all the lighting in the game, they just didnt make it like that one video. Here are some shots from a custom map.

Well, the screenshots really just show one particular effect which can be easily enabled in the console - r_sunshafts 1

 

[<RJMC>]

They gave it a 9.5.

Meaning it is tied 2nd highest rated pc game on gamespot :|

that becasue gamespot got dumb and they scores are 1.0-1.5-2.0-2.5 you get what I mean?,oh yeah and kane and lynch

 

[Krynn72]

Well, i know what i played with and how it felt. Probably something wrong with your pc and not the game dude.

When every single other game can run on all high settings and still run perfectly smooth, I cant even play crysis on medium settings with a shit resolution? I dont think its my machine. Especially since I know a lot of people with great PCs too, better than mine, and it still runs like ass on theirs with lower settings.

 

[Ridge]

Crysis is designed to be run at higher settings on tomorrow's technology...sure it sucks for us now but I think they are planning on replayability over the coming years as users can turn up the graphics and run through again...