y am i not surprised 'sigh' bad things always happen when ea r involved, bunch of muppets

I'd rather have a finished product which actually can run well on today's hardware, than a buggy and unoptimized one.

[quote]I'd rather have a finished product which actually can run well on today's hardware, than a buggy and unoptimized one.[/quote] Yea, especially if its a title we are really looking forward to, I'd much rather have it done right, then done sooner.

No matter how you twist it I'll be upgrading both my processor and gfx card if I'll want to run Crysis, from what I understand. Btw, are dual cores going to be needed?

I would go with dual cores, yes, as they will improve the framerates a lot. There are also many other games which takes advantage of multicore on the horizon, like everything running on UE3 and the upcoming Alan Wake (dualcore required for this one), just to mention a few.

not necessarily bad news. It just means more time to save for that killer rig.

[quote]not necessarily bad news. It just means more time to save for that killer rig.[/quote] yes, might as well wait for new video cards to hit the markets (DX10)

[quote][quote]not necessarily bad news. It just means more time to save for that killer rig.[/quote] yes, might as well wait for new video cards to hit the markets (DX10)[/quote] I beta tested Vista and my god that was bug city. Afaik DX10 Gfx cards need Vista to run on? Cause in that case I ain't getting Vista, or dx10 gfx cards for at least half a year after Vista is released and they fix some of the critical bugs. The main problems being compatibility. Companies aren't going to re-write all their programmes overnight just to suit 64bit Vista, and atm the compatbility feature in Vista that attempts to simulate XP, 2000, 98 etc is working on under 50% of the usual programmes I use. Oh, that and Vista is supposed to cost you 200+ euros if you're buying the software on it's own. So kinda sucky if you ask me.

I hope they work out the multiplayer right, so that also online will be a succes (far cry wasnt that populair online).

@derf26: DX10 cards can run on both Vista and XP, as they also have included support for DX9. In any case I suggest you wait a bit, Vista is sure to come with problems, no Windows-release in history has been without them. @Anonymous above me: Yep, I agree, Far Cry didn't exactly have the best netcode, especially the vehicles were warping like hell. However, Crytek have said that they are making a much better online component for Crysis, so we just have to hope for the best.

Well support for DX9 yes, but i would have wanted to use DX10 on a gfx card specially designed for it that would probably have no other advantages. Anyway, as usual, boo to Microsoft's OS monopoly, at least in terms of OS's running games.

[quote]I'd rather have a finished product which actually can run well on today's hardware, than a buggy and unoptimized one.[/quote] don't mean to be rude but, when have you ever seen any game ever made without bugs????? I think your just repeating what you've heard over the years ...."would rather see a finished game", "I'd rather see it done right",. for me, I'd rather EA left it's hands out of this all together, we would have had the game by Christmas if it wasn't for them!!!

I think you misunderstood me, there is a difference between a great game (few bugs) and an unfinished game (many, or critical bugs). It is very likely that this is what you would have gotten if the game was released in February (yes, it was delayed to February before it was delayed to April). I am not repeating anything, I'm just saying there are crystal clear reasons why it was delayed.