Talk:Crysis (video game)/Archive 1

RAM

Suggest upping the predicted required spec for RAM to 1024MB at least - 512 isn't much for current games, this is a next-gen game with huge outdoor environments.

Why? That's what the predicted requirement was in the preview for it.

Enfestid 03:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd like you both to note that the current minimum requirements for a current generation game, TES Oblivion, are the same as the ones mentioned in this article. I suspect Crysis will be very scalable to various systems, so the ones mentioned here may be correct. They should be explicitly stated as minimums, though. It is only logical. Joffeloff 19:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The game will probably require less memory if you turn down resolution and texture details. I tried running FEAR (which is memory hungry) in 800x600 with medium to low details and it consumed about 600MB RAM on my computer, whereas running in 1280x960 and turning it all up to max ate a ridiculous 1.5GB of total RAM. (I have 2GB).

Yes. Crysis seems to be scaleable to various systems. I added a required specification section. I wonder if there should be something in the info box as well ? Anyway, be careful of the marketting frenzy surrounding this game! It is being used to sell hardware. Case in point: The man at my local computer shop said "You won't be able to run Crysis" (fair dues to him, he's just trying to sell computers!), but if you check the reference I have put in the article then, actually, my current system WILL probably run the game. Admittedly it probably won't run it at full performance or full graphics, but the article should'nt give the impression that you HAVE to buy the latest system. That's marketting IMO and does'nt belong in Wikipedia :) DJ Barney 16:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Weapons

I suspect the 'XM2014' may be the XM1014 as the article this name was taken from managed to call 7.62 mm caliber ammunition '7.26'. http://www.dumpanimage.com/up/f/pNwhR5pwk1am/20060224/4k3Aqp1gHg.jpg Joffeloff 23:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The weapon credited as the SCAR-L is clearly an XM8 assualt rifle. This should be fixed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.96.192.20 (talk) 03:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

That XM102 thingy also sounds like one of these. Not much point in changing these as the game hasn't actually been released and XM8 image does say SCAR-L. 91.153.128.118 03:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

whoever keeps editing out the info im putting in there on the nades STOP ITS ALL BEEN CONFIRMED http://www.crysis-online.com/Articles/crysis-art-team-q&a.php —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.241.3.204 (talk) 19:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

Direct 3D

To whom ever or you wiki users that kept on changing the name from Direct X to Direct 3D. This is wrong! Because all site,infact every games sites says that the game is clearly using Direct X! I would have provide the links, but can't be botherd because my broswer closed down, had to type this junk again!

>x<ino 08:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

If the context was regarding graphics and visuals, then yes. Direct3D is the correct term. DirectX is the designation for Microsofts entire library of APIs relevent to multimedia.

If you were talking about DirectX 10. The 'games websites' you refer to call it that because it's more marketable that way. At this point in time, only a graphics library has been identified, no audio, physics etc. Therefore that's why it is referred to as Direct3d 10.

Regardless, it's still a technical term at the end of the day, just pointing it out. I would agree that it be left as DirectX so it won't confuse people.

[FLu] 17:11, 6 May 2006 (GMT)

Fan sites

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not - the high number of fan site links, all displaying the same content, are highly unnecessary. Anyone agree? Joffeloff 20:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

RTsa: Sure, agreed. But should there be a link to any content? If so, who gets the honor?

I think linking to a professional gaming site would be better. Joffeloff 15:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree. This whole "I've gotta link to my page to get hits" is getting old. Wikipedia is not a place to promote your site. Please read the link posted by Joffeloff too; Wikipedia doesn't promote a lot of linking outside its pages.

If the links only contain the same information, what's the point?

Enfestid 22:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

You mean, from the perspective of the people adding the links? Obviously to promote their own site. Joffeloff 22:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

RTsa: Then again, 'professional' sites like IGN or GameSpot are commercial. Should wikipedia link to those? (they have the 'pay to see it in HD') 22:43, 12 May 2006 80.223.78.164

Lydia: This seems to be a common problem, there was a similar discussion on the TR Legend page a while back. The trouble is that offical sites are often not that good, as RTsa says professional sites are run to make money and if you have fan sites you will end up with a large number. I think if the links section is well edited, ie sites are described accuratley, then having fan site links could be a good thing. I looked at this page orignally to find good crysis fan sites, but now they are gone then people won't be able to look for links here. I don't think that there are so many crysis fansites yet that listing them will be too much of a problem.

RTsa: How about we link people to www.justfuckinggoogleit.com for fansites? :P

You could say that there are 'not a lot of fansites' and that the ¨'professional' sites aren't any good; the problem is that the fan sites all have the exact same content as the 'professional' ones. In other Wikipedia game articles, fan sites are linked to when a large notable community is built around these, or when they can offer something others can not. No Crysis fan sites currently meet these criteria, and so adding one will end in someone adding the others, one by one. Just look at the absence of fan sites in the other articles. Joffeloff 12:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

These fansites on Crysis are spreading. There's several under the Crytek wiki. I'm thinking of removing them since they have no relevance to Crytek and they are fan sites. --gamer007 23:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

So what about the links under the Media section? To me, it seems to be a "cover" for these fan sites to post their links into this article. These links clearly would've been unacceptable had they been under external links and the media section is being treated as another external link section. Because of that, I'm deleting this section.--BirdKr 09:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I added a link to a fansite before I read these comments ... woops! ( www.crysis-online.com ). I wonder if editors might consider leaving it in before hitting backspace ? I already have a number of possible references from there that can be used in the text. It is an extensive site and is not a personal homepage. It has a forum, a large number of users and many videos and seems like a place where there are many knowledgeable users. DJ Barney 15:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Nope. It was removed! My supporting links to this site ( http://www.crysis-online.com/ ) that I was using to support some of the engine information was also removed by an IP edit, obviously without consulting the discussion here. Although I agree the page should not be used to promote fan sites my intention was not to do this ! With so many rumours about this game flying around the crysis online site seems to be one of the longest running "fan" sites with a healthy forum, many gameplay and developer videos, and in my opinion deserves to be in the article as a resource. I am not plugging the site ! I am in no way affiliated to this site or work for it apart from being a member of the forum. :) DJ Barney 17:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Graphics

Is anything going to be said about the game being almost photorealistic?

There's no need to say it when people can look at the screenshots in the external links themselves. See NPOV policy. A better idea would be to find fair-use or public domain screenshots (doubt they exist as of yet) and add such to the article. Joffeloff 19:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

They can? I thought all the fansites got removed. The official sites don't have any media... :S -RTsa

Multiplayer

Looks like no one put in a multiplayer section. I'll be adding the section. There's some info on multiplayer and I think they are pretty much confirmed. --Gamer007 04:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

There's a LOT of info about the multiplayer in the recent magazines:

http://incrysis.com/crysis/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=99&Itemid=2 I mean a LOT. :P -RTsa

Oh boy, time to add more info to multiplayer. :) Anyone wanna do it? If not, I'll do it tomorrow afternoon. I need to sleep now. --Gamer007 11:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Power Struggle is not a new game type. The Half-life mod Science and Industry featured similar gameplay. Someone ought to look into this. -Ix, October 10th, 2006

Deus ex 2?

Is it just me, or does the stuff about the nano suit and customisable weapons remind anyone of Deus Ex? Worth a mention?

Definitly not worth a mention. Deus Ex involved upgrading your character himself with body parts. The nano suit is just a suit your character wears that gives him better abilities. So, it was probably inspired by Deus Ex, but because of their differences we cant mention it. DurotarLord 16:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually it doesn't matter whether it's the same or inspired by. We can't mention it without a reliable source mentioning it first Nil Einne 16:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

And I'm certain that Deus Ex wasn't the only game to use anything similar. I remember playing a Half Life 2 mod a while back that used the same abilities just like the nano suit. Xe7al (talk) 09:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The Hunters

The three types of hunters were mentioned in one of the two latest magazines. PCZone or CGW. Can't remember which one.

It was PCZ, I spent a week at work experience with that partiuclar issue.

Xbox

xbox.com has an new article about how the 360 is too weak to support this game. Someone has to add this! --24.95.56.215 01:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Link? I would like to see it. --Gamer007 04:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's the link: http://www.gamespot.com/pages/unions/read_article.php?topic_id=24942563&union_id=6917

Real confirmation: http://www.xboxic.com/news/2227

The above link has been rebutted. Here's the link: http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/755/755903p1.html and http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3156404

I see no point of adding this mention. It was already confirmed that this game would be available for PC only so there's no significance why it will not be released for Xbox 360. If we put up this mention, then claims of why other consoles cannot support this game may also be mentioned. This mention would've had merit to be put into the article if Crysis was originally for the Xbox 360 also.--BirdKr 09:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Lua programming language?

I just noticed Crysis is under the "Lua programming language" category. Who put this there and is there actually any LUA programming in this game?--Gamer007 06:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I personally can't say for certain as Crysis (obviously) isn't out yet, and I haven't read anything saying that LUA is used in Crysis. It is a fair assumption to make, however, as LUA was used in Farcry; with the engine, CryENGINE[2], written in C++, and most/all of the game-specific code written in LUA. Henrym 06:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

http://www.crytek.com/CryENGINE2Features.pdf talks about the CryENGINE2's use of LUA scripting on page 16. --212.159.114.88 17:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Images needed

Given that the biggest draw of this game is that it's a superb showcase for DirectX 10, I'm rather surprised that there are absolutely no images on the page, at all. I tried adding an image a while ago but it was reverted under the claim that the IGN watermark violated some rule (sorry, what? I've never seen such a rule before). Since the official website doesn't have anything, I wouldn't know where to go to find ones WITHOUT watermarks, so instead I'm adding the appropriate template up at the top of the Talk page. S'all. --Shadow Hog 05:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to find some. I already added a logo, by the way. ↔ ANAS - Talk 18:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I added three screenshots/images to the article. I think it's OK for the article's size. ↔ ANAS - Talk 13:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Crysis Modifications

Crytek has taken the unprecedented step of selecting two modification teams to work with a Crysis Pre SDK before the games release. These mod teams are receiving Crytek support during development and the mods are to be released shortly after Crysis launches. Details on one of the modifications: Obsidian Edge 2 can be found here: Crytek selects Obsidian Edge 2 for Crysis Pre-SDKand here Obsidian Edge 2 news update with the OE2 website here www.ObsidianEdge.net The announcement for the other team is here Navy Seals Mod 71.125.6.132 22:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC) CuZ

Crysis coming to 360?

This is extremely annoying and sad. X360 is ruining PC games lately. Time to kill microsoft :P. Check this link out http://www.xboxic.com/news/2227. It says crysis is going to be for x360 it is not going to be port. --SkyWalker 06:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

No Crysis for 360

Sorry for that but EA confirmed the rumour is false. [1] --Ciao 90 15:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

No CTF in Multiplayer?

Is there a source saying there will be no CTF in multiplayer? I haven't seen any yet. --Gamer007 00:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

http://www.shacknews.com/extras/2007/011607_crysis_3.x -RTsa

Less images needed

Please trim the number of non-free images (e. g. screenshots) in the article. For fair use, ten images in a single mid-sized article are too many. —xyzzy_n 17:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Crysis is coming to 360

Crysis is coming to 360 Uk 360 Mag Xbox World 360 has announced a massive feature on the port in there April issue. Mat parker 116

Oh I get it like how EGM announced that Square Enix was making Mushroom Kingdom Hearts and that Sonic was to be in 'Brawl.

yeah espically when BOTH crytek and ea have stated MUTIPLE times that the game will NOT be ported i really think that an xbox360 magazine saying its going to be ported is true. people dont believe everything you read, pay 2 seconds worth of attention to what crytek/ea have been saying for over a year. theres no port.

Technically, Far Cry was never ported, either. They remade the game to work on consoles. I'm quite confident that a console version of Crysis is inevitable.Master Deusoma —Preceding comment was added at 23:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The difference between Far Cry and Crysis from a business perspective is that Ubisoft owned the IP to Far Cry from the start so Crytek had no say in if it could be ported or not, which is probably one of the things that led to them splitting off with them. With Crysis they actually own the rights to the engine and IP, so it's pretty much up to them with porting it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.40.49 (talk) 08:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Reminder: Wikipedia IS NOT a game guide

This is a problem for many game articles in which tries its best to inform the readers every part, both significant and insignificant, of the game. The article clearly crosses the line if it tries to offer hints, tricks, easter eggs, strategies, and specific data/information that only concerns about those who have the game already. This is just a reminder. --BirdKr 16:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Um..... The game isn't out yet... I'm not saying the article is fine as is, I haven't really read it properly but since the game isn't out yet, clearly there is no "pecific data/information that only concerns about those who have the game already". The information may still be uneyclopaedic etc but obviously the information can't be information that only concerns those who have the game already if there is no game Nil Einne 16:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It's merely a reminder for not only the present, but also the future once the game is released. Many game related article editors tend to post up some strategies that is only concerned by those who have this game already --BirdKr 09:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

...It has been stated that the 360 is too weak. However, a port with extras has been announced for the PS3. Check Gamesradar.com if you don't believe me.24.15.64.119 (talk) 12:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Jake http://www.gamesradar.com/us/ps3/game/previews/article.jsp?sectionId=1001&articleId=20080116164640708073&releaseId=20070209104752229059 Theres the link Jake was referring to. The original source of this article is Playstation World, a magazine. It does state the 360 cannot handle it due to technical limitations. What they mean by that is still unkown. This is still a rumour so please, do not change the article until official word from Crytek. Also take this discussion to the "Crysis on PS3" topic.--WhereAmI (talk) 00:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Fixed the Moon?

Does anybody know whether they've fixed the Moon for the day/night cycles? The Moon in this video (link to download) clearly doesn't move at all, when it should circle the earth at around the same speed as the Sun. For all the advanced programming they put in, it seems a pretty significant blunder. --Michaelblackney 02:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd say they just had not gotton around to programming it yet. Either that or it has something significant to do with the game and its futuristic setting, like the moon could have been moved to a geosync orbit to make sure one half of the world had higher see levels then the other... Eitherway the moon does not appear opposite the sun anyway.etc.--Dacium 22:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't appear opposite the sun, but it does move through the sky at about 27/28ths the speed of the sun (relative to a person on Earth's surface). If time's traveling fast enough that the sun shoots past, so should the moon.

If the moon didn't move through the sky, it would mean that it was in geostationary orbit. I don't think that would be a good idea in any enlightened future; but if it were, the moon's lunar cycle would occur daily (which doesn't happen in the video).

It's clearly just a design error, but I'm interested to know if/when it's fixed. It'd be pretty damn funny to see it appear in the game -- we're at the point where the realism barrier isn't the hardware but the designers. -- Mike Blackney 23:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

new pic under enemies

those are troopers not scouts. someone please explain to me how you all seem to think they are scouts so i can prove you all wrong. first there is NOTHING in there we can use to determine what size it is. any determinization of size is completly personal speculation. the characters gun/arms are not there nor do we know the size of the corridor its in. that corridor very well may be just big enough to fit the aliens/troopers/jake through but not the hunters. second COMPARE IT TO THE SCREENSHOTS OF THE TROOPERS. they both have the same number of apendages and they look very similar. the image refuted to be the scout looks like a closed up version of the troopers weve seen, i.e. the panels/parts on the main body move.71.241.16.31 09:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Crysis#The_Alien_Scout_and_Trooper —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.171.98.49 (talk) 12:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

The Alien Scout and Trooper

Do you all agree that these two vehicles are different?

These are troopers: http://www.crysis-online.com/Media/Screenshots/Screenshots/Frozen-Action-04.jpg and http://www.crysis-online.com/Media/Screenshots/Screenshots/Frozen-Action-03.jpg

These are scouts: http://www.crysis-online.com/?id=128 and http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/eb/Alien_Scout.jpg

There's a clear visual difference don't you all agree. One of the visual differences is that the troopers have horn looking things while the scouts clearly do not. So obviously, they're not the same. There are only 4 alien machines. 3 of which are vehicles and one of which is a robot (the smallest alien machine, the trooper). The two smaller ones (the trooper and the scout) fly while the larger two walk (hunter and the other larger thing which we haven't heard much about yet). Am I the only one who can see the obvious difference between both of those shown above.

Seeing as both those pictured above (linked to) are flying, and seeing how they're both clearly different, one must be the trooper and the other must be the scout, correct? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.171.98.49 (talk) 11:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

then you need to change the description of the scout on the main page because according to that description the scout is the largest. also they are not the scouts, they have been neither confirmed nor denied as the scouts so wheter or not they are the scouts is still debatable. i was always under the impressing that the scouts were the largest and if their not then that needs to be changed.

"Scout: A flying alien vehicle capable of transporting a larger non-flying alien vehicle named the Hunter."

The scout is smaller than the hunter. Like I said above, the two smaller vehicle/robots fly and the larger two walk. We have yet to see or even hear about the larger alien vehicle. The aliens use a lot of anti-gravity technology so they probably use the scouts probably use that to transport the hunters, or the scouts just carry them like one of those dual rotor transport choppers.

Everyone here needs to stop editing in personal specualtion on the scout. we know about the hunters and the troopers, we know NOTHING about the scout other than it exists. we dont even know if the scout is the largest or if they are two different vehicles but from what ive heard from crytek employees the scout is the smallest "manned" (or aliened if you prefer) vehicle. STOP SPECULATING ABOUT THEM. THEY MAY CARRY HUNTERS THEY MAY NOT BUT WE DONT KNOW THIS YET KEEP THE INFO ON HERE TO WHAT WE KNOW AND DONT ADD IN RUMORS/SPECULATION!

I don't post rumors or speculation, and if I ever do, I make it clear that it is speculation. I know for fact (read in a magazine) that Crysis features a scout which is like you said, the smallest alien vehicle (the troopers aren't vehicles because they can not be piloted). That same magazine (which I wish I could find, but it's pretty old, from early 2006) also said that the scout is what carries the hunter into battle. It became fact here on wikipedia a long time ago (because of that same magazine) that the scouts carries the hunter. To make things more confusing (but we'll leave this out), hunters can also carry scouts inside the out shell of the hunter. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.171.98.49 (talk) 01:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

Do you at least know the name of the magazine? besides if its from the early part of 06 it very well may have changed since then just as many other aspects of the game have changed. or please find ANY source of the purpose of the scouts becasue ive heard 400 million differnt things about the scout:ive heard its the largest, ive heard that its actually a land vehicle, ive heard that it doesent exist, and all from supposedly realiable sources. please post for me just ONE thing that says what the scout is because ive been following this game since it was announced and ive never seen anything to that extent (i know there was something but i want to know for sure exactly what it said). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.241.3.204 (talk) 01:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

I do not know the name of the magazine unfortunately. Although I can't prove to you beyond doubt that the scouts carry hunters (which I'm 100% sure they do), I can provide good evidence to show that the scout is infact real, and is the smallest of the 3 alien vehicles and the only one of which that flies (the trooper is excluded as it's not a vehicle, it's a robot).

1) There are 4 alien machines, 3 of which are vehicles, and only one of which flies. Although in this link, Michael says there are 4 vehicles, I'm pretty sure he's including the robot trooper: http://www.crysis-online.com/Articles/dirtyrat-talks-to-michael-khaimzon.php

2) We've heard the name trooper, scout and hunter. The devs have mentioned all three of those names along the way. Seeing as Michael says the larger 2 walk (the hunter and the biggest vehicle which we haven't heard anything about) and the smaller two fly (one of which is the trooper), this leaves only one un-named flying vehicle which must be called the scout.

Here's something to read also: http://www.crysis-online.com/?id=128

3) It's been posted here at wikipedia for over 6 months that the scout can carry hunters, so why is it only now that some people want to disagree? You can see here that it was around back in august last year: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crysis&diff=70892069&oldid=70887533 (scroll down).

So which part about the alien scout do you 'not' want to be posted. Is it the part about it carrying hunters? if so, I can leave that out as it's fair enough seeing as though it's hard to find sources for that information even though I know they exist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.171.98.49 (talk) 04:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

Awards

Anyone want to add the E3 awards Crysis has won? I'm not great at editing Wikipedia yet. 155.109.5.21 19:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is a link to some of its awards so far: [2] 155.109.5.21 19:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Few thing will be deleted after game release.

Iam thinking of deleting enemies and weapons after the game releases or maybe sooner. Has we can not add this sort of information at wikipedia. --SkyWalker 09:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Can't we leave a small section to say what weapons are in it? I don't mean describing every weapon in detail, but like Half-Life 2's weapon section, just saying what weapons are in the game. --Gamer007 17:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Ratings

I noticed that on the box art, there is PEGI rating for the game. however ESRB and PEGI have no mention of hte game on their websites. Thus, 1) Is the rating "true" (I think it is) 2) Why was it rated as such (Might take a while to find out) 3) ESRB rating. If we get enough, this might just work as a mini section.80.120.30.214 06:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Crysis-Online states the box art came from foreign sites, but the image looks legit. I believe I've heard the game will be rated M by the ESRB (though obviously until closer to release, it will say RP). We'll have to wait for a bit for a more official statement.--Gamer007 10:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Me again, I just looked @ the EA UK Crysis site and it has the PEGI rating of 18 + the box art. Gotta be legit then. --Gamer007 10:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Nope, it's now 16+. · AndonicO ^Talk 15:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Release date

I saw on the article some weeks back that the release date was september 14th but that has been changed to TBA on the article. Ive checked a few sources and they all say 14th september for EU release date. Is there a reason that this was changed on the article? or can I change it V* Discharge 17:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Gamestop will ship the game on 9/11/2007 in the US. So I made that edit on the wiki for the USA release date. User: fpsFugazi

Check out www.incrysis.com, which has a link to the EA press release page. There, it says the street date for Crysis is September 14th. No word on whether this is a global date however...

The current date is fine. It's from EA's official site, so you can't get any better than that. And September 14 is a Friday. Games and most media are released on Tuesdays in the U.S., so I highly doubt the date is correct.

Enfestid 14:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The date can only be guesswork. They say those dates to get preorders. But I do think it is safe to say that in the USA, it is September. Vixwald 16:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I have heard from two different games selling stores that the date is Sept. 12. AZ_DesertRat July 17 2007

On GameTrailers.com [3] they said the release date will be September 4th. JackTruong 2:30, July 16 2007

OK guys, let's just stick with the release date as given by EA's official site for right now, which states Fall 2007 (aka Q3, to be non-region specific).

Enfestid 19:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The release date is officially "2007". This information comes straight from Crytek i.e. not from websites or from any other source than Crytek themselves.

This is an encyclopedic article. Cite it.

Enfestid 22:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

"the official release date will be announced pretty soon!" - Posted by Crytek's Alexander Marschal on July 26, 2007 (http://www.incrysis.com/forums/viewtopic.php?pid=127202#p127202)

"Yes, we will ship this year. In fact, we will announce the ship date very, very soon." - Crytek CEO & President Cevat Yerli (http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/crysis/news.html?sid=6175656)

First, please sign your comments by typing the tilde (~) key four times. Secondly, I've read those comments, but what they have said does not mean that EA's time frame is wrong. The release date they're going to be announcing is probably in the Q3 time frame given by EA. Please make note that both your sources say "release date", and not "release quarter". EA is giving a general time frame (the release quarter, Fall 2007, or Q3 2007 to be non-region specific to fit Wikipedia's guidelines), whereas Crytek will soon give the date. If there is no official date yet, but there is a time frame, it should be placed on a Wikipedia entry's page.

Enfestid 16:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

You are one hopeless dude. I give up since you choose to believe EA instead of Crytek, which is really, well... odd. But... I'll come back to this topic soon ;)

Did you even bother to read my post? Again: Please start signing your comments. Furthermore, I'm not "choosing" to believe one instead of the other. Crytek has not given a release date, and they have not denied the EA release quarter. The publisher is the one who determines the release date 90% of the time, anyway. If a developer can't finish, the publisher can decide to push it back, or release it in a buggy state and then create a 0 day patch.

Enfestid 15:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Enfestid. No release date has been announced by either Crytek or EA. There are many websites that speculate but its not 100 percent accurate. Leave it as Q3. That is the most accurate release date that has been given to us. 155.109.5.21 19:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Le sigh... if no release date has been announced and Crytek repeatedly keeps saying "2007" then it is very logical to put "TBA 2007" as the date. It's pure common sense. Also... I am not sure, but, it looks like Enfestid does not know what kind of a relationship Crytek has with EA. Crytek and EA are in a "strategic partnership" (EA Partners), so it's not like the relationship that, for example, the Battlefield developers have with EA where EA tells DICE when to put out the game. So, Crytek is a independent developer and the release date will be "when it's done" until Crytek is ready to announce it (this has even been said by an EA rep in a video interview: http://youtube.com/watch?v=MeX0sKqKYjY).

START SIGNING YOUR COMMENTS BY PRESSING THE TILDE (~) KEY FOUR TIMES. Furthermore, of course it's not like EA and DICE's relationship, because EA owns DICE! Furthermore, all I have to do is resort to my previous posts for refuting your "logic" that it's TBA 2007. I don't think you comprehend what "EA Partners" is. It's still EA, it's just EA's relations with independent game developers. It does not mean that EA has no influence on the release date, because EA is still the publisher. If Crytek doesn't want to ship when EA tells them, EA will yank funding, and Crytek could even have to pay for the funding that EA has already given.

As I have stated before, Crytek has not refuted EA's release quarter. And the video you're referring to says absolutely nothing about Crytek in particular. You can choose to believe an "EA rep" if you want, or you can take a look at EA's history for enforcing release dates. It doesn't take a genius to see they've done it for a long, long time.

Enfestid 14:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey, calm down man, I don't care about the signing thingy. You can read the text? That should be enough.

Also, it seems like you have a really fixed mindset of EA and you cannot bring yourself out of it. Your comments about the funding and the video are just funny. I will leave this discussion now since this is pointless (has been for a long time, actually).

Real aliens?

Near the end of the YouTube video "Crysis Uncensored NEW!", I see jellyfish-like aliens flying around in a zero-g environment. But developer Crytek has stated many times the aliens would not be revealed until the latter part of this game. Can you verify this? --Bryan Seecrets 14:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

It is pretty old movie. Yup they are aliens very real aliens thought not that real. Anyways yes if you read the storyline you will know when aliens will surface so that means it will appear late in the game and they are tough to beat. --SkyWalker 15:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

This is the leaked footage, it was not supposed to come out but for some reason someone put it on the internet.

A video of the aliens has been posted on Eurogamer (can't find the link), and they do look aquatic: I haven't seen that youtube video, but I imagine it is real. · AndonicO ^Talk 15:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Australian Rating

I read in an EA press report that Crysis will be rated MA15+, is this worth adding???

Not for now. Let the game get released. --SkyWalker 11:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Nano Suit

I am almost sure the suit has four modes:

• Active camo (invisibility)
• High armor
• High strength (Kill enemies with bare hands, punch through roof etc.)
• High Stanima (Jump high, sprint far, etc.)

Should we mention this? Vixwald 16:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It is already mentioned. --SkyWalker 18:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

ive been playing in the beta that is the modes on the nano suit

King of games

Release Date (Again)

Please stop removing Q3 from the release date. The citation is the official publisher's website. That's about as official you can get as far as release dates go, because normally the publisher is the one who determines release dates and decides wether or not to inforce them. Furthermore, the biggest Crysis site out there states the release date as the same. Even the unofficial release dates coincide with Q3. But, above all, as I've been saying, the official publisher website states Q3. Thank you. Enfestid 19:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Let the release day be TBA 2007. Let it not be changed until a official sources is available this is :- Crytek and EA.--SkyWalker 09:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Why? EA is the publisher, and they are official. That's as official as it can get. Please stop removing it. Enfestid 14:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

It was not me who is removing the release date. It is better to add it has TBA 2007. Has adding Q3 confused many people. --SkyWalker 08:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Q3 is standard for Wikipedia release dates. Look at many upcoming games with only timeframes and you'll see that. Saying "adding Q3 confused many people" is an overstatement, since no one's stated as much and only one person has been removing it. To say "TBA" is inaccurate as there is an official time frame for the game's release. This is an encyclopedic article, the most accurate information should be in it.

Enfestid 14:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The EA Financial Conference was released and says Crysis will be released early November. It's a recording of it and articles summarizing the conference call only says this fiscal year.--Gamer007 23:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I see someone found a source that specifically states Crysis in November. Now, do we really need 4 countries for release dates? I'm sure Canada/USA would release on the same day.--Gamer007 02:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Crysis on the ps3

do you think it should be noted that crytek devs have stated that the game could run on the ps3 and that crytek is currently looking for ps3's devs to work on a project using the cryengine2.0? obviously it's nothing conclusive, even the media heads are still sticking to the 'no comment' routine, but should we perhaps mention it in passing as a possibility? 207.210.20.237 03:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

No, shouldn't be said in the article yet. Unless there is a solid source stating it will be on the PS3 , it shouldn't be added. Right now, all news seems to point to a PC exclusive. --Gamer007 04:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

As the above user stated. Many games can run on consoles, but if there's no news of them actually being ported, it's not worth mentioning. Thanks for bringing it up on the discussion page before adding it, though. Enfestid 04:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

first of all check your facts, crytek is NOT hiring ps3 programmers to make a port of crysis, crytek has stated that THEY will not do a port of crysis but that if there is one that decision and the subsequent port will be done by ea, second, crytek hired those programmers over a year ago, that job listing was posted in march of 2006 if you would even bother to check on the history behind that, if they were hiring ps3 programmes to put it on the ps3 then a ps3 version would have been announced, not only that but the fact remains that in that interview cevat yerli even stated AGAIN that THERE ARE NO PLANS TO BRING CRYSIS TO ANYTHING BUT THE PC AT THIS TIME. thirdly, the ps3 programmer job was to port the engine, not a game. while they may be making a game for the ps3 the job was to port the engine, the reasoning behind this is simple, and was explained a long time ago by crytek, since they are licensing the engine out then they need it to be compatiable with as many platforms as possible, if the engine only worked with pc games then anyone considering a ps3 or 360 game wouldnt even consider licensing the engine out. also as someone said above yes, crysis could run on the ps3, however they also said this sevearl times in the past and this is nothing new, the only reason people got worked up about it is becasue they are desprate for crysis to come to something else other than the pc and act as if even something that has been said before is brand new even though its actually old.

The RUMOUR mills are circling again. http://www.gamesradar.com/us/ps3/game/previews/article.jsp?sectionId=1001&articleId=20080116164640708073&releaseId=20070209104752229059 http://kotaku.com/346247/enhanced-crysis-rumored-for-playstation-3 Playstation world says it is coming to PS3 and the 360 cannot handle Crysis due to technical limitations. What that is exactly, I'm not sure. But what is important here is the PS3 version was confirmed by PlayStation World. When it comes out is not confirmed. Extra content is confirmed though. The magazine is referring to the PS3 version as "Crysis 1.5" I don't know if this is enough information as proof yet, but since both websites refer to it as a rumor I think the article should not be changed.--WhereAmI (talk) 00:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Box art change?

If you have a look on the EA site for Crysis at http://www.ea.com/crysis/home.jsp, you'll notice that the box art looks different to the one in the article. Has there been a change?

its not really a change, its the same as the other box art, same picture just foucsing on a different area.

System requirements

I will state this once and for the record: NO SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS HAVE BEEN RELEASED YET BY CRYTEK. ALL CURRENT "OFFICIAL" REQUIREMENTS ARE RUMORS. Until either Crytek or EA states system requirements, I will remove any system requirements on site. Numerous "official requirements" have come out, and none of them have been official. Enfestid 20:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, for those that keep referencing Voodoo Extreme's article about the "official" requirements, read where they link to first. It specifically states these are SPECULATED requirements. Enfestid 20:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Apophis

Is Apophis & Crysis the same game? Tripledot 08:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

NO. --SkyWalker 09:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me tell you something. Apophis uses gameplay/plot/setting elements inherited from the final version of Crysis. Apophis is now located at: User:Starkiller88/Apophis (game). Starkiller88 (talk) 14:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Possible mistakes

1) In the Story section, I see this: Set in 2019, you play as Jake Dunn, a United States Delta Force operator. Dunn and his team are sent to pacify a situation in which a group of United States archaeologists are taken captive by the North Korean military while investigating a mysterious ancient artifact that was found in the Spratly Islands, located in the South China Sea.[2]

As the story unfolds, players are faced with three very different environments (or "acts"):

Act 1: An ancient meteor that struck the island hundreds of years ago begins to show signs of activity, causing the North Koreans to take up military presence and investigate the meteor site. As a Delta Force soldier, you HALO jump onto the island to see what you can find out for the US Government.

The 1st and third paragraphs seem to, at best, not be referenced, and at worst, contradict each other. ( What is Dunn sent in for? the archaeologists or the Meteor?) Could this be clarified?

2)In the special edition, I see this: The three disc special edition of Crysis will contain the following[8]:

Crysis game "Steelbook box" casing "Making of Crysis" featurette An exclusive unlockable 'NK Amphibious APC'[9]: "Meet the Developers" vignettes with Crytek's lead designers Initial Crysis concept video Additional "key trailers" Show reel of concept and production artwork 32 page concept art book Official soundtrack by composer Inon Zur

This is all right, except for the "exclusive inlockable NK Amphibious APC". That is wrong. The APC is only for orders placed through Amazon (as far as we know), and not part of the special package. The reference leads us to the page for the regular edition of crysis (I know this because I bought that item before the Special edtion was released/announced, so the item cannot be the special edition. (The words "sepcial edetion DO NOT EVEN APPEAR within the page. /rant. 65.143.79.162 14:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

If you see problems, fix them. I'm having a hard time reading through your "rant" because of the way you formatted it, so I can't really tell what is wrong.

Enfestid 20:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I think I understand what you're saying somewhat.

1) Everything is cited. Look at the citations at the end. There is some confusion because Crysis's story was changed recently, so I forgot to edit the meteor part and put "artifact" instead.

2) No clue who added that. I'll edit it out.

Enfestid 21:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, sorry about my lack of knowledge of Wikimarkup, I am trying to improve. I put the changes here, because I am not the most educated Wiki-ist here and I might do something incorrect or wrong (I know, be bold, but I don't want to make people mad.) 65.143.79.242 23:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

On the crysis site it said that the Exclusive vehical would be available to both owners of the special edition and users who pre-ordered Crysis. Link http://www.ea.com/crysis/news.jsp?id=specialed under that logic the APC should be included in the article.68.96.87.225 04:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Do not make assumptions.

Enfestid 14:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Then Shouldn't it be metioned that Amazon has for lack of a better term "exclusive" content?

68.96.87.225 00:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Demo

Should the demo be mentioned?, it was announced yesterday. 155.109.5.21 18:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind it must of just been added... might of not refreshed the page155.109.5.21 18:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

States that on 26th October Crytek said the Demo would be delayed for at least one more day and will be avaliable for the public on 27th October. This is half true. The reason is that the demo is a 24 hour exclusive download for those who preorder the game at EA-Store.co.uk (and i assume .com etc) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.143.4.119 (talk) 16:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Extra Vehicle?

I read on Chaos that the special edition contained a Unique in-game vehicle from US pre-sell campaign. Is this true? please confirm, Thanks andrewrox424 ^Bleep 07:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Im sure if it was in the article it would be "confirmed", I do know that amazon shows an exclusive vehicle on their product page found here: EDIT: it would seem that they removed the information, but previousy it had said that an APC vehicle code of some sort would be sent via e-mail to all who pre-ordered. So take that for what you will.68.96.87.225 06:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't live in the US, but I did pre-order the Crysis Special Edition, and the unique vehicle is an amphibious APC on the North Korean side. From what I can see, it resembles Russia's most recent BTR designs. CABAL 01:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Mac release?

I tried to put this on the page but you guys took it down. Why did you do that? It is a legitimate possibility for the game to come to the Macintosh platform. Also, have you looked at the specs of what the game is going to need in order to run? It is defineately a Vista-only game. It has Direct X 10, as well as other Vista-only features. I doubt that it could every run on anything lower than Vista like XP. JoeMonkeyPotato 22:40, 20 September 2007

It has been confirmed that this game can run on XP, but very few games come out for the Mac. · AndonicO ^Talk 08:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Crysis can also run with DirectX 9. · AndonicO ^Talk 15:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Won't you look like the fool when they bring this game over to the Mac. They are already bringing Gears of War to the Mac platform.

JoeMonkeyPotato ^Talk 18:33, 21 September 2007

And Unreal Tournament III as well, but they're Mac-specific releases. Not all games have them, and I haven't heard of any for Crysis. Thank you for your civil comment. · AndonicO ^Talk 22:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget the Games for Windows branding as well. speaks rohith. 20:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Obviosly you haven't been tracking this game very long. Crytek has stated numerous times that the game will only be for Windows XP and Vista. Do not attempt to edit an article that you know nothing about. 155.109.5.21 18:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Second instance of "Crysis" bolded.

I think the code is messed up, because the second appearance of "Crysis" is bolded, but there aren't any apostrophes around it... · AndonicO ^Talk 00:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, it was linked to itself. No wonder... · AndonicO ^Talk 01:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Massive lead

Maybe it's just me, but I don't comprehend why we need a lead that's longer than almost all the sections in the article. I don't comprehend the reasoning behind that.

It's fine to say the game is anticipated, but is it really necessary in the lead? Is it necessary to provide multiple citations for a claim? I don't see how saying factors contribute to it being anticipated (an opinion) is worthy of an insertion into the lead. I don't get it... I just need some clarification here. Enfestid 02:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I expanded the lead because it was too short. You're right that not all the information was necessary, but it is important to say that it's both single and multiplayer, and that it has DX 10. It must summarize the article, and not mentioning those points isn't doing that. Multiple sources are used because there are either multiple or controversial claims (multiple for the first sentence in the removed paragraph, controversial in the second). I stick to the 1 revert rule, so I won't change it back, but I really don't think you should just remove content without previous discussion. It may be a good idea to change the wording a bit to make it more NPOV, but removing it isn't going to help the lead, IMO. I'm sure someone else will make suggestions as well. · AndonicO ^Talk 22:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Andonic. Large changes in content on an article like this should probably be discussed, especially when we are talking about the lead. I agree, though, that the lead should be made more NPOV. Rewording would be better than just removal, though. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, and large changes should be discussed -- hence why I added this discussion to see how the lead should read and how long it should be. I don't think that a large amount of content should be added to an article, or that an article should be completely rewritten, unless you discuss it on the talk page first. The lead was substantially changed in recent edits. To reiterate, that is why I created this discussion.

Going off the featured article Half-Life 2, we could state that the game has received numerous game show awards, such as E3, instead of saying it's being looked forward to.

As far as single-player and multiplayer modes, I don't see why it needs to be mentioned when the article goes in-depth on those issues. Furthermore, I just clicked on a few video game featured articles, but none of them mentioned that in the lead. As for DX10, I'm not sure why that's important at all.

Enfestid 19:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Large changes don't need to be discussed when they conform to policy... What I did in my recent edits was copyedit the article (perfectly acceptable), add references to almost every claim (perfectly acceptable: WP:REF), and expand the lead, which was only two short sentences long (perfectly acceptable, except for the final paragraph, which should have been re-written, not removed: WP:LEAD).

Good idea about the game show awards, add that in. Also, we should change the "anticipated game" sentence to how they have it in this FA's lead.

If the article goes in-depth on single/multiplayer, all the more reason to mention it in the lead (quoted from WP:LEAD#Provide an accessible overview): "the lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article". And just because most FAs mention this doesn't mean this article shouldn't; there isn't a single way to do things, it isn't written in stone (analogy from WP:MOS). · AndonicO ^Talk 00:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

No, large additions and edits don't need to be discussed according to guidelines -- please don't imply that I said that -- but it'd be considered proper netiquette to at least discuss any potential major changes before making such changes.

I had planned on rewriting the lead, but I wanted to discuss it here first. It seemed proper. If I offended you in any way, I'm sorry. It's not that big of a deal, I just thought we could be constructive and reach a joint conclusion instead of one side simply saying what works and what doesn't, hence why I asked questions to facilitate a joint partnership.

Again, though, it's not a big deal to me. If you want your previous version back, go for it. I just thought we could create a better one.

Enfestid 01:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry too, I misunderstood you.

What were you planning to add? Maybe it's better than my version, or at the very least, we could merge the two leads. I wasn't trying to say what worked and what didn't, it's just that when you remove a sourced paragraph from the lead, then... that doesn't work. ;) I admit what I wrote was flawed—but not irreparable—though. Maybe you could post what you were planning to write here, and I'll post a re-written version of mine, and we'll see how we go from there? · AndonicO ^Talk 10:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Better? · AndonicO ^Talk 11:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Does it really needs so much power?

Moved discussion here. · AndonicO ^Talk 17:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

No sand box mode in demo.

I downloaded the demo and there was no sandbox mode in it, so before i delete it from the section, did anyone get it or did i just get a bad copy?75.69.70.83

Sandbox is in.Go to "\Program Files\Electronic Arts\Crytek\Crysis SP Demo\Sandbox2 Installer" Then install it, and the Editor.exe should show up in the \Bin32\ folder. I don't know if it create shortcuts to the start menu though, since it didn't for me. --Gamer007 04:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

thanks75.69.70.83 —Preceding comment was added at 21:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Power Struggle Turrets Destructible

I'm a new user and I can't change this but, according to a Crysis - Power Struggle Tutorial released at Gametrailers.com on 09/19/07, not only will turrets be destructible, but acquiring the technology necessary to do so will be a crucial step towards destroying the enemy base. --Catbond 01:55, 30 October 2007 (PDT)

Changed. · AndonicO ^Talk 00:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Is and Are

This line needs changing: "an American team of archaeologists is taken captive". That should be an are instead of an is. 24.18.240.159 00:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually the sentence is correct as is. The verb "is" is the singular, present 3rd person version of "be." "Team" is the subject of the sentence and a singular noun. Therefor the singular form of the verb should be used. Catbond 06:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

They're both correct in themselves; it's more an issue of American vs. British style. American use favors "is" for collective nouns, while British use favors "are" (at least for groups of people). So it didn't need to be changed, but by the same token I don't see any point in reverting it unless there's a consensus that American style is preferable. Sw2k7 (talk) 15:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Game Reviews

ok, as of now there are people saying that pc gamer and pc action have reviewed the game (98% and 9.2 respectivly). if these are true should a new section for reception be started or whould that wait until more reviews/the full game come out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.36.225 (talk) 02:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I can testify to the fact that PC Gamer gave it a 98%, I don't know about PC Action. I made a "Reception" section, with the review score from PC Gamer, but somebody undid it, I can't see why. Shouldn't we have it, even though the game hasn't been released, because they still reviewed a final copy of the game? WolverineZac 05:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

PCZone gave it a 92% score (which is better, the PC Gamer one is stupidly high) so can anyone integrate that as well when the review goes up on CVG? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.92.106 (talk) 14:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please add that the PC Gamer referred to is the US version as the UK version gives different and (usually) lower scores. I would change it but have just joined so don't seem to be able to at the moment. Bibalasvegas 15:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I've just done that, though I suppose it was obvious given that the British magazine would be most unlikely to have a "Holiday" issue rather than its usual "Christmas" one! :P Loganberry (Talk) 01:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Regardless just do and try to remember to list the more important reviews; PC Gamer(s), Gamespot, IGN, Eurogamer, GameSpy etc etc... BUT no matter how positive the reviews are remember to keep it neutral, overlly favourable reception sections don't raise the article rating. Stabby Joe 13:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

This is set in...

2020 - According to the game itself, not 2019 as some ignorant fool keeps reverting it to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fordsierra4x4 (talk • contribs) 01:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It's on 2020 now. · AndonicO ^Talk 00:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Reverted back to 2019. Why do people insist its 2020 when the in-game details specify it as being 2019? Check it for yourself if you like - start a new game --86.214.151.243 (talk) 16:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

2020!, see ref at: http://youtube.com/watch?v=NDSUuSSjsaQ ( 2:54) --Beyond silence (talk) 09:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

There's something definitely weird going on here. I've seen the in-game cinematic say both. Xihr (talk) 08:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't even looking, and I bumped into at least one reliable source that gives it as 2019[4], so it's not rare. I suspect 2019 is the date when the meteor came down, and 2020 was when the North Koreans occupied the island such that it became a conflict with the US military (as the article describes). So there's an argument to be made for both dates, if that's true. Still, kind of bizarrely, I'm sure I saw the 2019 date in the game; I'll keep looking. Xihr (talk) 09:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

May you right, but the game playing in 2020, after the meteor crashed.--Beyond silence (talk) 22:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Released for EALink?

There has been talk that this game has been released early for users of EALink. Can someone look into it? --70.131.134.170 23:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It's only available for pre-download (so no one can really play, they just have the option of downloading now rather than later). I don't think this is notable enough. · AndonicO ^Talk 00:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems that the 16th quickly turned into the 13th to GameSpot and EBGames. It has also been confirmed that several European countries recieved it early (as in today) according to inCrysis.com. Edit? --68.249.182.236 01:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Release date + Leaked or cracked

When I checked EA's home page on Crysis then I saw it said "Available 14th November" Now I know "available" and "Release" is 2 diffrent things, not much but it is. So, does the release dates on this page need to be updated? Check http://www.ea.com/crysis/home.jsp and then see in the corner "Available November 14" So, is this for the ones who have "Pre-ordered" the game who gets it o 14th while the "Store" date is 15th in Australia and 16th In EU and US?

I pre-ordered the game online through EA's store. While the original anticipated release date was November 14th, I got an email a few days later saying it would be available for "install" November 13th. They allowed people to download it starting the 13th, but it was an encrypted installer and they made the key available the 15th. -- Cmullins10 (talk)

Now for the warez, the crack group "Razor1911" seems to have a source who have given the retail disc, now they've got a crack and a Keygen for the game and "Loder" is hosting the torrent for them [link removed]. Now this is another source: [link removed] showing Crysis. Now I dout this will be put up on the article but should we write that it's got leaked on Usenet, P2P net, newsgroups, etc? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanonkas (talk • contribs) 14:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Looking on reddit, I saw an advertisement for Crysis that says "In stores 11.14" which means that they changed the release date from the 16th to the 14th. Interesting. Should we change it on the page? Slinky317 15:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I just called Gamestop where I have the game pre-ordered and they told me that my copy will be available for pickup on Wednesday, 11/14/07. I live in South Cali next to LA. Catbond 00:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Crytek explained the early release dates, and this explains something else you might be interested in if you're European (only Germany, Austria, and Norway so far, but they might add more). ;) · AndonicO ^Talk 00:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

If its of any help, I already have my hands on my preorder copy. Where I am, its the 13th. CABAL 11:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The Gamestop website lists the release as November 13, and my copy is being delivered today (November 13). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cojawfee (talk • contribs) 18:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Fun Times

I love the second paragraph, "Crysis is based in a fictional future where an alien race has invaded Earth.[7]" The fact that Earth has its own link to the wiki page on our planet, JUST IN CASE you didn't know which planet Earth is...

Oh and poor me I had thought it came out tomorrow (the 15th here in Australia) but it turns out that it did in fact come out yesterday, and I just missed the call at 9:15am from EB Games... Stupid sleeping. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.235.110.251 (talk) 11:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I wrote that part (if I remember correctly...); glad you found it amusing. ;) · AndonicO ^Talk 11:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting trivia

Some level names in Crysis are same as Stargate SG-1 TV-series episode names:
Exodus (s4/422), Ascension (s5/503), Paradise Lost (s6/615), Reckoning Pt1 (s8/816), Reckoning Pt2 (s8/817)
--62.65.192.86 23:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Something for the "Development" section.

"We worked really closely with Intel and Nvidia and even had engineers from Nvidia on site for the last year," said Bernd Diemer, a producer on Crysis at developers Crytek.

"We wanted to be an early adopter. When we started Crysis the current hardware wasn't available or being planned. There was no DX10 or the latest graphic cards. They were not even on the drawing board."

They went to a special effects company in Hollywood to create a render movie of how Crysis could look - and that movie has been the benchmark for the firm.

"We got pretty close. In some areas we even surpassed it," said Mr Diemer.

He said PCs gave gamers the "best possible experience".

Crysis boasts realistic breakable environments - a goal of developers for many years.

"In some areas we have managed to set a new standard. We've managed to push it a bit further," he said.

---

That's from this BBC article. Should this go in the development section? · AndonicO ^Talk 10:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Sequel mention in the lead.

The sequel should be mentioned in the lead, but not in the first sentence of the article. If anyone thinks otherwise, please say so here; in the meantime, I'll change it back, because it really doesn't seem logical (nor is it consistent with other articles) to mention that Crysis will be a trilogy before we even know it's a video game, or that it's developed by Crytek (a new trilogy from Hollywood?). · AndonicO ^Talk 10:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The story has been updated.

From the article: "Crysis is based in a fictional future where an alien race has invaded Earth."

That was the old story, which involved a meteor crashing on the island. Crytek has changed the story to an alien ship being unburied. ..containing an ancient alien race that might have been here on Earth even before humans:

1. "Global tensions have reached boiling point as the U.S. and North Korea square off in the South China Sea. At stake: a mysterious artifact uncovered by a team of U.S. archaeologists." - Crysis-Online.com

2. Crysis begins with a radio call..."We found something buried in the rock,"... - Gamespot.com - Crysis Update Hands-On

So, it's not really an alien invasion anymore (even though even they're still calling it that) as an invasion implies entrance, of which there is none. They were already here. eg. If you walk into a public restroom and there's someone already in there...and they attack you...although they're an ass-hat, they're not "invading" the restroom.

Plus we don't know how long they've been here, but due to the lack of a meteor crash and no obvious signs of something having crashed there it must have been a long time ago.

Something like this might be more accurate:

Crysis is based in a fictional future where an ancient alien spacecraft has been discovered deep within the Earth.

If that sounds good to you, please update the page. Thanks!

Thanks and done. I encourage you to not hesitate and do it by yourself next time - that's how Wikipedia works. Anti-Static Foam Cleaner 17:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

All editors in here NOW

Bamforth: I want to know why you keep reverting Hunter to Scout, happily disregarding the included reference that's plainly visible in that section.
Estarrol: While your adding of a Characters section is appreciated, please see Half-Life 2 for a good example of what one should look like. Hint: It should not look like a list of everyone. Wikipedia is not a game guide after all.
CABAL (talk) 18:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Plot

I'd like everyone who was helping out on that section to take some time to read this. While details are always appreciated, gargantuan plot sections are not in line with Wikipedia policy and article length. The prior one was just fine at a few paragraphs, and explained all major plot details. Do we really need to know every damn thing that happens including the exact method by which the fleet is sunk? No. We just need to hear that the demise of the alien war ship takes the fleet with it. So please, whoever expanded the plot section to make it over forty percent of the article in size, would you kindly don't do it again. CABAL 16:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Superfluous "Groups" section should be removed

Amirite? --Pkaulf (talk) 21:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Or we could wait until the fanboys are done inserting what will mostly be useless trivia, and then take out the crud which will might make the section worth keeping. Unfortunately that couldn't be done to save the Plot section (Who the hell manages to write so much rubbish in such a short time?). CABAL (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Logo in the Infobox

Exactly why this should be done beats me. No other article on games do so, so why should the Infobox for Crysis have the game logo as the title? That purpose is very well served by the cover art. speaks rohith. 19:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

DX10 and Very high

I'd like you guys to take notice that the very high settings aren't SM4.0 effects, just more intense versions of SM3.0 effects, I compared Very high DX9 and DX10 myself and on DX9 it doesn't include things like object motion blur, soft particles, and the like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.209.233.100 (talk) 22:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Prerelease screenshots and real ingame graphics compassion

I had early posted screenshot which demonstrated big difference between prerelease screenshots and real ingame graphics. However some wikipedia users (one of them edit before mostly articles connected with Crytek) retort on this referring on bad image source and no official status of this picture. I agree that this is not perfect source, but I didn't see any discussion on this subject outside many internet games forums. With no alternative authority source I had posted this image to show existence of this problem.

The user had answered on it by posting another picture which shows better ingame graphics. This screenshot was made with tweaked graphics settings (SSAO) which is unviable by easy graphics configuration at any quality level (need console or config file manipulations). Also with whose settings indoor graphics are terrible and picture often seems unnatural. There was a lot of discussion on game forums about that.

In my opinion Crytek had cheated with prerelease screenshots and for today we can’t see graphics quality from early distributed screenshots. Everyone may check prerelease screenshots and review screenshots at one of many gamesites and to see this. I also think that this information must be placed in main Crysis article at Wikipedia. But because there are some critic in the way of proofing this information, I would like to discuss it here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by -=Che=- (talk • contribs) 19:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

That's your opinion, and you are entitled to it, but you have nothing to back it up with other than an anonymous picture from the internet that looks to me like it was created with a mix of low and medium settings. That could have been created by anyone, a Halo fanboy who hates PC games, a competitor to Crytek who wants to show the game in a bad light, or just someone whose graphics card has a technical fault.

The other picture, which you have incorrectly labeled as requiring "deep" graphical modifications, required no such thing. If what I read about the image is true, and again it could have been faked by a fan boy or a developer at Crytek for all I know, then it was created using the standard settings that come with the game. The only editing they did was to create a section of jungle in the editor that looked similar to the pre-release demo shots. That was to show how similar the graphic quality was, not to make it look better (it's easier to compare like for like).

Personally I'd remove both pictures, because they are unreliable. Unless there is an article from a reliable source, like Gamespy, then they are not up to the standards expected of wikipedia. And yeah, I have only edited this Crysis article, because I've only edited like once or twice on wiki ever. I may be heavily biased, but what I am saying is objectively true: both these images are untrustworthy and should be cut from the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.58.59.160 (talk) 00:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Hardly, it is featured in an official games mag for instance. Those were indeed PR shots. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.170.53.9 (talk) 00:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Alien attack.jpg

Image:Alien attack.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Raptor Team Names

Where did the names for all the members or Raptor Team come from? --The Virginian (talk) 18:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Aliens Breath Methane?

Is it just me or is there a rather large screen in the CDC room on the Consitution that states that the Aliens breath methane? 88.107.95.155 (talk) 20:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

You fire firearms in their ship so I'm guess not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.40.49 (talk) 09:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

http://s233.photobucket.com/albums/ee269/sladt/?action=view&current=Methane.png

There is. 88.107.68.132 (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Video Walkthrough

Delta difficulty video walkthrough should be added to external links: http://www.gameanyone.com/?p=game&game=Crysis&playid=330&cc=1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.181.228.6 (talk) 02:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it really shouldn't. Xihr (talk) 21:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Original 3 acts:

Somebody flipped through the demo files for Crysis and here is what they found: http://www.incrysis.com/forums/viewtopic.php?pid=311747#p311747 For those that are too lazy: This was found in Data/Gamedata.pak in Libs/GameTokens Act1_M01_Island Act1_M02_Village Act1_M03_Rescue Act1_M04_Harbor Act1_M05_Tank Act1_M06_Mine Act2_M01_Armada Act2_M02_Camera Act2_M03_Airfield Act2_M04_Capture Act2_M05_Fleet Act3_M01_Crater Act3_M02_Storage Act3_M03_Maintenance Act3_M04_Operations Worthy of mention? 71.147.38.48 (talk) 20:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

No. Why would it be? Xihr (talk) 05:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)