First of all-thank you kikizo!!!!

I really liked what i saw.
And i take for granted it run without Direct x 10 and Vista.
Sure the frame-rate sucked but name any pc game that use the latest in hardware and have a product that isn' t optimize months before release that plays " good" .

This game really feelt like being in a real jungle,and the physic kicked ass.

However even though the graphic was 10/10 i would think ps3/xbox360 would be able to do that kind o graphic as we saw.

well i think the video didn' t show off direct x 10, so you can' t say about ps3 and xbox 360..

I have no love for crysis. It dosent even look that good, they could have put that power to something impressive, but no, just another fps set in the jungle, Far Cry wasnt anything special and either will this.

But it has aliens,and co-op with North-koreans and russia

I like the way it looks , but if it' s not fun to play , then I don' t give a fuck.

I think it lagged to much to add in a lot of enemies on their tech-demo or whatever that was...stage demo perhaps.

Anyone expecting Crysis to be anything but generic will be sorely disappointed. Crytek aren' t renowned for their groundbreaking game designs and just like to flex their graphical prowess. Farcry was only fun if you were a graphics/FPS whore. I thought Farcry was cool for about 5 minutes, then it was steadily boring/generic the rest of the way through. Crysis will be exactly the same.

far cry might be boring at times (like many other games) and sometimes really hard, but it' s still a good game (graphics aside)...

I agree that Farcry wasn' t bad, but it wasn' t great either. Some parts were quite hard, like those mutants (I forgot what they were called exactly). But nothing apart from graphics made it stand out for me. Graphics aside and you have " Generic PC Shooter #3241" .

well its too early to tell whether it will be generic or not! farcry was their first real game as far as i remember!

" You learn as you live."
Crytek too.