Gaming Crysis Was Terrible

I'd have to strongly disagree, I really enjoyed Cyysis and Crysis Warhead

 

I strongly disagree... half the reason I play games is for the graphics, so for me Crysis ticks all the boxes for me.

 

Am I the only one who found that level piss easy?

Where's Gunsmith? He must have had an aneurysm or something

All I'll say is that personally I found Crysis a solid 80% game - good fun. Of course it looks absolutely stunning on its highest settings but there again it takes, what, £2000+ to be able to do that?

I'm surprised there hasn't been any flaming yet. Oh well, the day hasn't really begun yet; I'll get me some popcorn, sit back and watch the inevitable unfold...

 

Took 3 years to figure out it was ****? Like the article mention's, its like a Michael Bay movie. All hyped up, shiny looking, you have fun watching it, but forget what was it about 15 minutes after you finish it.

Tech demo with shitty gameplay and a somewhat bland and predictable story.

 

What this guy said

 

If gunsmith had an aneurysm, warrior must have died of happiness. lol
I declare thee flame wars open.

Where my beer and snacks?

Edit: It must be pointed out that gunsmith isn't a raving fanatic btw...

 

Nice for showing of your PC capabilities to friends. Or use as a benchmarking tool that you could actually play.

 

Are we so starved of things to write about you have to slate a 3 year old game? There's a big list if that's the road we are going down. Also it looks like they might cock up crysis 2, the aliens are back? the gfx will be limited by the consoles? I'd rather read about what you can find out about that.

To the people who haven't played it, try the demo.

 

Is the jury still out on whether this game still runs crap on the latest hardware because:

A.It is a genuinely 'ahead of its time' gfx engine doing things that no other gfx engine has or can do even to this day.

B. It is a terribly optimised, badly coded game, that can and should run better on the hardware available.

 

the beginning of Crysis was fun, I still remember walking up to the beach in the very beginning, seeing the awsome sunset for the first time. Jawdropping, that's for sure
However, the longer you played, the crappier the game became, as you discovered more and more that the tactics which on paper look fantastic (stealth up to a guy, strength + throw, restealth), they were very difficult to accomplish due to the stupid energy system which you also mention in the review.
The alien part was just extremely boring. it was fun in the beginning, but got old very fast.

Farcry: was great until aliens, after which it became massively frustrating so it took me about a year to complete the game (vs about 6 months for crysis).

so crytek, get rid of the frustrating elements, + if you allow some great possibilities in action which are realistically not possible to be successfully used in the heat of battle, it just frustrates.

Like someone - cannot really remember who - said in one article: if you give a player a huge bomb, it will make the player feel cheated if you do not allow him to blow it up.

 

Have to say these nostalgia atlrticles suffer from the same problems that crytek do... Arrogant in that the writer thinks he knows best.. Bioshock was unmissable?? That game is every bit as tedious as the aliens in crysis. Talk about repitition, a boring plot twist and feeling like having to grind through to the end! I don't need someone else to tell me what my opinion should be, I prefer to make my own mind up based on objective viewpoints

 

+1

The author has a very different opinion to what makes a a good game to me. Far Cry 2 was just simply awful and Bioshock was the most over hyped and disappointing game i have played in a long time. Crysis is all right depending on how you approach the game play but its way above the other two.

I think the above paragraph from the article is a much more fitting description of Bioshock. Give Joe back the gaming section please.

 

My Crysis experience...

First 15 mins... Oh damn this is cooooooool
Rest of game... Bleh. Average shooter with some mod cons..

I haven't played it since it first came out, but I all I remember is the STUPID ****** flying level and the lame ass ending.... a nuke? SERIOUSLY?

 

lol quite, i'd say i disagree emphatically with 2/3 of these 'retrospectives'

im curious, is this just an attempt to be controversial or do you genuinely believe that FC2 is underappreciated, BioShock unmissable and Crysis terrible?

 

At least you can appreciate the essence of what makes Crysis' gameplay so great unlike most Crysis bashing that goes on. I've heard as bad as 'it's just far cry with better graphics', and 'crysis was all graphics no gameplay'.
I enjoyed the game immensely; but I do agree with some of your points to an extent. I thought it delivered on the sandbox gameplay using the nanosuit together with the open environment, dynamic AI and physics, though the suit could have done with some more juice to combine some more moves together. I also felt it had some of the most spectacular & epic setpieces that I've ever experienced as a gamer.

The graphics I thought even artistically were stunning. You had a range of different vistas, from the mountain collapsing, to the flying level (reminded me of Avatar, absolutely gorgeous), to the gradual transition from ice to ordinary jungle when you drive back from top of the mountain with Psycho.

Now the story could definitely have been a lot better narrated and the characters including Nomad neended a lot more development. Sure I can agree with that.
The only other thing I can agree with is that fighting the aliens was a little boring, but I don't agree that it was arrogant of Crytek to feature them in the expansion even more as the alien AI was improved a bit and were more fun to fight.

 

We wrote about that just the other week...

http://www.bit-tech.net/gaming/pc/2010/06/03/crysis-2-preview/1

 

I think that's what makes them so hard to read... Controversial for the sake of it! Is E3 not kicking off tomorrow, surely the rumour mill is buzzing!

 

I fully expected Crysis to be a horribly mediocre game like its predecessor Far Cry when I played it at launch. So I was pleasantly surprised when I realised that it wasn't.

Okay, so the story wasn't exactly a gripping masterpiece and the final portion was an, actually rather enjoyable, on-rails shooter similar to Modern Warfare. Indeed, even the alien AI was better than your typical Modern Warfare baddy in Veteran mode.

And in terms of graphics Unreal Engine 3 and Source engine may have been churning out pretty pictures, but there is no denying the fact that they're absolutely nothing before the graphical splendor seen in Crysis and even more-so in Crysis: Warhead. It may come at a great cost, but that's what low and medium detail were for, which even most older PCs at launch could run very comfortably. Indeed, even Far Cry 2 is a far cry from what's on display in Crysis and it miraculously manages to conjur up even more monotonous scenery!

As for the gameplay: I liked it a lot. The enemy AI was overall fairly competent and there were always, with exception of the on-rails alien portion - many ways to resolve any given situation. It's true that the maps weren't exactly Operation Flashpoint open, but there were usually several paths to an objective and you could always opt to go in all guns blazing, long distance sniping or stealth. There aren't many shooters that provide even that much choice to the player.

So it may not have been as gripping as Half Life 2, nor as exciting as Unreal Tournament 3, but it was far from terrible. If you were all hyped up before release then I get that you were disappointed, but it was still easily one of the best shooters that year. Indeed it was a much better game than its direct competition: Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare and also nowhere near the monotonous disappointment that was Far Cry 2.

 

Oh no it wasn't.