Gaming Crysis Was Terrible

Oh, of course. Allowing and enabling mods makes games better and doesn't at all signify laziness. I'm just saying that the fact a game has good mods means exactly that; it's a game with good mods, rather than being a good game by virtue of having mods.

Lots of people here have said the same thing about the AI: "The AI is great, you just have to put a mod on it." To me, that doesn't mean the AI is great. It means the AI is bad and that the mod is good.

 

Flawless logic.

 

LMAo at some of the comments, it was not the greatest game ever but it was hardly TERRIBLE or had TERRIBLE gameplay? How is the gameplay terrible? it's as solid as any other shooter, and lets face it, very few FPS have a good strory as it is. The gameplay at least gave you ltos of options and tools to play with, and everything being destructbale was great.

 

You viewed it on a 360, who cares how it performs against Halo >_<

 

The people who cry about Crysis being held back by consoles and console technology should at least want to be briefed on what the console version is like, lest they appear like deliberately obtuse fan boys who prefer to make their minds up in advance and with no information whatsoever, surely?

 

Crysis crippled my PC on release and made my yaw drop, I want the new one to do the same. I don't own a 360, I don't care how it looks or plays on a 360, limited to 1080p (will it run that high on a console?) playing with a controller. I may be an obtuse PC fanboy, but I own a PC..not a 360

If you lot can't report on the PC version of one of the biggest (recent, if not ever) PC games about then expect people to moan?

 

So.... what was the point of this article? This isn't something that I expect to see on Bit's front page. Must be a slow news day if we're complaining about a 3 year old game...

 

who cares.....................................................................................realy...................

 

Crytek are like an unsuccessful version of id Software. Where id Software would produce a not so good game (W3D,D1/2/3,Q1/2/3) but a staggeringly amazing engine that would be adopted by a large chunk of the industry....Crytek just make bad games with polished turd engines and keep it to them selves. Just for reference, here's a list of games based off CryENGINE 1/2

CryENGINE
* Far Cry (2004, Microsoft Windows) - Crytek, Ubisoft
* Far Cry Instincts (2005, Xbox) - Ubisoft Montreal, Ubisoft
* Far Cry Instincts: Evolution (2006, Xbox) - Ubisoft Montreal, Ubisoft
* Far Cry Instincts: Predator (2006, Xbox 360) - Ubisoft Montreal, Ubisoft
* Far Cry Vengeance (2006, Wii) - Ubisoft Montreal, Ubisoft
* Aion: Tower of Eternity (2008, Microsoft Windows) - NCsoft, NCsoft
CryENGINE 2
* Crysis - By Crytek: Finished; Release 16 November 2007 in Europe and the U.S.
* Crysis Warhead - Uses an upgraded version of the engine; Release on 12 September 2008.
* Blue Mars - Avatar Reality, inc. - gaming platform, similar to Second Life.
* ArcheAge - XL Games, in development (TBA).[3]
* Lightspire: Fortunes Web[4] - Lukewarm Media, in development (TBA).
* Merchants of Brooklyn[5] - Paleo Entertainment, Released: Mar 17, 2009.
* The Day - By Reloaded Studios.
* Project E:ST - By NHN and Polygon Games, in development and recently announced.[7]

That's not a bad list, but when you look at this picture makes it seem a whole lot more pathetic.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ee_2.svg/2000px-Quake_-_family_tree_2.svg.png
Specially when you consider that ID Tech 3 (Quake 3) licenses are still being sold!

CryTEK produce tripe. End of.

 

Pretty much this. It seems that, when it comes to gaming, the boys at Bit-Tech just seem to enjoy trolling us.


Probably why I dont read BT's game reviews...


EDIT: Crysis is only boring to play if you play it boring. If you just stalk around in cloak, sniping off a couple of enemies, hiding for a few seconds, rinse and repeat of course it's gonna get repetitive. Use all the weapons, vehicles and suit modes available and combine them and you can have a riot.

 

I'm with BT on this one. I find retrospective articles entertaining and that they contain genuine opinions expressed well. Moreover, I actually agree with them all, so far! That probably has something to do with my inclination to support the articles!

I loved Far Cry 2, in spite of its flaws. I was enthralled by BioShock. And although I recognised Crysis as a technical marvel, I didn't enjoy it much. Certainly I didn't find that it offered the amount of freedom that it professed to, or perhaps that it didn't make it easily accessible.

Oh, and to those complaining that the Crysis 2 preview focused on the X360 version, that might be because that's the only version that CryTek is showing off. I highly doubt that BT walked into a Crysis 2 preview, were offered a glimpse of the game on each of the three platforms, and then just decided to look at and report on X360 version exclusively. Unless they realised how much that would wind you up, and did it just for fun.

 

NVM

 

I do think Far Cry 2 was underrated but what you're saying about Crysis seems a bit extreme to say the least...

I remember the first time I played Crysis I had a P4 3.0Ghz and a 7800GT video card, I really enjoyed playing that game for the first time with my machine and people said that they set the bar too high but all I saw was my rig showing me better graphics than the current (BF2) games I was playing with about the same frames-per-second I was getting. So I believe you cannot judge the game by how your computer failed to render it, but about how well they optimized it for how good it looked in MEDIUM SETTINGS against other games at FULL SETTINGS.

Also, I enjoyed Crysis Warhead more than the original Crysis simply because they upped the WOW factor in the events that were happening. Psycho fit his role perfectly.

 

I think Crysis is like the Spruce Goose of PC games. Too heavy and over-built to get off the ground in a meaningful way, but still an important and pretty awesome piece of work.

The tricky thing is that people look at the graphics and they look at the requirements, and they forget about the game itself which was brilliant. A mostly open world, destructible terrain, multiple ways to tackle every set piece or confrontation, it is a gorilla among monkeys in the FPS genre for that alone. One time I had to assault some guys in a little rickety village, so I pinched a truck drove it into the buildings, smashed them to bits, dived out, lit the fuel tank of the truck on fire, turned invisible and legged it into some bushes to hide. Chaos ensured. It was beautiful. For that to happen in any other high end FPS it'd have to be scripted, and it'd the -only- way to do it. No FPS comes close to the freedom of engagement that Crysis has. I mean I've killed guys in that game by chucking turtles at them. I haven't enjoyed doing that so much since Mario Bros 2.

What Crysis suffers from most of all is people don't like the aliens, and with good reason, they're a bit arse and you can't get bored playing Predator against the Koreans. The aliens show up and suddenly everything feels a bit crappy. That's a pretty bad thing, because let's face it, half the game being weak is a pretty weak game all things considered. It was this mistake that Warhead largely fixed.

 

ATM information seems to point to crysis 2 being independently developed for each format (PC, 360 and ps3) If so then the PC should have stunning visuals. As for who cares how it will perform against halo.......Halo is the biggest thing that happened to consoles. Arguments for Halo3 vs the original crysis are pointless since both are effected by system rather then each games merit. If a game is successful its because it sold copies. Thats how the industry works. Good games sell copies with the exception of EA titles (you know what im talking about). If a game is successful its got to make a developer money, a good game gets a good review and good sales. While exceptions occur success isn't totally exclusive of sales. Halo is the best selling game on the 360. Like GTA3/Metal gear solid/Forza/ Gran Turismo/Mario....Halo is a title that sells systems too. Will Crysis manage that feat too?

On the topic of mods, where does your opinion stand on STALKER? If it wasn't for mods then than game wouldn't be half as fun. Oblivion Leveling system was good but limited. It dictated how you played the game but the mods added an extra dimension in the sense you make it more exciting with high level enemies appearing at the start so the main quest had to be put off. The original leveling system suited casual gamers while the mods made it personal (finally got what I mean lol). The same with Crysis. Its not unknown that developers didn't how how people would use the suit but to be fair making armour make you invincible for too long or being able to outrun, jump, stealth, would make the game too balanced. The limitation in power for the suit kept the game balanced meaning advanced planning was needed before an assult.the suit could change the flow of a battle but it also kept it tense if you screwed up stealth and had no power in the suit to get out. So many oh heck moments followed by a huge sense of gratification after escaping, repositioning and finishing the enemy either by sniping, explosives, guns blazing or again a wait and use stealth ninja style. Yes it had short commings but embrace those and you have one of the most exciting games ever. Far Cry 2 was great fun to but broken up with boring travelling and eventually repetive action. Crysis could be completed in so many ways and the story wasn't too bad.Half Life had an alright story but summing it up its not that exciting. Crysis was made to feel like a situation developed, something changed and the gamer must adapt. Im one who liked and loathed the aliens. First time I hated them but realised that North Koreans where easy, comfortable enemies. I could control and dominate them. The aliens on the other hand put me in their shoes. the controlled and dominated me. I could just go for a head shot and call it a day. I couldn't just cloak up and pick them off, they where too tough for that. I think that introducing them actually effectively changed the whole direction of the game well.

Source and Unreal engins where and have been improved on over time where as Cry engine launched straight in an attempt to beat them. Maybe if more games adopted it, it would of been optimised better. Hopefully Cry engine3 is more optimised, at least similar levels of detail would be nice. Until it releases there is no point in judging. If it is gonna push systems, at least make it a noticable improvement to justify it.

I just hope that those who didn't like crysis also don't like single player in CODMW1, MW2 and WAW. In my eyes they where shameful!

 

I'd like to point out that I've done exactly the same thing in Far Cry 2, many times. True, the buildings don't collapse. And it's a Camoflage Suit, rather than an Invisibility mode, but still. Truck, crash, dive, blow up, hide, confusion.

There's nothing in your description which would have to be scripted nowadays.

Also, there's a difference between being able to knock down huts and trees and true destructible terrain.

 

And that's why we score Call of Pripyat etc very harshly. When it was first released it was unplayable. We revisited it after and found it fun, giving an improved score, but still...it needed mods.

I don't see where the question comes from really, as the logical answer is held within it. Without the mods, Stalker wasn't half as much fun. Mods were good. Stalker was OK. You can't add those two qualitative statements together and announce that Stalker is amazing.

 

I was always a bit possessive of my vehicle in FC2 since it was a long walk anywhere if you couldn't find another one so my weapons of choice were flare gun, flame thrower and sniper rifle. Pepper the camp from a distance with flares and catch the fleeing mercs with the rifle before going and cleaning up with the flame thrower. Done!

 

I don't really like the tone of these articles. They are either glowing with the highest praise, with the faults being glossed over, or full of the lowest of insults, with only the faults being focused on, and perhaps even exaggerated.

 

Not to get too snarky or anything, but couldn't the same be said of some of the comments?