Gaming Crysis Was Terrible

Hey, at least it wasn't Halo.

 

that would have been a good way to bring everyone together, we could have all torn it to pieces.

 

the game was good, it went crap as the aliens showed up.

 

May I ask what the point of this article were? A forum thread in the gaming section, sure. But an entire article on the front page just for someone to express their feelings about a 3 year old game? Please don't start making articles just for "padding".



Anyway, my opinion:

Crysis was never anything more than a tech demo. It never claimed to have class-leading gameplay either. However, they did manage to create a simple (talking game play here) shooter that was fun to play and that worked well on a computer, unlike the consolified crap companies make these days.

And since they have been mentioned in this thread I just have to comment on two other games as well:

Bioshock: Wonderful visuals, but my god did the game play suck... Claustrophobic levels with very boring enemies only broken up by the big daddies, which were fun the first couple of times but quickly turned into a proper annoyance.

Far cry2: Nice level design, but horrible game play. They should really make more than 5 missions in a game that big.

 

I think crysis was brilliant...up to the last few levels, I only played it through to the end once, but i occasionally pick up one of the mid levels from time to time to do a GTAesque rampage which I think is what its best for really. The main problem is that if it wasnt for the amount of hype it recieved it, this article probably wouldnt even exist. The bar Crytek set themselves was too high and much like STALKER the end result would be a decent game in itself, but unfortunately nothing close to what they set out to achieve. IMHO the only studio that has lived up to the hype behind they're games is Valve and they have quite rightfully set the benchmark for every other game in the same genre as the Half-Life series...just look how many people have mentioned Half-Life in this thread.....

 

These retrospective articles seem to do a good job of being the polar opposite of my opinion. Every time.

gg

 

I agree that Crysis sucks. I thought that I was the only one that didn't finish the game. Or care to, really. In fact, I reloaded it about a month ago and reached the same conclusion. Only a lot sooner than before. (Ditto, BioShock. The stupidest game ever.)
Fallout 3? I've only played it 3 times. I also chose to not actually finish it, so what I'm actually saying is, I've been playing this game for almost 3 solid years, straight! It's such a great game that I doubt that the upcoming Fallout New Vegas will possibly be worth a damn. Sequels, or even completely new rewrites such as New Vegas, so very seldom are.
This "commentary" didn't belong on the front page, either.
Computex 2010 must've really been a yawner if something about it couldn't have been found to replace this critique of a relatively very old game. I've been waiting to read something interesting out of Computex 2010.
Well...? I'm still waiting.

 

I played this game. Didn't like it much. never replayed it.

I just replayed Half-Life 2 and got all achievements last week.


Also yeah. this article was a bit pointless. but then again Computex didn't bring anything impressive to the table besides "lets try to capitalize on Apple's success with the iPad by making a copy of it which really falls flat in every area."

Too bad E3 is the same. Lets copy Wii.

Why do the consumer electronics giants hate us consumers so much?

 

Urgh, not another one of these articles.

I could understand it if you're playing it for laughs like Zero Punctuation - and I assume there is a little bit of tongue in cheek at play here - but when it's not actually funny it rather defeats the object. As other readers have pointed out, it just reads like something you'd get in the Daily Mail; a few facts and figures twisted out of all recognition by a huge dollop of opinion.

Yes, Crysis wasn't perfect (just as Far Cry 2 wasn't the worst - just very bad) but it is clearly one of the best FPS of the last several years. Graphically it shits on everything else - to say otherwise really exposes the lack of knowledge backing up this piece - and gameplay-wise it was a consistently fun challenge that steadily rose in difficulty. if you couldn't master the different suit powers then that really just shows up your skills as a gamer.

Oh, one caveat. I agree about Warhead. How anyone thought that was better than the original, I do not know. More frequent and intense battle sequences does not a better game make.

 

Crysis wasn't terrible it just wasn't outstanding (bar the graphics).

 

Whilst I often find myself leaping to the defence of Bit-Tech with unnerving zest due to some clearly misguided and unfounded loyalty to the games Ed, I have to join rank and say the title kind of ruined the article.

Had it been entitled "Crysis was Disappointing", and all the text kept identical, I don't think you'd have half the number of people complaining. Crysis wasn't terrible. Big Rigs Over the Road Racing was terrible. By Bit-Tech's own score guide, saying Crysis is terrible means thus:

I'm sorry, but Crysis did not fall into this category. Enough of these inflamitory articles, we don't come to Bit-Tech for fanboy bating, we come for balanced debate, and this clearly wasn't that.

 

Crysis one of the best FPS of the past few years? Really? Out of interest, which other FPS' have you played in the last 18 months and which you're comparing it to?

It's also worth pointing out that at no point does Craig say Crysis has bad graphics; he merely questions the performance most people get (which is why we still use it in GPU testing) and, to a lesser extent, the quality of the content which is presented.

 

I agree Crysis was great it's one my favorites. This is truely new low for Bit-tech i used come to this site and enjoy ready the articles but now it's just pure crap. What happen to the professional quality reviews and articles. Bit-tech is now the National National Enquirer or computer hardware sites.

 

What in the last 18 months betters what you described as ->

"it’s a fantastic game"
"fact that Crysis is a masterpiece"
"Is Crysis a great game? Yes, in fact it’s better than that. It’s a fantastic game and you’ll have a lot of fun playing it. "

from the crysis review conclusion page

 

My enduring memory of Crysis is lolling at i31 with Tim S as we watched Bindi punch a chicken, before walking away feeling properly ill from motion sickness because of all the blur. Then we went and played World in Conflict - as good looking a a game, and much more fun.

Crysis was great for a few minutes but it had no longevity.

And for what it's worth: I think this was a well written article and I enjoyed reading it. Not exactly "From Sand to Shelf" but still good bit-tech worthy content.

 

I knew that would come up. So, I'll say that standards change over the years, my personal opinion isn't always the same as the one in a review or score (Just look at The Path's review/score, for example), that I've always admitted there are reviews I'd change with retrospect (Just read Far Cry 2) and that I never claimed to be infallible.

Regarding other points, I still think what Craig has written stands up well and that's reflected in the comments from people who agree with him, but I'm also taking on the reader feedback.

 

Oh FFS. I can understand the point of the piece, you disagree with the mythical place in our memories that Crysis has. But to state that any other engine comes anywhere close in the way of making things look good does nothing but prove that you lost the plot.

The real outrage is not how bad Crysis is, it's that there are no other games that use it's engine. You know, proper games. You argue that Crysis is a tech demo... yes it is! So what did the industry do with it? They ignored it to make console-ports instead.

You argue that the game didn't run on any existing machine when it launched. I disagree: yes it DID run. It scales beautifully if you tone down the detail, unlike something like GTA IV that doesn't seem to respond AT ALL to any of the settings. On the lower settings, it's as good as the best that the other engines have to offer, and it runs just as well. That's where the other engines stop, but the CryEngine 2 has more graphics on tap if you have more GPUs on tap. I honestly can't see what a PC-enthousiasts-website could have against a game that rewards people for owning high-end hardware.

And last, but definately not least, i'd expect just a tiny grain of gratitude. In a very real way, you owe the existance of your job to Crysis. Crysis inspired us all to start chasing those FPS, pushing our systems, and reading benchmarks. The fact that it's been almost three years, and there isn't ONE game on the radar that could beat the CryEngine 2 when it comes to wowing us on the graphical front, should have you up in the trees, but nooooo...

Get a grip Craig, and please let Bit-Tech be a voice against consolification, and not for it.

 

So what in the last 18 months betters it, BS2, stalker 3? anything without a number on the end

 

I appreciate a retrospective on these games is relevant content, I just don't think the tone of this piece does anyone any good. To fail to acknowledge almost any of the games merits is a deeply flawed approach that can only be justified if you're playing it for laughs and at best if its a quick ranty blog post. As a planned and presumably researched serious article it fundamentally fails.

Hehe, you know it's not many. Perhaps 'better' would've been a more appropriate choice of words. Certainly what it is not, which is inferred by the article, is one of the worst.

Nor did i say he did. I said he implied that other games were equal, which on a technical level they weren't. Other games use nice textures, lighting tricks, and, yes, good art direction to make certain elements look nice but from a core tactile feeling of the enviroment you're in being real, few games I've played comes close to Crysis.

 

hear hear!