Gaming Crysis Was Terrible

Crysis was quite enjoyable over all. I played it from start to end so it must have had something to hold me. The same can't be said of far cry 2. Lost interest in that rather quickly.

 

I should clarify, Crysis 2 is multiplatform, Cryteks game AFTER that is 360 exclusive currently called Codename: Kingdoms. Something with Gladiators, look it up.

 

Crysis, a huge blemish on PC gaming which led to a lot of PC gaming hate and ammo for console fanboys to use against the PC platform?

Interesting, I somewhat agree with the article. I though Crysis was just OK. Crysis was SUPER hyped and it appeared Crysis was the make or break of next gen PC gaming. Well due to the lack of story and gameplay it failed. PC gaming was given a black eye when it needed an AAAA next gen title.

Crysis could have put PC gaming back on top. Instead it lead to 3 more years of console lovefests. Thankfully I see PC gaming on the rise again due to cheaper hardware, exclusives from indie developers and Blizzard. Plus the platform is just better for certain genres.

 

come on, saying crysis was terrible is kinda a over reaction
i liked crysis why? it had a real story and a plot with aliens

when you compare it to Bad Company 2, you will see that crysis was alot better made, story and presentation wise

 

I am still waiting someone to explain how the gameplay was bad. It is betetr then most other shooters that have come out since, almost limitless possibilities, sneak in and sabotage a village? go Rambo? Assault it from a distance with sniper fire? Rush in in a vehicle? Plant expolsives? Seriously? how is the gameplay bad?

As for story, other then 1 or 2 games, name one shooter with a good story? it was more then good enough for the genre.

 

Crysis is the blame for the downfalll of the PC? LMAO, heard it all, i'd say consoles and Pc gamers are to blame really, the sales just aren't there. PC gamer whine for years for a game that is tailored to the highest of the high setups, then when it comes everyone complains you need a powerful rig to run it, devs can't win with Pc gamers.

 

Considering Crytek were initially favouring the PS3 I doubt this at all.

 

Seems another dev I will boycott. Ms and all that money hoarding for exclusives and timed DLC will still land them in third place once the PS3 surpasses the 360 in 2011. And abandoning the PC is something i won't forgive, considering without the PC there would be no Crytek.

 

Bit-Tech proving to me once again that is not a good Site for videogame reviews, I said this very same thing few months back.

I love Bit-tech, i love your articles about new tech, and the mods are just awesome to go through, but when i think about a source to read about videogames and make the decision of buying it or not, bit-tech is not my site. Here's why:

Crysis is a game wich bit-tech itself awarded a score of 9 back in 2007, that's right, nine, the review was full of words describing how awesome it is, how awesome the gameplay is and how great the open world escenarios is and all, and then, here's an article dedicated to how aweful the game is, how atrocious the gameplay is and aparently, what used to be the most openworld videogame for bit-tech, its now just a few levels with huge corridors. what's that supose to mean then, what shuld the readers think about that then.

That's the overall problem ith you guys reviewing videogames, at the end of any article we dont know if its good or not, if you enjoyed or not, is it worth buying it or not.

It has happen with fallout 3, with brothers in arms and many more.

 

crysis like pretty much every game i have ever played has its faults, but i dont agree that having graphics that "too good" was one of them.
i do however agree with the borderline inability to move while stealthed as a piss take, and yer it would have been brilliant to go into strength and punch a car 30ft backwards. all these would have been great but would have made the game way to easy. i personally completed both games very quickly as was. make it any easier and the game would have been a rip off. £30 and completed in 5 minutes is not a good thing.
again, it wasnt worth the hype it was given by advertisers and players alike, but still a decent brain switcher offer.

 

I normally don't post comments to sites, but I registered here to actually comment on this article. I personally LOVED crysis - I've never understood the hate on forums about it. I see people comment on how poorly coded it is to explain how it runs slow, but has anyone actually looked at all the shader effects it has going on? Nothing else comes close (maybe Arma.) Comparing the UE3 or Source engine to CryEngine2 just boggles my mind. Yes, those other engines look nice and I have no complaints, but Crysis is in a league of its own.

FPS are my favorite genre of game, and I personally can't think of any game I enjoyed more since Crysis' release. I enjoy the Half Life 2 Episodes when they come out, but they are so short and far between I can't even remember exactly what's going on anymore.

I loved almost every minute of Crysis (I didn't even mind the aliens so much, but they were not as fun as the earlier levels.) The objectives had you make your way to a heavily defended position where you could pick and choose how you wanted to attack it. The suit options were a total blast! And not being able to use them in tandem is just bogus. Using the middle mouse button I could easily speed to a shack, flick to strength to jump on top, then hit stealth as I landed to get in a good sniping position. The only ability I never really could pull off well was grabbing someone and throwing them with strength, because on delta difficulty it was pretty hard to not get shot up when doing it (unless it was the last guy.)

The delta difficulty I thought was terrific. Speaking Korean, no grenade indicator, etc. These were real difficulty changes.

I could go on and on about it, but I'll just stop by saying what others have said. This site itself gave the game a (well-deserved) 9, so I found the "Crysis was Terrible" article insulting and clearly designed to attract attention. I guess if you have to pay the bills, and need the hits, I understand, but these TMZ inspired articles don't sit well with me.

 

I agree, the game was mediocre. It was more a tech demo for how good your PC is, technically.

Also, the game engine (CryEngine 2) is poorly optimised and the fact that the best PC hardware today still struggles to run the game shows just what a failure CryEngine 2 was.

Crysis was an epic fail on all fronts and those who say it was a great game are just kidding themselves on or need to play more game out there.

 

As console owners foam at the mouth and wet themselves in preparation to finally play Crysis 2 it's so reassuring to hear that most PC gamers agree that Crysis was a mediocre Graphics whore of a game as I too found Crysis and Crysis Warhead to be absolutely boring.

I swear Half Life 2 still has the best facial expressions in any game and Crysis Looks great but was not optimized very well and that is proven by some powerfull DX11 cards still being unable to push Crysis over 100 Fps. tisk tisk Crytek for bad programming.

Hopefully after Crytek gets it's huge payday from (naive) consolers they will go back to the drawing bored and make Crysis 3 but improve the story, game play, optimized the graphics, and of course make a PC exclusive version and not some Crap Port.

 

Its one of the most popular fps of all time, and has an enormous level of publicity and fame and 2 websites devoted to its modding. Thats epic fail?

 

I agree that Crysis was all graphics and little else. But I also feel the same way about Bioshock. At least in Crysis there was some good gunplay, Bioshock barely has any redeeming features at all, to me. As a huge fan of the System Shock games, it's painful to play Bioshock.

 

Maybe we should have a poll on BT not talking about or reviewing games.

I mean this in all respect, it seems like you pissed off a lot of people here, and while panning things always plays well with the negative nancy coalition who are still running XP and a 7600 gpu, most of us enjoyed Crysis and how it moved gaming and tech forward.

So in all seriousness, consider NOT reviewing games, focus on your strengths, tech and interviews (some of which have been brilliant this year!).

Yours in constructive critical Plasma,
Star*Dagger

 

wow - now trolls write articles for bit-tech

 

Not reviewing games would never work. Games is the probably the most common thing alot of people use their PCs for if not the main in most cases.Theres always gonna be reviews you don't agree with (I loved Armoured core games they always got slated and MGS3, GTA:san Andreas and Killzone2 I all hated yet they're probably all "the greatest games ever"). I think the key is balance tho. This article was aiming to be negative and possibly an attemt to start a discussion rather than just get peoples backs up. Its an article rather than a full blown review. I think the best was to review a game is to take both extremes. Take Yatzee from zero puncuation. Hes negative for laughs but it often highlights the basic fact that game stories are very poor and developers often cut cornors. How many shades of brown did GTA4 have? Best way to judge a game for me is to have all the facts both positive and negative even if they're slightly exaggerated and then decide. If one person hates a game theyll slate it, if another loves it theyll ignore its flaws. Maybe the best is 2 or 3 people write independant reviews and then compare notes and give an average score. Only problem is this is very time consuming.

I donno the current set up or the total amount of staff bit-tech have but Im sure they use all the time they have as productively as possible. Since hiring staff is not going to be a possibility how about a section for user submitted articles? Would be good for any inspiring journalists out there and possibly some of the best even make it to the front page?

 

I do find it amusing as a fence-sitter in this argument that so many gamers claim to have intricate knowledge of just how optimized the engine in Crysis is or not.
The fact that it still gives poor framerates on modern hardware at extreme settings says nothing whatsoever about the optimisation of the engine.
All it says is that it's a game with extremely demanding content being rendered in real-time by hardware that can't cope with the upper limits of what the engine is actually able to render, reagrdless of whether it's well-optimised or not.

If Crytek had made the 'very high' settings max out around the same fidelity as we get from 'medium' in the actual game then I daresay 99% of these supposed experts would have no comment to make about the engine's optimisation if asked - And it still would've looked better than most of its contemporary peer games and many current Triple-A titles.
As others have said, the engine scaled extremely well downwards but the average mouthbreather insists on trying to play the game at settings beyond the capabilities of their hardware and blaming it on the engine when they get a single-figure framerate.

I'm not going to claim that the game is well optimized either because the fact of the matter is that the only people who can comment usefully on that are the people who have examined the game at source code level to see where optimisations could be made.

At least try to make arguments for or against the game that have a basis in experience, knowledge or reality; people.

 

This thread =