I don't really get all this console hate that seems to fly around. It is not the console's fault neither the console users fault that exclusive PC development is on the slide. It is more to do with the large publishers realising that they can release a 'one size fits all' product to several markets simultaneously. Thus saving themselves a sackful of development costs and generating a healthy increase in profits. They know it's going to sell anyway so it's an easy decision to make. Crytek themselves said after the last release that they were focusing on multi-platform releases. Unfortunately the excuse they gave was piracy when in fact the real reason was probably revenue. As for the leak, the developers and publishers really need to keep a tighter control of their assets - if they are that concerned about piracy then they need to get their own house in order before blasting the PC community. Personally I suspect it was a deliberate leak to allow them to put their toe in the water. I'll probably buy it, but I will wait for some reviews first before I decide wether to buy it on PC, 360 or PS3. If they have given it a PC lick and splash and optimised it better than previous releases then I will probably get it on the PC. If it is a straight port or people are having a nightmare getting decent framerates at high quality then I'll get a console version.
Any opinions on the crysis 2 beta game? I finished the game and even though it's probably the coolest game I've played, I cant help but feel Crysis 1 is the better game. Crysis 1 is a perfect game to me, here's why... the variety in gameplay in crysis 1 was perfect, at the very beginning and end of crysis 1 the missions were linear, then in the middle they had missions that were completely open, sandbox gameplay that were very fun to play. And the gameplay was always more important and dominant then the story, as it should be, if all I wanted was a complicated story then I would go see a movie or read a book, it's a game, open sandbox gameplay is important. Next, the locations in crysis 1, again there was a good variety of maps in the game, 1st the forest, 2nd the sci-fi element, inside the alien, 3rd the ice maps where everything was covered in ice, and 4th the big battle on a ship. Fantastic variety in maps. And lastly the characters in crysis 1 were believable with fun personalities. Crysis 2 on the other hand, ALL the missions have linear, choreographed gameplay with paths that trigger cutscenes all the time. There was nothing really sandbox about it, and the maps were very small. Felt more like call of duty then the brilliant crysis. The story felt too dominant in the game, and seemed more important then the gameplay, I felt like I was playing this character just to keep the story happening rather then to experience amazing gameplay with freedom. Even though shooting at aliens in New York is amazing, The locations were very limited and got boring after a while, and it was more of the same thing, you slowly just watched the city predictibly become more destroyed as the game continued, similar to cod mw2. The characters in the game weren't very interesting, and enjoyable, neither was the story. I found it a little confusing at times. But don't get me wrong, I did love the game, it just isn't a perfect game like the original. The aliens in Crysis 2 are better then the original, just wish there were more missions with the pinger alien, I love shooting that alien, I don't know why they didnt put them in the last battle. Crazy. Crysis 1- 9/10 Crysis 2 - 7/10 Let me know your thoughts.
Crysis 1 was FAR from perfect iv played the leak on my mates computer, and prefer it even with locked DX9 buggy graphics, a vast improvident, but im only really buying for the MP, Crysis never really did a fantastic job on the SP side IMO
I'm sorry but have you seen Gunsmith's videos? Seriously, my first playthrough of Crysis I thought it was a fairly open and pretty but generally normal shooter. After watching Gunsmith's videos though it opened my eyes to just how awesome the open environment and the AI are; it simply allows for so many possibilities besides just running in there with your guns out (how I played it on my first run through). It inspired me so I'm now doing a run-through of Crysis seeting myself the challenge of not using any guns, it feels so awesome taking out a large group of KPA by using guerilla tactics to constantly sneak around and pounce on the ones at the back. I've tried to ignore people's comments about the Crysis 2 beta but it has made me very worried that it's going to be much more of a corridor shooter (admittedly it's quite likely due to the urban environment). It makes me want to cry to think that Crytek (ironic) might not be releasing another game with similar mechanics to Crysis, because at the moment it's got me hooked.
I agree with Telltale Boy. One of the good things about Crysis (and to some extent Farcry also) was the open world. Unfortunately a lot of FPS developers are going down the Call Of Duty route with thin corridors and stupid event sequences. What was also good about Crysis was that with each objective it was pretty much up to you how you achieved it. What I hate about CoD and MoH type games is that you have to complete the objectives as per the script. I have not played the beta/leak but it would be a shame if they have gone down this route.
"Crysis" is like having having a pr0n movie being directed by Steven Spielberg and Pixar. Too much resources for an OK game. And yes, the game underselled because it is pants....
sorry but i really cant be arsed will this conversation again, there is already massive thread somewhere that turns into just Crysis fanboys Vs Crysis haters... Simply i didn't like the SP, was more of a chore getting though it than fun.
Fair enough. I don't want to start an argument over Crysis, i've just got into the state recently where I've got into the game so much I can't understand how other people don't feel the same.
Ah, personal appeal is God at the end of the day; "no accounting for taste", as the saying goes. How I interpret it is like this: people have different interests and tolerances. One person will like certain qualities and be able to ignore certain flaws; another person will like and ignore other ones. Crysis is a good game if you like exosuits, stealthy gameplay, fast thinking and adaptive tactics, jungle environments, pretty graphics, responsive AI, small caliber guns, and so on; it's a good game if you are able to ignore repetitive visuals, repetitive weapon types, sluggish vehicles, realistically tough combat, fiddly controls, a steep learning curve, and so on. If you happen to like rocket launchers, easy gameplay, colourful visuals, fast movement, a lively soundtrack and you happen to hate jungle environments, guns and realistic damage, Crysis will just be irritating and unappealing to you, while UT3 will blow your mind. What was a good game for one person is suddenly not a good game for another. This is my working model for explaining all game and film taste. It works magnificently well to explain discrepancies in opinion (which are everywhere and limitlessly huge). Try it yourself, test it on any raved-about film you hated, any game you loved that all your friends despised, any fad you happened to not understand at all or trashed-on work that you thought was brilliant. It explains everything. It also dicks on any notion of totally objective quality and it's made me realise that the best reviewers are the ones that describe a film/game's features and weaknesses, rather than describing how much they liked it. And that numerical scoring systems are a total farce, at best vaguely correlative and at worst totally misleading.
1. The AI isnt that great now is it 2. you must love zero-punctuation then he hates all games apart from portal.
Yesterday I was going to try and add something similar to this but I gave in. forums often turn in to consoles vs pcs, win vs macos, etc. After reading your post, I would add one thing. Crysis is, what you make it to be.
I’m not massively into gaming anymore – odd bit of PC and Console gaming does me.. The fact some PC games have been slightly held back due to being ported from console doesn’t bother me much, i like both formats for different reasons. Love that i can plonk myself on the sofa, whack on the Xbox 360 and play a game in a very comfortable position. Also love playing a good FPS or Strategy game on the PC, as a keyboard and mouse give a far better experience for those type of games.
So true. I really like the way that you can play it either mostly stealth or mostly 'guns-blazing' (for the KPA levels at least) but you can never get away with relying entirely on stealth or entirely on gunplay. For what its worth, I think that's quite a hard balancing act to pull off -- few other games have (only Deus Ex springs to mind). Very sorry to hear that Crysis 2 seems to have been watered down a bit with simplified suit modes and smaller areas, but hopefully it will still be good fun.
Ugh guys ain't it obvious? they just want to make DRM to be marketd all over the gaming industry, by making this a false excuse... whats wrong with all of you? you know they get paid like hell these guys do...
All the game devs I've seen wear jeans and t-shirts and look very layman-like, so I don't buy into this myth that they're massively loaded and that gaming is hugely lucrative. They're in a business of small profit margins (like any legitimate business) and piracy does dent them. Nobody knows or bothers to find out exactly how much, and it's true that in some cases it may actually help them, but you'd have to be a fool to think it has no effect or that it's just a 'stunt'. For better or worse, every piracy leak like this will translate into a change in business for the developers. (I'm not a business student or anything, but this is just common reason.)
