Gaming Crysis Was Terrible

I can understand the want to spur a discussion, but that shouldn't be a front page article. The article is not up to the level of professionalism that bit usually has, and should have been a blog post. The fact is, no matter what side the article is or discussion it's trying to start, it doesn't belong as a featured article, especially with the baited title.

 

I disagree with this article - I liked Crysis, I loved it actually. Fact, it had (has) huge requirements for GPU. I couldn't play it on very high settings, so played on high, dx9. I still loved it. Beautiful graphics, open jungle, new features - great game. I do not care about most of the disadvantages that people throw at it - like enormous requirements, stupid ending mission, linear character of the game... It doesn't matter so much for me in this kind of game - it looked amazing, gave me a lot of pleasure (uuuuuu...) running around in the jungle and shooting enemies. Sniper rifle, granades, all the gun and suit features - massive advantages of that game. Seriously, I loved it. Played this games 3 times, from the beginning to the end, I go back to it every year, never got tired.
Crysis 2? Well, I loved the jungle scenario - New York? I dont know.. I hope it won't push me away, but when I think more beautiful graphics, more action, more new features - I'm in! First I may need ne graphic card I guess, but what the hell - I never played a game on lower settings than max (first time Crysis was an exception) - I don't see reason to lower settings to make the game playable - if my system cannot handle it, I won't be playing, cause for me playing game and enjoy it fully as it was made is to play on full details...

So the title of this article - "Crysis Was Terrible" - BS! That is my opinion...

 

The industry didn't adopt CryEngine2 partly because: 1) it wasn't proven, only used in Crysis basically, 2) it wasn't multiplatform, 3) they wanted way too much for it, and 4) it didn't have unreal editor . Most studios nowadays can't afford to only develop for PC, they need the income from all platforms.

 

LOL good timing for the Steam one day only Crisis & Warhead 50% off!!! It's a special EA week with different sales every day.

 

Wonder if we will get more review pieces trying to tear apart good EA games.

 

Those are the reasons why the studios never adopted the engine, but it doesn't change the fact that it wasn't adopted, nor that that lack of adoption is a crying shame (pun intended).

 

I agree with a lot of what this article says, but find myself wishing the writer would cut some slack, too.
Not to get into a theoretical phsyics debate but if Crysis fanboys were 'matter' then this article would be 'antimatter' - That's how I see it, it's just another silly extreme at the other end of a spectrum that needs some moderate opinions vocalised in the middle.

I personally had an absolute blast playing Crysis. The first half of it, that is. Once the combat with Aliens begins, I quit - Just as I did when the Trigens showed up in Far Cry.
I don't know if Crytek are arrogant as the article claims, or if they're just incompetent when it comes to balancing a shooter where the player faces non-human enemies, but it's that very reason that totally erases any interest I have in Crysis 2 despite enjoying at least half of the first game.

It should be noted that I was one of those people able to enjoy Crysis at its release date but don't mistake this for a swing of my epeen.
I played the game on C2D E6600 and 2x 7900GTs in SLI when it was realised. Even back then that was a modest-to-good gaming system, not a beast.
Sure, I missed out on some eye-candy but as Xtrafresh pointed out the game scales very well with settings toned down (and still looked better than contemporary titles), but the fact that I still enjoyed it plenty says something about the game's substance beneath the graphics too, I think.

To sum up, this article makes some very valid points about Crysis, many of which I can agree with wholeheartedly, but it seems to go overboard like an anti-fanboy and the title reeks of tabloid sensationalism.

 

Im late to this party, but....

"Was it good looking enough to justify the ridiculously high requirements to run it though? Not really. The Unreal Engine 3 was producing visuals at the same time that, while quite not as stunning as Crysis', were certainly extremely good; and the same can be said of what the Gamebryo Engine did with Oblivion and Far Cry. Even the trusty and now-ancient Source engine can be pretty jaw-dropping in Half Life 2: Episode 2."

NO NO NO NO and NO. That you dare mention ue3 and good graphics in the same breath is a travesty, its shiney evertything and low textures galore, gamebryo does outdoors very well but people terribly, and hl2 ep2 looks SHARP because the art design was good, NOT anything to do with its ropey engine. Its high def textures and thats IT.

 

Screw this discussion. Some people like Crytek's game design, some don't. Now if only the "don'ts" could just accept that fact and stop this pointless, endless bitching. So you didn't like Crysis and/or Far Cry. NO ONE CARES. Get over it. A lot of people did and no amount of frenzied whining is going to change that fact. So accept it and move on without subjecting us to these pointless debates.

Why these people think their opinion is so important, and need to shout it from the rooftops as loudly and rudely as possible, is beyond me. Just avoid boxes with "Crytek" on them and save all of us some grief.

Why am I irritated? Because these rants are provocatively rude by nature. It's not "I Didn't Enjoy Crysis" or "I Thought Crysis Was Terrible", it's "Crysis Was Terrible". Like it's some kind of fact and those of us who liked it are the defective ones.

Read the Metacritic score and cry. That opinion is marginal.

 

I've decided that perhaps my over-defensive tone perhaps isn't for the best and, as Xtrafresh has pointed out in PMs to me, I'm probably coming across as a smug dick lately. I will address the last point, about there being better FPS though and say that that question wasn't meant to summon an exhaustive list. It was mean to go specifically to Meanmotion who - as Meanmotion acknowledges - doesn't play all that many FPS.

Other than that, feedback has been taken on board.

 

If BT is going to hire people who have no clue to slag off one of the best games in the last 20 years they should just stop talking about games. Stick to hardware and modding, this year has seen BT give friggin MW2 a 9 and great games like Shattered Horizon a 7.
Now some clown comes along and talks crap about Crysis. CRYSIS FFS!!!

Whatever, huge disappointment this year with the editorial staff, you guys are shooting yourself in the foot so much its a bloody stump.

Yours in Crysis 2 Plasma,
Star*Dagger

 

BTW, I honestly do NOT know what game this "reviewer" played. I did all the things he said that are not possible, try harder.

S*D

 

Personally, I thought Crysis and Warhead were great games, packed with atmosphere and gorgeous visuals, better than average A.I., a beautiful setting and a sedate pace that allowed you to play the game without being pushed from one set-piece to another if you chose. The physics and believability of the environment made this game feel a cut above most other first-person shooters in my honest opinion. It wasn't perfect, the system requirements to run it looking its best were high - I only now have a PC capable of running on Very High at 1920x1200 with 4xAA at 30-60 fps - and the end fight was just plain rubbish.

I really don't understand all the hatred for this game at all; as a single player game I'd definitely put it above lesser games like Call of Duty: Modern Warfare and its sequel and it was a big improvement on Far Cry. Hell, I'd list it as my favourite first-person shooter just to be different!!!

 

i hope you discuss this article in the next podcast, when is that likely to be by the way i always look forward to them

 

While I personally didn't enjoy Crysis I will recognise that there hasn't been a single player fps since then that tops it in gameplay since, which is just depressing really (come onnnn HL2 ep3). Will give it another run through before Crysis 2 however.

Oh and Cryteks next game is a 360 exclusive. Sigh.

 

Constructive criticism-

I read bit-tech website on a daily basis and get the custom-pc magazine when I can find it when it comes out. First up I enjoy both and love the way it really is a community in that the magazine and site compliment each other and all the staff are readily available on here. I remember taking a survey (can't remember if in print or online) about the direction bit-tech and custom pc should take. At the time I was fairly happy hungrily soaking up any new tech know how I could (and can), tbf this is where you boys excel. What I have noticed in recent months is I'm finding less and less stuff out for the first time from bit-tech, other tech websites are full of news long before bit-tech, computech being a recent example, there was no buzz about the coverage and articles like that on the eee pad were covered by other websites long before they were on bit-tech. The fact that the whole computer world was gearing up toward E3 yesterday and bit-tech lead with an article about a 3 year old game (my views on, I've already expressed on this thread) is another example of poor news coverage. Other sites seemed to have found more to talk about re these events.

Following this my other bone of contention is bit-tech and custom pc's gaming sections. Again a heavily onesided viewpoint on a 3 year old game lead the way yesterday while othersites were starting to talk about the upcoming battlefiield Vietnam expansion pack for bfbc2. The custom pc mag doesn't fair much better in this dept as in only ever has one or two poor reviews at the back of it, tbh I seldom read them, and I like my games. I've bin trying to think about why and I think it's the format that one decent game gets a review some time after it's out and then a couple of crap games get a half page mention. I like custom pc as a tech mag, I consider this an area that could use a bit of work and I'd love to see flourish.

Lastly, tho the hardware reviews are great, there seems to be little follow up a month on when all the hype settles. Readers see original reviews and think wow that crosshair iv looks great but search crosshair iv and heat issues online and you'll see asus have a big issue with the north and southbridge coolers on the board. Issues such as these only come to light with use and potential buyers don't see mention of these issues reflected in the review (obviously this would have to work as a "second look" addition to the review)

Anyways constructive criticism finished, that's how I'd fill in my survey if I were doing it again. I know it's a bit off topic but seeing as everybody is using this thread to vent frustration and it has your attention I thought why not!

 

Having never played crysis i cant really comment on the article, but with it being £10 on steam ive finally decided to buy it and give it a go, not only because its on sale but also from watching Gunsmiths walkthroughs.

My question to the author would be does he think crysis was that bad it isnt worth having in your game collection?

 

To be fair this game was a blast, still get it out every now and then just to marvel in the glory of the first level. Also - it's not a 360 exclusive, it's coming out on 360, PS3 and PC.

Also: Call of Pripyat I forgive you, Crysis Was Terrible! //Something has madly gone wrong!

 

I have to agree with this article, great graphics and ideas but I just stopped playing once I realised how bored I was.