Been replaying the first Crysis game on PC. Why doesn't today's games impress as much as Crysis?

It's been what, almost 10 years since the release of Cryisis, Crysis came out like almost 10 years ago and I look at games like Far Cry: Primal and Ark and I don't get why 9 years of tech improvements don't have must more impressive landscapes like Crysis. It was made on Cryengine 2 and we're up to Cryengine 4, and I still don't see games with landscapes that impress that much. Crysis 1 is still the best in the series and still looks great by today's standards.

Don't get me wrong, some of the Crysis games are good in their own ways, Crysis 3 was a huge improvements but just doesn't offers more freedom as the first game and Ifind Crysis 2 to be the weakest link.

So what do you gamers think? Have game developers giving up on trying to makes games as good as Crysis?

@davillain-: At first I thought the topic was about gameplay and planned to go "lol what" but then read and seems focused on graphics.

Well still disagree, many games look great. Vastly surpassing the original Crysis, but at the same time can see your point of view. Crytek is a graphically focused developer after all. And they put a lot of money and talent behind that one aspect of a game.

Ubisoft Montreal (the developer you compare them to) however make annual games, and overall have a different focus. You could even say they makes more games people want to play.

If you just want graphically impressive games? You won't find many still pushing the bar simply because gameplay matters more, and ultra detailed games are expensive. id learned this from D00M III being shiny garbage, and Crytek hopefully has due to closing studios for releasing games no one wants to play_

But a game that is looking very detailed (still in development) is a P.C. Horror game called SCORN by Ebb Software. It very well maybe the best looking game I've seen running in front of me. It looks great and recommend looking into the game.

However the gameplay is looking rough so I'm not expecting it to be very fun a game. But I like horror so will buy it on release anyway :P

Final note, didn't S.T.A.L.K.E.R come out near the time of Crysis? I recall enjoying that game far/ far more.

Cry Engine 1 and 2 were tech powerhouses, while 3 and I assume 4 are highly scalable console-focused engines, designed more around cramming games on underpowered system than pushing boundaries. It's also worth noting that FarCry doesn't run on the Cry Engine anymore, it runs on the Ubisoft Dunia engine, which is comparable to Cry Engine 4.

we rarely see anything as bold and ambitious in gaming anymore, particularly from large publishers who nearly always err on the side of caution. and it's to the detriment of fps and gaming in general.

i never quite get why people call crysis just a tech demo. if the game wasn't their cup of tea for legitimate reasons then fine but at least credit it for what it achieved and appreciate that few games have since come close to matching its ambition. the graphics were just the icing on the cake, although admittedly the finest icing we would see for several years

@Macutchi: Well it all comes down to taste and opinion I guess.

And the original Crysis wasn't exactly a bad game by any means, used physics in a decent enough way which outside of Red Faction wasn't seen in many games.

Can't say I liked controlling vehicles or even thought the enemy A.I. was intelligent. If anything that was the worst part of my experience.

Gameplay was nothing ground breaking but did the job on par with some other games of its time, though many simply did it better.

Crysis also gave you a lot of options without considering how they'd be used, resulting in an ill-balance.

However, Crytek as a developer only got more obsessed with the focus on graphical-detail and all games passed the first game and its expansion (haven't played) are arguably 'tech demos'. They even pride themselves on the tag line

"pushing the limits on PC specifications to achieve advanced graphics"

If you even look up the developer you'll come to the reality they only want to make pretty games, not games that play well.

But as stated, for those that want to push modern P.C.s raw power that SCORN game is looking to play the part as D00MIII and Crysis once did. Just don't expect it to be a classic.

*And sorry to fans that think so, I don't think the original Crysis is a classic. Best shooters of 2007 (imo) are S.T.A.L.K.E.R. and Bioshock.

Crysis is more well known for being a pretty game that overheated many gamers P.C.s, than a game that had great gameplay overall. And that's the legacy it has_

People can talk all the shit they want about Crysis 1, I still think it is one of the best first-person action games to come out since the Half-Life series. The gameplay is impeccable, flawless....the visuals are simply icing on the cake, Crytek really had something special there. Then they messed it all up.

If you're talking purely graphical then Crysis has been overtaken. Have you played The Witcher 3? Uncharted 4? Horizon? Battlefield 1? Heck, it is surpassed by its own series with Crysis 3 having far superior facial animations and textures (some of the best ever) and better environments too. You should play more games.

@RSM-HQ: I'm actually talking about everything in Crysis other then the graphics. While I will say that Crysis was the very first thing that got me into PC gaming in the first place back in 2007 despite I played few PC games like Half-Life, I wasn't always a PC gamer but replaying Crysis not too long ago, it just shows the game is still good by today's standards.

I own Witcher 3 on PC, I'd admit, it's an amazing game, one of the best RPG games I enjoy playing since Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic and I got to admit, Witcher 3 is sure a demanding game on PC. Battlefield 1 I played but nothing special about it but I did enjoy going back to WW1 and yes, I do play more games.

I couldn't agree more! Crysis is such a good game for an almost 10 year old game, no FPS comes to close but I will say, Doom 2016 was also fun by sticking to classic Doom as well and it was so well optimize.

@soul_starter: I believe DaVillain is referring to the jump of quality graphics, not that games don't look better now. When you think of how games looked in 2007 Crysis was in its own league, and arguably stayed that way for many years after.

However I think a hand full of games showed a graphical leap over the last few years. Metro Redux comes to mind as a very good looking game, though I'm sure Crysis 3 maxed out is still on par.

Regardless I really do feel SCORN is aiming for that label next.

Let us know how the gameplay is flawless, A.I. is some of the worst I've seen in a high budget FPS. And abilities are hit-and-miss.

@davillain-:

I'm actually talking about everything in Crysis other then the graphics

Well then I honestly don't get it. But I don't want to continue on upsetting people on the games they enjoy here. I'm starting to look like a jerk more than usual :P so I'll stop the negativity on Crysis after this. Heads-up sorry for being a buzz-kill.

Outside of graphics I don't believe Crysis did anything special. Didn't play the game till 2009 and really didn't get the appeal, it wasn't as bad as something awful like D00M III but outside of graphical detail and some nice set-pieces it was very average. And the A.I. was always stupid, as bad as the Thief reboot stupid.

S.T.A.L.K.E.R and Bioshock are more enjoyable 2007 FPS games. I played all three of these games in 2009 back-to-back. And Crysis is the only one I wouldn't replay.

D00M (2016) is my new bench-mark for top quality FPS games now (for single-player), and is so fun to play. And I could replay it again-and-again.

Can't say the same for Crysis, I would actually *sigh* if someone got me to replay it.

@RSM-HQ: Your not being a jerk at all. It's your opinion however you may think of Crysis and I respect it.

Your always okay in my books.

Played Crysis for the first time maybe a year ago... looked very good for its age but the gameplay didn't strike me as anything remarkable. But then again I had already played Crysis 2 and 3. So yeah.

yeah i know it's all opinions but all i was saying is some objectivity is needed. it's like when you used to say half life 2 was rubbish and massively overrated, i think it's fine not to like the game but at least show appreciation for what it did.

so what exactly was unbalanced about the game? and what are all these shooters from that time period with comparable gameplay that did it better?

as for ai, crysis was definitely a game that was more fun playing on the hardest difficulty but the koreans would hunt you in packs, fan out to pincer you in, react to torch flickers in the dark etc. etc... all much more intelligently than the splicers or big daddys in bioshock. stalker is one of my favourites too but hardly a game that had ai to shout about. and the mechanics, to compare the two, were far inferior to crysis'. weapons handled like pea shooters in vanilla stalker. stalker is a game whose whole was greater than the sum of its parts, thanks to its - similar to crysis - almost unique combination of gameplay elements, and incredibly chilling atmosphere. i mean, fine, criticise crysis by all means but at least hold other games up to the same scrutiny

@davillain-: If you're talking more than graphics then Crysis didn't really advance the genre much but it did introduce a more open and flexible game world in terms of fps, whcih was later used for Far Cry.

Far Cry was before Crysis.

@Macutchi:

it's like when you used to say half life 2 was rubbish and massively overrated, i think it's fine not to like the game but at least show appreciation for what it did.

I don't recall calling Half Life 2 "rubbish" please find the thread and quote me ;)

But did find it a tad overrated. As for showing appreciation for what they did, I recall doing that for Half Life 2. Maybe not in a thread you are thinking of but I have commended its use of physics and even way of story telling a few times in the GD Forums. I've also complimented Mario 64 for evolving 3D gaming, that doesn't mean I find it enjoyable. Difference is Crysis didn't pioneer anything outside of graphical standards like HL2 or SM64 did.

I know that when you are a fan of something and see a negative opinion the bad really stands out. Yet I have given Crysis the merits 'I feel' it deserves. If you disagree? that's completely fine. Please mention what it does best and discuss with fans. However try not accuse me of being unfair. I have given the game(s) due respect in a way I felt relevant to my experience.

What are all these shooters from that time period with comparable gameplay that did it better?

Already mentioned, Red Faction handled destruction better even as a vastly older game. Enemy A.I. I could write a very long list, and abilities. Bioshock comes to mind, but again I could name a lot of FPS games for this. However it's all opinions and I don't think continuing this will go well (plus I mentioned earlier I would stop the negativity). If you enjoy Crysis? Fantastic.

@RSM-HQ: I mean the Far Cry series with it's open world fps gameplay.

i was paraphrasing ;) you've clearly softened your stance since back then. you certainly weren't saying it was just a "tad overrated" lol.

i didn't say it pioneered anything, what it did do was marry up gameplay elements in a way and on a scale that hadn't been attempted before. no game i can think of fused fps and stealth genres so seamlessly, with such an expansive (and vertical) semi open world, destructible environments, myriad ways to achieve a goal, day and night cycles, great weaponry / shooting mechanics and controllable land and sea vehicles. my point ultimately was people being able to recognise what it achieved, despite that particular combination of features not holding much appeal to them

@Macutchi: Bah, poor excuse I want that link lol ;)

I remember giving details for what I didn't like about Half Life 2 in full, but I never remember roasting the game lol. To say I've softened my stance on the game is a misconception. My main point I always made about HL2 is it was clearly a game of its time, and because I didn't play the game when it was considered 'innovation' I simply see a lot of design choices fans overlook. I'm not calling fans nostaligic but they're clearly overlooking many things the game could have done better.

i didn't say it pioneered anything

Paraphrasing :)

See this is when the conversation gets hazy, as the second you brought up Half Life 2. It's the same as seeing Crysis and HL2 in the same light. One of these two clearly pioneered much of the FPS genre moving forward, even just physic engines in all games. And the other did not.

However for the sake of bringing it up to reflect my gaming criticism the two could not be further apart on what they did right and wrong. I would almost admit the fan excuse for HL2 "you had to play it at release to understand" is viable_

Crysis however does not have that excuse of a game-of-its-time. I played it not many years after, along with many 2007 FPS games. And Crysis is the one I feel does little special despite not being a D00M 3 shun-fest.

So it's worth reminding you I don't think Crysis is bad, (not the first one anyway) I just find the whole thing average from a gameplay standpoint.

no game i can think of fused fps and stealth genres so seamlessly

Deus Ex, great game. Though is technically an RPG.

S.T.A.L.K.E.R also heavily relied of stealth. If you've never played S.T.A.L.K.E.R: Shadow? I highly recommend you at least look into it.

@RSM-HQ: it was years ago, too far back to go trawling through your post history for ;) although i'm sure you said something along the lines of that half life 2's only achievement was being known as a game that was better than doom 3 lol.

and yep as said in an earlier post stalker is one of my favourite games. as a stealth game connoisseur i wouldn't class stalker as a stealth game, more a keep-the-f*ck-away from that guy / thing / area kind of game. one of my best moments with it was exploring a creepy, abandoned underground lab. i walked past a room that was pitch black in the bowels of the building and thought "ooh i bet there's some good loot in there." i took a step into the doorway only to hear this bone chilling low pitched roar come from the back of the room like thunder. i froze, and then ever so slowly backed out thinking "nope" lol. brilliant moment. always wondered what was actually inside

@Macutchi: No source kinda makes the mention redundant, though it would have been fun to see what I posted and how my English was back then :P

And oh no! I think a lot of games are better than D00M III, to me (and many) it's one of the most disappointing games of all time. And in many ways a glorified tech-demo.

Even with the cons I gave Half Life 2 it's nothing like ids failure. Well, I got some fun out of HL2, it just also had some problems that seem to trigger people who think it's the greatest game ever made. Would I replay HL2? Probably not, but I don't want to retread what I dislike about HL2, this is a Crysis Thread and am trying to refrain from continuing the negativity.

If I had to guess my ol statement it would have been "at least it's better than D00M III" but that's a long shot_

i wouldn't class stalker as a stealth game

You might be right but to be honest I always played S.T.A.L.K.E.R like a stealth game, perhaps I took the title too seriously, but it was oddly effective and I played all three games like that :) great games for sure and agree that you get some special moments in those games when you least expect it.