[QUOTE="Macutchi"][QUOTE="_Memento_"] LMAO, how on earth on is Crysis a leap forward for the genre? Pretty grafix don't make a game revolutionary._Memento_
he said step, and i would have to agree when you look at other games in the genre like ultra linear console games such as call of duty. definitely a leap forward graphically, and a step forward in it getting the non linear approach just right (see far cry 2 for an example of how to do it badly)
Just cause it's better than most of the current competition doesn't mean it's a step forward for the genre. All it does is point out the crappy state of the gaming industry. Fact remains that Crysis did nothing to move the genre forward in any significant way. All it did was improve on Far Cry in some ways, while also being worse than Far Cry in many ways. Half Life 1, System Shock 2, Deus Ex were revolutionary. Calling Crysis anything even remotely close to a leap forward for the genre is a disgrace.I wouldnt say Crysis was a leap but I defintely agree it was a huge step forward, part of that was because it WAS a tech demo, just like Farcry was when it first came out. However when I say its a tech demo I don't mean that in a bad way, the game was the most fun I've had in an FPS since HL2.
The main thing that blew me away was the physics.
Destructible Vegitation, Farcry 2 took it a step further with flammible vegitation, However in Crysis, if you shoot down a tree you can take the top of the tree and use it for cover, throw it at an enemy, or oncoming vehicle, or even take a fallen branch from that tree and beat the crap out of somebody with it, lol.
Or you can shoot down a tree and if it falls on the enemy it kills them or even if it falls on you , it kills you.
Moveable Vegitation was also a step forward, if you move the big plants in Crysis the AI will see it move as well and react to it.
Almost everything is interactive, and you can use as a weapon, all the shacks were desctructible. I was dissaponted that the C4/rocket launcher couldn't tear down the buidling concrete walls though. Cryengine 2 has the ability to do it they just chose not to use it due to gameplay design. ;/
The graphics actually affect the way the game plays out. IF you played it on low settings and didn't see the full foliage then you didn't experience the full game, there are certain areas where you can't see the enemies and vice versa due to the heavy foliage, it really adds to the intensity of the firefights.
But the best thing about Crysis is the way you can play however you want and if you are a really creative person you can and will have a blast.
Also the AI wasn't perfect but it provided tons of random situations which to this day keeps the game fresh and fun. Once I got pinned down in a house by an enemy who was firing a mounted gun on a jeep, I used speed mode and ran up to the truck changed to strength mode and proceeded to punch the crap out of the jeep, the enemy then got out of the jeep and ran away. In what othe game would that happen?
Other things that I had never seen before in an FPS include realtime weapon modding, grabbing enemies and using them as cover, shooting out tires from vehicles, day and night cycles, im sure theres more i just remember off the top of my head.
If you refuse to acknowledge any of that tech that actually improves the gameplay then your just a Crytek hater, and nothing can change your mind, oh well.
Oh and Bioshock was not as great as the console kids made it out to be, the corridors made me lose interest after 1hour and a half of playing it. 10years of corridor games is enough for me.
Log in to comment