After 7 years Crysis is sitll the most impressive game. Are consoles to blame?

It's dated as all Hell now, but for a number of years it was incredibly impressive.

A lot of textures and models look low quality. But yeah could probably still pass as a current gen game if you show it to some one who is new to gaming and doesn't know what's what.

Notice that after the Nuke, the mountain is gone. No console FPS has that level of interactivity.

That's not better.

Looks dated as ****. OP must not play newer games.

Star Wars Battelfront and Star Citizen blow Crysis 1 out of the water several times over.

wat?

@MonsieurX: lol

@loco145: I can name about a dozen games that shit all over Crysis on console and PC... Stop with the nonsense.

@MBirdy88: Um most high budget games on consoles look significantly better then the original Crysis so wtf are you talking about?

Tell me on which console game you can nuke whole mountains.

Corridor shooters with limited interactivity.

When people are still bitching about games like Crysis and Halflife almost a decade on, it's usually a sign of greatness.

Its graphics were impressive at its release but they aren't now. Mostly just trees and destructable objects. I wish there was more of an appealing game inside of it... i remember playing it for literally 30-40 minutes, shooting down trees and shooting a crab thing on the beach and never playing it again. Most games lure you into the storyline right at the start and its great, this game lacks that momentum.

@loco145: Even open world games look better now.

A PC gpu can be more powerful but eventually games won't support it, while a console will still get support. If you buy a top of the line card right now I bet some later games won't support it while the consoles at least get them.

Don't know why this was brought up, but yeah

None approach to Crysis level of Interactivity. And moded Crysis shits on games Like console Fallout 4 and MGSIV.

I hear you mate. In my head even most PS3 games are still quite "new". :)

Crysis 1 is amazing. Why can't more games let you break things and trhow them off people? The physics in the game was the technical element that still holds up as impressive today. Because the graphics effects and models have been well superceded since.

@loco145: Not really, and games like Batman:AK , Witcher 3, Infamous SS and AC: Unity shit on Crysis.... Yes even the console versions. And Infamous SS has tons of interactivity and destruction.

Feel like we had this thread already, but yeah 7 years later, more importantly I'd rather play Crysis and its superb expansion Warhead over a shit load of action games since. That game is pure badass fuel. Ubisoft's attempts at Far Cry are pedestrian in comparison, largely because they don't make games to make the player feel badass, but more like a bitch. Blood Dragon not withstanding.

Crysis runs like shit though.

yeah that sub hd garbage IN multiplayer looks significantly better than an old ass game released three centuries ago. lmao CoD AW looks better than crysis... time to accept it and move on.

Lol @ saying mods are not valid.

Thats just console gamers salty because they dont have them.

@dxmcat: So I guess we can't use this as an argument? :(

Indeed, and it got ripped apart on release.

Lol, SS... Just sparks, literally.

Too bad it ranks pretty high in my top 10 most boring games ever list.

@loco145: You can blow up cars and part of the environment you are absolutely clueless.

.

Killzone 2 its better game

You need to buy some newer games like Ryse the best looking game on PC and the best looking game on console

Better yes, but significantly is a lie. And still lol at subHD garbage.

Crysis looks like an N64 game compared to Endor in Battlefront. (obviously an exaggeration but you get what I mean) It's just dated. The lighting and shading is really outdated. There is only a small handful of dynamic lights, the texture tech is outdated, it uses a very early form of SSAO (since it was the first game to use SSAO), it doesn't use any tessellations, the LoDing techniques are oldschool, and many other things.

It was a huge tech pusher in 2007 don't get me wrong. It's just not as good looking today. It has some nice vistas and a good overall look, but the details are just not there.

Did it? I thought it was critically acclaimed? 91 Metacritic and everything. It's one of the most free form shooters out there. It just has a run of the mill plot and a short campaign, forgetable multiplayer. The core gameplay is amazing though.

Users and certain sites (of particular note gametrailers) presented it as nothing more than a tech demo with mediocre game play, as well as damming the system requirements. Arguably, to this day it's still a punching bag.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyQTCeobZlg

Aside from an out of place flying section, it's still better than most fps today imo. This includes lauded games like Far Cry 3/4 which become quite repetitive.

That was 2007 and he was highlighting how little Call Of Duty pushed, look now. nowt changed.

Lacks quite a bit but it still holds up well. Modern titles have outright more complex surface such as the rock faces, tessellation, more effects, better shading, often a lot more on screen plus the AI wasn't great in Crysis.

That's what you get with a title that was designed to with the headroom to run on systems years in the future. A developer does that today with features that tank your framerate and they get criticised, i think that's part of the reason why we don't get a repeat of Crysis. Crysis was also only on one platform, multiple platforms = more work and plenty of developers are struggling these days so you just can't avoid the consoles most of the time.

oh please with your "lie", its not even in the same league... vanilla Crysis lighting is atrocious, everything looks washed out as fk. This is your subHD multiplayer, it shits on Crysis and badly

Crysis's level of interactivity? You mean the ability to knock down some buildings into a few chunks and move those chunks around? That's hardly that amazing and adds virtually nothing to the experience.

Crysis's renderer is extremely out of date. Even Crysis 2 had a better renderer and looked better from a graphic rendering side of things.

@silversix_:

No, it doesn't; look at that draw distance. Look at that small play area. Agreed about the lighting though.

^ ^ This X 10

So crush all the blacks, over sharpen everything, over saturate everything = looks great?

How can you compare the draw distance when KZ isn't open world... You want draw distance comparison, okay, look at games where its noticeable. GTA5, Just Cause 2, MGS5, Far Cry Whichever We're At, latest Ass Creeds etc. Not hard to beat trees and trees only cuz that's all Crysis had. There's literally not a single impressive thing left in Crysis, absolutely nothing. Finally. I never played this game when it was originally released *like most* and got it in 2012 on pc. Ran it maxed out without mods and it looked mediocre. Ugly game even for 2012 standards.

I feel like there's been a stagnation in graphics due to costs more than anything else. Game development costs are so high that developers are having difficulty turning a profit, so the only time you see step up in graphics is when it's an AAA game with graphics being a selling point.

Yes, and that's what makes Crysis so special that it came out 8 years ago and still looks great. Of course, it's outdated technically but at its best it still holds its own. And when you think about it the draw distance is still insane compared to games on consoles.

I think my eyes are bleeding from so much shiny blur... wah the fk lol who would play a game like that.

Crysis is far from the most impressive game at this time. Characters and vehicles look dated. Foliage, lighting, shadowing, physics and some buildings can still compete with todays standards if you unlock everything in the ini files but it is no longer graphics king anymore.

However , there are hardly any games that can match the foliage in crysis though. Maybe battlefront.

Either way, consoles did indeed slowed graphical advancement but they did forced devs to be more creative and that's a good thing as well. The x360 and ps3 were released a bit too soon, had they've been released a couple years later we would have much better graphics and consoles right now.

The ps4 and xboxone are an abomination when you look at other generations but it was expected after the all out war between sony and ms back in 2005-2006. I only hope nintendo brings us back to the old glory days because the pc is going nowhere anymore at this time or it is for specific mouse and keyboard games, mmorpgs and vr but the consoles are already tapping into that vr market as well.

A lot of hermits won't like to hear this but crysis was the pc's swan song for mainstream games. It gained some ground again when the 360 and ps3 were end of life but it probably won't have that chance this time with nintendo's nx.

Crysis even without mods shits on any 7th gen console game but it can't compete with modern games anymore, although it can still look good with mods.

Yeah but Crysis 2 was streamlined like **** and it just ruined the experience. Being able to interact with almost any object in view and use it to accomplish something in the game is absolutely a form of superior interactivity. It doesn't matter if those houses or trees are pre broken, you can still kill enemies with them which means it affects gameplay. I could play the first level of Crysis now exclusively using objects in the level in maximum strength mode to kill people.

It's not as detailed as a modern game, but it still feels more free form than games like Far Cry 3 and 4 even today. Yeah there may be more context sensative mechanics in a game like Far Cry 3, but no where near as much player expression.

As usual the poo heads on the internet miss what's actually good or bad about something. It's the same with games like Uncharted or The Last Of Us. It had a well told story, so people auto jumped on the 'good story, bad gameplay' bandwagon. Yeah it's linear like CoD 4, but according to these people the games are completely useless at everything but the cutscenes, and that just isn't true. Crysis got the same treatment because it looked so good. As if that's all it excelled at.

It's one of the few games that showed what better tech could do for gameplay and not just graphics. It's actually a sin that no shooter since has done what Crysis 1 did.

@silversix_ said:

@zeeshanhaider said:

@silversix_ said:

@zeeshanhaider said:

@silversix_ said:

You must be on drugs to believe Crysis looks good for today standards. Old console games like KZ SF destroys Crysis on any setting.

lol that subHD garbage.

yeah that sub hd garbage IN multiplayer looks significantly better than an old ass game released three centuries ago. lmao CoD AW looks better than crysis... time to accept it and move on.

Better yes, but significantly is a lie. And still lol at subHD garbage.

oh please with your "lie", its not even in the same league... vanilla Crysis lighting is atrocious, everything looks washed out as fk. This is your subHD multiplayer, it shits on Crysis and badly

That screen shot has a draw distance of about 30 feet, if you fired a missile there it wouldn't even impact on the wall in the background because everything beyond the rocks is nothing more than a matte painting. That's not including it exploding and causing damage to the surrounding area, I doubt the trees would even wobble let alone blow down. It's not just graphics that Crysis done really well.

Use a better game than Shadow Fall for a comparison.