Crysis gameplay vs other FPS

So similar abilities=/=tactics? Dystopian-X

A tactics system.

A tactics system.

A tactics system.

I'm not talking about little things you can do in the field, but about how the game orients you towards the different ways to complete a job.

You claimed Crysis forces you to use the same tactics as almost all other modern shooters. Despite the fact several abilities in Crysis are widely absent from almost all other shooters (armour, strength, speed), you've not grasped the tactics system is.

I have explained Crysis tactical system. You have yet to give me a single example of a similar system.

When you equip and use an ability in expense of another you are basically doing the same as switching and all that you are asking me to provide. Using different abilities=different tactic.Dystopian-X

In Bioshock, using a stealth Plasmid does not make you slower, or more vulnerable to bullets. You use it when you can, when you have enough EVE.

In Call of Duty, hiding behind a wall does not make you slower, or more vulnerable to bullets. You do it when you can, when you aren't seen.

These games encourage you to use whatever 'powerup' you can, at any time you can, with no adverse consequence to your proficiency in other areas.

Different ways to advance is also a tactic, even in those games I mention you can chose the way you will proceed.

Dystopian-X

Sigh.

[QUOTE="AAllxxjjnn"]

[QUOTE="killab2oo5"]

1. :roll: All the objectives are the same in just a new area, and the suit does not change things up at all. You either use armor or stealth to either Rambo or go Sam Fisher.
2. See point number 1.
3. I caught on to the A.I. Crysis before I got to the 2nd objective. In other games they atleast try to strategize to keep you on your toes.
4.How is the lack of variety in guns in a FPShooter a silly complaint? The guns are pretty much alike...need I explain how?

killab2oo5

1. I just proved to you why they are not. Go play Relic, then play Onslaught. They are not the same, not to mention the level design is entirely different.

2. Umm...i just told you why that's not the case.

3. You're still comparing open world AI to linear AI, that's fair.

4. It's a silly complaint because it has ALL the weapons you would expect to find in a near future first person shooter + the game has on the weapon modding.

1. >>' I fail to see how you proved me wrong. The suit does NOT add much variety to you're missions since each mission is basically the same so you use the same suit powers majority of the time...stealth or cloak, and sometimes strength. The open-world means nothing when you have linear objectives. Vehicles...sure. I found myself on foot most the time.

Go read your own post, dude. You said the levels are all identical, he proved your statement wrong by just posting the name of two entirely different levels. And about your current point, yes - you keep the same suit and have little to no upgrades throughout the entire story span. Again, you can say this for the vast majority of pureblood shooters - that doesn't mean that the campaign design in Halo is monotonous.

Unless you want to pull the simplification crap and say again that Crysis's levels are all about "lolz I go there from here and kill people along the way!". Sure, then you have to argue that STALKER's campaign design is no more unique than Call of Duty's. But of course, that kind of argument has zero logic to it, and as my second example shows, the conclusions that you must draw from that simplification are easily disproved.

i'd much rather play an actual RPG, than an FPS that just borrows a few RPG elements to try and make up for a completely generic single player campaign. I'm can't understand how with PCs "higher standards" it still received a 9.5.

marklarmer

Amazing. You're criticizing Crysis based on a simplification that can be applied to every other game in the genre.

I'm criticizing Crysis on this because there's people who claim there's tons of variety in the missions.

[QUOTE="killab2oo5"]

If you say so buddy...I tried as many ways as I could think of, but I never noticed a big difference in the option of stealth or rambo.

aliblabla2007

Two different ways to get to one objective, two different experiences while trying to get to that objective. It's not that hard to comprehend.

What are you comparing it to, anyway? Half Life 2? Call of Duty? Halo? You know, the shooters where you don't even have two different methods of playing to your goal?

Again, I'm comparing it to nothing. People claim you have tons of different ways to go about an objective, which isn't true.

Simply put...if the A.I. see you and you cloak then they'll be all "Wtfoot?" and walk towards you. If you shoot them from a distance they'll stumble after each bullet until you miss and they can run away, or they die. The A.I. never flanked me, rushed me, bombed me...etc. like the enemies will do to you in games like Halo, Rainbow 6, Fear...etc.

killab2oo5

First of all, you see this guy suddenly vanish into mid-air. You can't tell where he his, and then suddenly a shot takes the head of your pal and comes from seemingly nowhere.

There's a fine line between A.I. being believable and cheat-level that makes it proper A.I. - nailing the balance to make them seem like actual human soldiers is what Crysis did, unless you think that the North Koreans are all superhumans who can detect invisible soldiers with their uber sixth senses and respond perfectly to enemies vanishing into nothing and then popping out of nowhere shortly after.

If you see a guy vanish in front of you, a possible threat, you would wonder up to where he dissapeared? Even if you saw a gun in his hands? Why should EVERY enemy do this time after time? :| I would spray bullets while strafing backwards.

Also, I call BS on the second part, unless we've played different games. In the very first mission the A.I. lobbed grenades at my position while I was hiding inside buildings waiting for my suit to get back up, bringing the roof down on me. I can also recall plenty of moments where I've been pinned down in two-door buildings, and if I stayed too long, the NKs would bring guys on the door I wasn't facing and start popping shots off at me from the side/back.

Guess you're a bit slow with your trigger finger then. I always creep around the building, pick off the guy to the left...his friend comes to look and I get him. Go through the building and kill the guy that alerts for the jeep thing to come help out, and the boat rides off.

Wow this thread has turned into an utter cluster ****.

Crysis's story?

Really now....?

Its not *trying* to be good, from the start its clear its set to be something B grade, and high action. As predictable as the story is it works, and is told rather well. Sure its not going to win awards for it, but it was never trying to from the start - its there to hold the action together, and it does it well.

So what next, are we going to recognise Gears of War winning all of its critical acclaim for its fantastic story and narrative?

Really now people.

-

Another problem - fun. The term 'fun' works well in context of your subjectivity, but when you are trying to justify a game is lacking in quality, and you use the word.... 'fun'

- it undermines your argument entirely. Sure, there is nothing wrong with saying, 'well I didn't find the game fun', but when you try and break it down - 'oh the graphics are great, but the game is crap because its not *fun*' is simply dumb.

How about breaking down why the game was not 'fun' by looking at the damn gameplay and design so you have an argument?

i'd much rather play an actual RPG, than an FPS that just borrows a few RPG elements to try and make up for a completely generic single player campaign. I'm can't understand how with PCs "higher standards" it still received a 9.5.

System Shock = Crowbar, Wrench = Half Life That's two games that's present in, and you can't even throw them in that case.AAllxxjjnn

Do I have to start naming every single FPS that has a simlar melee weapon? Really? Like the Halo sword, shovels, and iron pipe in condemned, even TF2 has bats...

[QUOTE="Dystopian-X"]

So similar abilities=/=tactics? Danm_999

A tactics system.

A tactics system.

A tactics system.

I'm not talking about little things you can do in the field, but about how the game orients you towards the different ways to complete a job.

You claimed Crysis forces you to use the same tactics as almost all other modern shooters. Despite the fact several abilities in Crysis are widely absent from almost all other shooters (armour, strength, speed), you've not grasped the tactics system is.

I have explained Crysis tactical system. You have yet to give me a single example of a similar system.

When you equip and use an ability in expense of another you are basically doing the same as switching and all that you are asking me to provide. Using different abilities=different tactic.Dystopian-X

In Bioshock, using a stealth Plasmid does not make you slower, or more vulnerable to bullets. You use it when you can, when you have enough EVE.

In Call of Duty, hiding behind a wall does not make you slower, or more vulnerable to bullets. You do it when you can, when you aren't seen.

These games encourage you to use whatever 'powerup' you can, at any time you can, with no adverse consequence to your proficiency in other areas.

Different ways to advance is also a tactic, even in those games I mention you can chose the way you will proceed.

Dystopian-X

Sigh.

That doesn't change the FACT that the vehicles are there for YOU to use if YOU SO CHOOSE.

Crysis had two assault rifles...so what you're telling me is, those two felt the same...that's your complaint? Cause that's such a big deal right? Two weapons feeling similar.

AAllxxjjnn

Go read your own post, dude. You said the levels are all identical, he proved your statement wrong by just posting the name of two entirely different levels. And about your current point, yes - you keep the same suit and have little to no upgrades throughout the entire story span. Again, you can say this for the vast majority of pureblood shooters - that doesn't mean that the campaign design in Halo is monotonous.

Unless you want to pull the simplification crap and say again that Crysis's levels are all about "lolz I go there from here and kill people along the way!". Sure, then you have to argue that STALKER's campaign design is no more unique than Call of Duty's. But of course, that kind of argument has zero logic to it, and as my second example shows, the conclusions that you must draw from that simplification are easily disproved.

aliblabla2007

I brought up Crysis objectives being pretty linear because other people love to bring up how open-ended it is and how you can go about it any way you can think of. How many times do I have to say this?

You can keep calling the nano-suit abilities "tactics" all you want but they are still abilities.Dystopian-X

The individual modes are abilities/tactics, yes.

But the game only lets you use one at once, and it punishes your other abilities for doing this. This is the tactics system.

Crysis is a game which forces you to choose a specialization in a situation, and makes other tactics in that situation more difficult. This is unique. No other modern shooter does this, despite you claiming almost all of them do.

In Bioshcok you can use those if you have enough EVE just liek you said, but you could have used that same EVE for something else, some other "tactic". It's all the same.

Dystopian-X

No it isn't.

Bioshock wasn't centered around abilities being exclusive, or the abilities making you weaker. You could use both a gun and a plasmid simultaneously. In fact, the game encourages you to shock then shoot early on.

I said the OBJECTIVES are identical. killab2oo5

A 7.5 at least, at most an 8. Was just an average shooter

[QUOTE="killab2oo5"]I said the OBJECTIVES are identical. Danm_999

I'd give it a 9.5/10.AAllxxjjnn

I'm criticizing Crysis on this because there's people who claim there's tons of variety in the missions.

So elaborate instead of saying the same damn "objectives are all identical!" when they're not - look at Damn's post. Stating a claim three times over doesn't make it three times more truthful.

Again, I'm comparing it to nothing. People claim you have tons of different ways to go about an objective, which isn't true.

It's already more choice than most other shooters give you.

If you see a guy vanish in front of you, a possible threat, you would wonder up to where he dissapeared? Even if you saw a gun in his hands? Why should EVERY enemy do this time after time? :| I would spray bullets while strafing backwards.

I agree, professional military soldiers are so stupid they'll waste their limited ammunition on a target that did something completely alien to them.

How would they know that you turned invisible, huh? Do you think a human will automatically come to the conclusion that the guy's still there rather than being magically teleported away in front of you?

Guess you're a bit slow with your trigger finger then. I always creep around the building, pick off the guy to the left...his friend comes to look and I get him. Go through the building and kill the guy that alerts for the jeep thing to come help out, and the boat rides off.

Tell me how long it took and what you used to do that. I wager a combination of stealth + speed would give them about zero time to lob a grenade at a target that isn't staying put in one spot of cover, and it's rather hard to flank a moving target, y'know?

killab2oo5

[QUOTE="Dystopian-X"] You can keep calling the nano-suit abilities "tactics" all you want but they are still abilities.Danm_999

The individual modes are abilities/tactics, yes.

But the game only lets you use one at once, and it punishes your other abilities for doing this. This is the tactics system.

Crysis is a game which forces you to choose a specialization in a situation, and makes other tactics in that situation more difficult. This is unique. No other modern shooter does this, despite you claiming almost all of them do.

In Bioshcok you can use those if you have enough EVE just liek you said, but you could have used that same EVE for something else, some other "tactic". It's all the same.

Dystopian-X

No it isn't.

Bioshock wasn't centered around abilities being exclusive, or the abilities making you weaker. You could use both a gun and a plasmid simultaneously. In fact, the game encourages you to shock then shoot early on.

So basically all you want me to say is that Crysis is amazing because it supposedly makes you chose between one area while it makes you weaker in other. Then again, how is this concept new or revolutionary and not present in any other FPS? Sure Crysis allows you to do it on the go but that's not enough to call it all that impressive.

So elaborate instead of saying the same damn "objectives are all identical!" when they're not - look at Damn's post. Stating a claim three times over doesn't make it three times more truthful.

I repeat myself time and time again because people respond with the same statement of ignorance like..."Crysis doesn't not have repetitive mission!". Excuse me if I can't recall every event, but For the first 1/3 of the game you're just moving from point A to B...killing hostiles, and sometimes disabling something here and there like a computer, and for each given situation you can do the same thing over and over, and it'll be just as effective with the last mission. For a Change of events you get to rescue a hostage...whoop-de-doo. Later, you have to go through this linear ship with some of the worst enemies in any FPS...those aliens. To finish the game off, you kill a big alien. Go ahead and repeat yourself..."Explain how Crysis' missions are repetitive?!?!".

It's already more choice than most other shooters give you.

Why do you and other keep bringing up other shooters? We're talking about Crysis, not other shooters. People keep saying you can go about Crysis in a ton of different ways, but you can't. Please...read this a few times. I do not feel like repeating.

I agree, professional military soldiers are so stupid they'll waste their limited ammunition on a target that did something completely alien to them.

How would they know that you turned invisible, huh? Do you think a human will automatically come to the conclusion that the guy's still there rather than being magically teleported away in front of you?

Wouldn't they know somethings fishy when they started losing contact with other personel one by one? Why wouldn't the guy call for backup if they saw some guy just dissapear? Why would he walk towards the guy that dissapeared...why would each and every enemy always just walk towards the guy that dissapeared?

Tell me how long it took and what you used to do that. I wager a combination of stealth + speed would give them about zero time to lob a grenade at a target that isn't staying put in one spot of cover, and it's rather hard to flank a moving target, y'know?

Err, what? I used stealth only to pick them off. I only remember one grenade being thrown at me in the game, and that's when my powers were drained, my health was low, and I was hiding in a bush. It's a open-world game...it should be easy to come up behind a target to surprise flank.

aliblabla2007

In terms of FPS gameplay, I would say it's second to none.

So elaborate instead of saying the same damn "objectives are all identical!" when they're not - look at Damn's post. Stating a claim three times over doesn't make it three times more truthful.

I repeat myself time and time again because people respond with the same statement of ignorance like..."Crysis doesn't not have repetitive mission!". Excuse me if I can't recall every event, but For the first 1/3 of the game you're just moving from point A to B...killing hostiles, and sometimes disabling something here and there like a computer, and for each given situation you can do the same thing over and over, and it'll be just as effective with the last mission. For a Change of events you get to rescue a hostage...whoop-de-doo. Later, you have to go through this linear ship with some of the worst enemies in any FPS...those aliens. To finish the game off, you kill a big alien. Go ahead and repeat yourself..."Explain how Crysis' missions are repetitive?!?!".

Here's what I recall of the first few missions:

Jump onto an island, crash in the water because something screwed with your chute. Two pals end up dying, you have to find them and along the way your only "destroy" objectives are optional - the main one is basically "go fetch the bone, dog!"

THEN you got to get rescue this girl who tells you blahblahblah about generic old scientist, who you have to rescue.... by getting into some other place to find a bit more information, making your way to the doc, who proceeds to expire in a nice pretty cutscene. Then you have to evac, and how? Jump into a river while a chopper is chasing you, avoid it until you get something that can hurt it (otherwise known as hide, move, hide). Kill the chopper, then you encounter a group of Koreans in those ripoff nanosuits and kill them.

Yeah, lots of blowing up and popping heads. Big deal, its a focking FPS. The name of variety in that genre is HOW you kill people, not what you're supposed to do while killing people along the way.

It's already more choice than most other shooters give you.

Why do you and other keep bringing up other shooters? We're talking about Crysis, not other shooters. People keep saying you can go about Crysis in a ton of different ways, but you can't. Please...read this a few times. I do not feel like repeating.

Can't? That's the kind of judgement you have to make around STANDARDS. If you have nothing to compare it to, then how can you say anything about how well it does in that respect?

Say, Half-Life's story is above average for its genre but below average for gaming in general (example). How can you derive those judgements of quality when you have nothing to base them around?

Likewise, compare Crysis to an RPG and it will not seem like a "tonne". Compare it to most modern day FPSs with the exception of STALKER and you'll realize it has A LOT. You can't go around doing abstract judgements without a basis or standard for comparison.

I agree, professional military soldiers are so stupid they'll waste their limited ammunition on a target that did something completely alien to them.

How would they know that you turned invisible, huh? Do you think a human will automatically come to the conclusion that the guy's still there rather than being magically teleported away in front of you?

Wouldn't they know somethings fishy when they started losing contact with other personel one by one? Why wouldn't the guy call for backup if they saw some guy just dissapear? Why would he walk towards the guy that dissapeared...why would each and every enemy always just walk towards the guy that dissapeared?

Calling backup? Yes, they do that - admittedly its a script, but regardless, they still do it, and my memory of Halo CE doesn't have the grunts calling out reinforcements dynamically when I went after them in an active camo field. And yes, somethings "fishy" alright, that doesn't mean you go around spraying your bullets uselessly at what seems like thin air. People can't carry that many magazines, and considering the type of ammo they have it's probably not more than 90 rounds of 7.62mm - you can exhaust that entire package in less than half a minute by firing continuously.

And yes, say you vanish. Nothing happens. This guy slowly walks towards the point of dissapearance, planning to resume the firing when he feels the gun bump into something (and note that if you touch a Korean in stealth mode, he'll promptly go "waah?" and alert everybody). Would you think that standing there dumbfoundedly and keeping your gun trained on one spot (or even more impractical yet, wasting ammunition there) is an ideal tactic? Only one way will allow you to find out whether he's still there without him choosing to pop up himself.

Tell me how long it took and what you used to do that. I wager a combination of stealth + speed would give them about zero time to lob a grenade at a target that isn't staying put in one spot of cover, and it's rather hard to flank a moving target, y'know?

Err, what? I used stealth only to pick them off. I only remember one grenade being thrown at me in the game, and that's when my powers were drained, my health was low, and I was hiding in a bush. It's a open-world game...it should be easy to come up behind a target to surprise flank.

Great. Let's toss grenades at something we can't see! After all, we carry so much, like three of them! And yes, it's easy to surprise flank a target... when you're the one who's faster and sneakier than your enemy. And seeing as for the most part, the Korean's aren't invisible ninjas who can jump on buildings and bash the roofs in, it's obvious that the ability to flank is well in the player's favour.

Of course, I can attest to them performing all these things when I was operating at their speeds (like sticking myself in houses waiting for everything to recharge, then having a wave of 'nades tossed at me - of course, the Koreans, having such stupid and incompetent A.I as you say they do, didn't try to flank me while there were nades all around the building. They started moving in AFTER the walls and roof crashed down on me, again, a very obvious sign of bad A.I..

And for the most part, in the very first mission when you stumble upon that array, what I distinctly remember was the NKs popping off that flare as soon as I shot somebody. They ARE aware of what's happening - kill someone right in front of entire camp and they'll all go after you. Unless, like you said, you stealth your way through and carefully pick them off (your other suggestion leaves me to believe you just operate too fast for them to react, which is understandable.). That's something that modern-day forces can do without fancy cloaksuits.

Also, note that you are comparing Crysis A.I. to FEAR and whatnot. Sure, it looks bad when you do that. Then compare it to Call of Duty and realize that it's practically alive. Again, trying to argue without comparison is a no-no in these kinds of debates. The only times where you can do that are along the lines of "this is a chair.".

killab2oo5

[QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="killab2oo5"]I said the OBJECTIVES are identical. killab2oo5

So basically all you want me to say is that Crysis is amazing because it supposedly makes you chose between one area while it makes you weaker in other. Then again, how is this concept new or revolutionary and not present in any other FPS? Sure Crysis allows you to do it on the go but that's not enough to call it all that impressive.

Dystopian-X

You can argue 'hey Deus Ex had augmentations', but ultimatley its approach and execution was extremely different to Crysis's. Bioshock's is similar in this regard - you add abilities as you progress through the game and gain power as you continue - though abilities are aruably less varied to gameplay styles as either Crysis and Deus Ex - however yes the design of the game aims to be different.

Now Crysis originally had a design like DE - one more comparable to Bioshock; where you upgraded the suit each mission, so the player could focus on X playstyle, however this was abolished. It was done so in favour of *letting the player change their playstyle on the fly* depending on the circumstance or combat scenario. This makes Crysis a much more dynamic game, in terms of combat and gameplay compared to the likes of Bioshock - which while it does give you a lovely bunch of abilities to make use of, they are ultimatley focused on a single variety of gameplay style - direct combat - though this was intended in the games original design.

Crysis's design however is rather interesting in the regard that the developers, from the start set your abilities, and they are fixed for the entire game. This means that they can be rather creative with their level design, as they know these abilties enough to make each scenario take full advantage of them, rather than change design fundementals to accomidate new abilities for the player to learn.

Its proper shooter sandbox design, despite the linear structure.

um, yes? theres plenty of people comparing it to bioshock here in terms of gameplay.marklarmer

Bioshock is a shooter, that adds RPG elements to create depth.

Crysis is pure shooter, it does not have such RPG traces in its design.
Originally it did, the final design didn't.

Difference is Bioshock takes RPG elements from its predecessor - System Shock 2, and appears shallow in comparison, while things such as the RPG like morality system also seem to reflect on the shallow nature.

Ultimately Bioshock is designed and marketed as a shooter, with very light RPG elements - not enough to compromise what the developers (and publisher) had seen as accessibility and learning curve.

Now Crysis.... that is pure shooter. Just because it has abilities, does not mean its an 'RPG element'.... The only thing that really relates is the freedom in the design, however it lends itself much more strongly to the FPS genre in this regard.

[QUOTE="Magik85"]Good game with awesome graphics...still i find Halo3, Killzone2, Riddick, Cod4, Bioshock more enjoyable..actually even Far Cry 2 xDJangoWuzHere

Someone has bad taste...

I had about an hour of 'meh, just another shooter' and then I was hooked.

Look's amazing, is very immersive and the gunplay is rock solid.

The campaign is fantastic. Easily a 9.0. The design focus totally changes once it throws in the aliens, making it a little inconsistent, but it's fun throughout the entire game.

The multiplayer I'm a little iffy about. Instant Action is kinda lame, but I actually kind of like Power Struggle. It doesn't really have a serious multiplayer community, though, so it's hard to actually get a good game going.

I love the gameplay on Delta difficulty, it's smart, tactical, and exciting at the same time

Its a simple 'pros and cons' design system to stop the player from being truly overpowered, and be a bit thoughtful when approaching scenarios.

You can argue 'hey Deus Ex had augmentations', but ultimatley its approach and execution was extremely different to Crysis's. Bioshock's is similar in this regard - you add abilities as you progress through the game and gain power as you continue - though abilities are aruably less varied to gameplay styles as either Crysis and Deus Ex - however yes the design of the game aims to be different.

Now Crysis originally had a design like DE - one more comparable to Bioshock; where you upgraded the suit each mission, so the player could focus on X playstyle, however this was abolished. It was done so in favour of *letting the player change their playstyle on the fly* depending on the circumstance or combat scenario. This makes Crysis a much more dynamic game, in terms of combat and gameplay compared to the likes of Bioshock - which while it does give you a lovely bunch of abilities to make use of, they are ultimatley focused on a single variety of gameplay style - direct combat - though this was intended in the games original design.

Crysis's design however is rather interesting in the regard that the developers, from the start set your abilities, and they are fixed for the entire game. This means that they can be rather creative with their level design, as they know these abilties enough to make each scenario take full advantage of them, rather than change design fundementals to accomidate new abilities for the player to learn.

Its proper shooter sandbox design, despite the linear structure.[QUOTE="marklarmer"]um, yes? theres plenty of people comparing it to bioshock here in terms of gameplay.skrat_01

Bioshock is a shooter, that adds RPG elements to create depth.

Crysis is pure shooter, it does not have such RPG traces in its design.
Originally it did, the final design didn't.

Difference is Bioshock takes RPG elements from its predecessor - System Shock 2, and appears shallow in comparison, while things such as the RPG like morality system also seem to reflect on the shallow nature.

Ultimately Bioshock is designed and marketed as a shooter, with very light RPG elements - not enough to compromise what the developers (and publisher) had seen as accessibility and learning curve.

Now Crysis.... that is pure shooter. Just because it has abilities, does not mean its an 'RPG element'.... The only thing that really relates is the freedom in the design, however it lends itself much more strongly to the FPS genre in this regard.

[QUOTE="skrat_01"]

Its a simple 'pros and cons' design system to stop the player from being truly overpowered, and be a bit thoughtful when approaching scenarios.

You can argue 'hey Deus Ex had augmentations', but ultimatley its approach and execution was extremely different to Crysis's. Bioshock's is similar in this regard - you add abilities as you progress through the game and gain power as you continue - though abilities are aruably less varied to gameplay styles as either Crysis and Deus Ex - however yes the design of the game aims to be different.

Now Crysis originally had a design like DE - one more comparable to Bioshock; where you upgraded the suit each mission, so the player could focus on X playstyle, however this was abolished. It was done so in favour of *letting the player change their playstyle on the fly* depending on the circumstance or combat scenario. This makes Crysis a much more dynamic game, in terms of combat and gameplay compared to the likes of Bioshock - which while it does give you a lovely bunch of abilities to make use of, they are ultimatley focused on a single variety of gameplay style - direct combat - though this was intended in the games original design.

Crysis's design however is rather interesting in the regard that the developers, from the start set your abilities, and they are fixed for the entire game. This means that they can be rather creative with their level design, as they know these abilties enough to make each scenario take full advantage of them, rather than change design fundementals to accomidate new abilities for the player to learn.

Its proper shooter sandbox design, despite the linear structure.[QUOTE="marklarmer"]um, yes? theres plenty of people comparing it to bioshock here in terms of gameplay.Dystopian-X

Bioshock is a shooter, that adds RPG elements to create depth.

Crysis is pure shooter, it does not have such RPG traces in its design.
Originally it did, the final design didn't.

Difference is Bioshock takes RPG elements from its predecessor - System Shock 2, and appears shallow in comparison, while things such as the RPG like morality system also seem to reflect on the shallow nature.

Ultimately Bioshock is designed and marketed as a shooter, with very light RPG elements - not enough to compromise what the developers (and publisher) had seen as accessibility and learning curve.

Now Crysis.... that is pure shooter. Just because it has abilities, does not mean its an 'RPG element'.... The only thing that really relates is the freedom in the design, however it lends itself much more strongly to the FPS genre in this regard.

Crysis's customisation and abilities add extra dynamics to its fundamental shooter design.

Again its in the context of against titles e.g. Deus Ex - that I was comparing too, keep that in mind.

The most it lends to a role playing game is the freedom of choice in design.

What else, Hidden and Dangerous is an RPG Tactical Shooter as it has character profiles, skill upgrades, inventory systems, and freedom of approach?

All I am doing is recycling my previous statement.

So basically all you want me to say is that Crysis is amazing because it supposedly makes you chose between one area while it makes you weaker in other.Dystopian-X

I didn't ask you to make a good/bad value judgement. I asked you to realize how it is different from "almost all" other modern shooters. YOUR WORDS.

Then again, how is this concept new or revolutionary and not present in any other FPS? Sure Crysis allows you to do it on the go but that's not enough to call it all that impressive.

Dystopian-X

Again, stop sidestepping.

You said Crysis was the same as "almost all" other FPS. Whether it was the first to do this, whether or not you want to call it impressive are seperate issues. You called it the same as almost all other FPS in its tactics system and how it orients its gameplay choices. It isn't. You've failed to prove any modern FPS that is remotely like it.