Crysis is better than Killzone 2 and Halo 3

I did a Video on Youtube to proofing that Crysis is better than Killzone 2, Killzone 2 looks not bad but common Crysis owns the Game in every category. Where is Halo?, well for me is the game not even worth to put it on my Video and do comparisons and to mention it in my Video.

Thats all my opnion how you see you the things?`????

grab flame shield & take cover... you are up against 2 armies of fanboys :) and trust me its better keeping them as allies :P

goodluck

(btw i think all 3 games you mentioned are great, different but worth playing them all)

grab flame shield & take cover... you are up against 2 armies of fanboys :) and trust me its better keeping them as allies :P

goodluck

(btw i think all 3 games you mentioned are great, different but worth playing them all)

Malta_1980

crysis has very weak fps gameplay.dakan45

Crysis makes more fun you fight against north koreans and aliens

helghast are something like aliens but still humans

Better than halo yes, better than killzone 2 i doubt, crysis has very weak fps gameplay.dakan45

Why can't people get over the fact that Great Graphics /=/ Bad Gameplay? The best thing about Crysis is that it has both and it does them extremely well.

[QUOTE="dakan45"]crysis has very weak fps gameplay.Doom_HellKnight

[QUOTE="dakan45"]Better than halo yes, better than killzone 2 i doubt, crysis has very weak fps gameplay.nintendog66

I didnt said it has bad gameplay, i said it has weak fps gameplay its not a pure fps its a fun game but not a pure fps like killzone 2.

Whatever you say man, whatever you say and ubesoldier is a good fps with that logic :roll: its like saying the best fps is a fps that weapons dont take the main role of the game, no thanks thats not a pure fps.dakan45

i think all shooters have bad gameplay in general,

Hexen and the old Dooms are still the best out there

thats why i prefer to have better graphics

[QUOTE="dakan45"] Whatever you say man, whatever you say and ubesoldier is a good fps with that logic :roll: its like saying the best fps is a fps that weapons dont take the main role of the game, no thanks thats not a pure fps.Doom_HellKnight

:roll:....:( You missing my point completly, its not about linearity or anything like that, its about having a stupid suit and the combat feel weak for a fps. FPS= First person shooter, shooting is not done right in crysis it feels awfull. All the abilities are fun, but when i want to just "shoot stuff" which is what makes a fps fun in my opinon, id play either killzone 2 or cod4, either by my own of multiplayer with a friend, id rather do that than throw chickens around :lol:

In games like half life or quake 2 or killzone in ps2 i had fun to play the campaign or mp with a friend, crysis just isnt like that.

i think all shooters have bad gameplay in general,

Hexen and the old Dooms are still the best out there

thats why i prefer to have better graphics

SLIisaownsystem

Crysis has amazing graphics and great gameplay i find in an overall improvement over farcry.

johnny27

i think all shooters have bad gameplay in general,

Hexen and the old Dooms are still the best out there

thats why i prefer to have better graphics

SLIisaownsystem

Yeah i agree all those have bad gameplay compared to doom 2, quake 2 and half life.

I did a Video on Youtube to proofing that Crysis is better than Killzone 2, Killzone 2 looks not bad but common Crysis owns the Game in every category. Where is Halo?, well for me is the game not even worth to put it on my Video and do comparisons and to mention it in my Video.

Thats all my opnion how you see you the things?`????

SLIisaownsystem

Obvious fanboy is obvious.

You have a video called Flower sucks and Crysis has better graphics.

It's also obvious that you have never played Flower since when you talked about it you had pictures of flowers.

Nothing to see here, just another PC fanboy that only cares about graphics.

Edit-LULZ, it has a 1 star average out of 11 ratings.

i dont like the english language, for some reasons that i cant tell.

[QUOTE="SLIisaownsystem"]

I did a Video on Youtube to proofing that Crysis is better than Killzone 2, Killzone 2 looks not bad but common Crysis owns the Game in every category. Where is Halo?, well for me is the game not even worth to put it on my Video and do comparisons and to mention it in my Video.

Thats all my opnion how you see you the things?`????

Stumpt25

:roll:....:( You missing my point completly, its not about linearity or anything like that, its about having a stupid suit and the combat feel weak for a fps. FPS= First person shooter, shooting is not done right in crysis it feels awfull. All the abilities are fun, but when i want to just "shoot stuff" which is what makes a fps fun in my opinon, id play either killzone 2 or cod4, either by my own of multiplayer with a friend, id rather do that than throw chickens around :roll:

dakan45

[QUOTE="johnny27"]Crysis has amazing graphics and great gameplay i find in an overall improvement over farcry.

dakan45

[QUOTE="dakan45"]

[QUOTE="johnny27"]Crysis has amazing graphics and great gameplay i find in an overall improvement over farcry.

badtaker

[QUOTE="badtaker"][QUOTE="dakan45"] I find it worse, far cry was so much more fun for me....

dakan45

read again ""Crysis has amazing graphics and great gameplay i find in an overall improvement over farcry.""""""" you said """"""I find it """worse"""", far cry was so much more fun for me""""""""".

crysis's gameplay is fantastic for people like me sick to death of the ultra linear and scripted cod type fps. for me its the best shooter this gen by a mile.

ive not played kz2 but id say its definitely better than halo 3, even though i did really enjoy it

I did a Video on Youtube to proofing that Crysis is better than Killzone 2, Killzone 2 looks not bad but common Crysis owns the Game in every category. Where is Halo?, well for me is the game not even worth to put it on my Video and do comparisons and to mention it in my Video.

Thats all my opnion how you see you the things?`????

SLIisaownsystem

I got 3/4 or so through Crysis and got bored. Grabbed a new PC installed it, got about 3/4 of the way through it again before getting bored. I don't think there were any major leaps over Far Cry. I felt like I should have loved the game but for some reason I found it tedious. I enjoyed KZ 2's MP and the SP is good enough. I loved the original Halo but hate two and three. Still, I don't think Crysis is a better game than those two. I was mostly disappointed with the physics in Crysis; they didn't live up to the hype for me.

It's a shame that it got as much credit as it did and tragic people are still bringing up the game as much as they do. If PC gamers are going to praise the superiority of their chosen platform there a half dozen games for the PC this generation that make a much better case.

I got 3/4 or so through Crysis and got bored. Grabbed a new PC installed it, got about 3/4 of the way through it again before getting bored. I don't think there were any major leaps over Far Cry. I felt like I should have loved the game but for some reason I found it tedious. I enjoyed KZ 2's MP and the SP is good enough. I loved the original Halo but hate two and three. Still, I don't think Crysis is a better game than those two. I was mostly disappointed with the physics in Crysis; they didn't live up to the hype for me.

It's a shame that it got as much credit as it did and tragic people are still bringing up the game as much as they do. If PC gamers are going to praise the superiority of their chosen platform there a half dozen games for the PC this generation that make a much better case.

Kiyobear

Better than halo yes, better than killzone 2 i doubt, crysis has very weak fps gameplay.dakan45

[QUOTE="dakan45"]Better than halo yes, better than killzone 2 i doubt, crysis has very weak fps gameplay.skrat_01

Yes it has weak fps gameplay, re-read my above posts to understand what i mean "pure fps gameplay"

"Crysis core strength is the sheer density and complexity of its game design."

EXACTLY all these not its fps gameplay.Well in call of duty 4 and killzone 2 the "core stregnth" of tje game is the fun fps gunplay which is done right. Not their linearity or their psychics you so much complain about , its the godamn shooting which is fun in killzone 2 and its not fun in crysis, therfore its fps gameplay is weak!!!!

[QUOTE="skrat_01"][QUOTE="dakan45"]Better than halo yes, better than killzone 2 i doubt, crysis has very weak fps gameplay.dakan45

Run and Gun, circle strafing, collecting pickups, and killing many, many creatures with powerful weapons.

Your definition of 'what is FPS gameplay' is completely flawed in this regard, as none of these games are 'pure shooters', they are all hybrid designs from a variety of other shooters that bent shooter design conventions.

Which makes Crysis just as much of a shooter as all of these games, despite is much more complex design.

And run and gun is very enjoyable to me in Crysis, enhanced by the scope of level design, and flexibility of the nanosuit, and weapon modifications (on the fly). The dynamic A.i. also enhances this.

Reality is the shooter has evolved far beyond its original conventions, which is why games like Serious Sam and Painkiller, that relate back to shooter design conventions almost two decades old stand out.

And no that does not fit the definition of 'weak' in design.

Quite frankly shooters such as Killzone 2, relying on strict level design and scripted 'awe' sequence, following general shooter conventions are much more weak in design, relying in high production values, to enhance the experience.

A shooter that defines traditional and popularised design conventions such as Crysis, realising something much more complex and compelling is an example of strong design in the genre, despite its own flaws.

I got 3/4 or so through Crysis and got bored. Grabbed a new PC installed it, got about 3/4 of the way through it again before getting bored. I don't think there were any major leaps over Far Cry. I felt like I should have loved the game but for some reason I found it tedious. I enjoyed KZ 2's MP and the SP is good enough. I loved the original Halo but hate two and three. Still, I don't think Crysis is a better game than those two. I was mostly disappointed with the physics in Crysis; they didn't live up to the hype for me.

It's a shame that it got as much credit as it did and tragic people are still bringing up the game as much as they do. If PC gamers are going to praise the superiority of their chosen platform there a half dozen games for the PC this generation that make a much better case.

[QUOTE="dakan45"][QUOTE="skrat_01"]No it doesnt. It doesn't go by standard shooter conventions the likes that Killzone 2 do - copying titles like Medal of Honor AA and Half Life in design (its that dated). Crysis core strength is the sheer density and complexity of its game design.skrat_01

Run and Gun, circle strafing, collecting pickups, and killing many, many creatures with powerful weapons.

Your definition of 'what is FPS gameplay' is completely flawed in this regard, as none of these games are 'pure shooters', they are all hybrid designs from a variety of other shooters that bent shooter design conventions.

Which makes Crysis just as much of a shooter as all of these games, despite is much more complex design.

And run and gun is very enjoyable to me in Crysis, enhanced by the scope of level design, and flexibility of the nanosuit, and weapon modifications (on the fly). The dynamic A.i. also enhances this.

Reality is the shooter has evolved far beyond its original conventions, which is why games like Serious Sam and Painkiller, that relate back to shooter design conventions almost two decades old stand out.

....and still generic fps like cod 4 are making more money.... :roll:

But whats the point anyway? Something more groundbraking will come out and then another cod will own it as usual, so why do we even bother?

You know what? forget about it ill just go play a fps that was made to shoot stuff like killzone 2 and not to throw chickens :lol:

Its like saying i dont like cod4 or killzone because i cant sneak up on my enemies and throw a chicken on the head or i cant drive vehicles.. Duh:shock: but fps games are not about that, they are about shooting stuff.dakan45

The original Far Cry felt much more open to me. Do I take this base from the west or the east? I actually found the game linear even though the world was open. It felt like a linear game inside a sand box to me.

I think having a gun, aiming and shooting is more "pure fps" than collecting ammo and using keycards in doom

"Reality is the shooter has evolved far beyond its original conventions, which is why games like Serious Sam and Painkiller, that relate back to shooter design conventions almost two decades old stand out."

....and still generic fps like cod 4 are making more money.... :roll:

But whats the point anyway? Something more groundbraking will come out and then another cod will own it as usual, so why do we even bother?

You know what? forget about it ill just go play a fps that was made to shoot stuff like killzone 2 and not to throw chickens :lol:

dakan45

And what has this got to do with money? Huh?

I think you are missing the point entirley.

COD4 is not a pure shooter, its a MoH:AA clone, as is the entire Call of Duty Series. While it pushes beyond its conventions in quite a few regards, its copies its design template at its core - however doing so extremely successfully.

This is the type of game that is very popular in this day and age, 'pure' shooter conventions were proceeded long ago when titles like Half Life and Medal of Honor, even Halo and Golden Eye hit mainstream popularity. Its not 'pure' design. Far from it.

The genre has evolved far beyond it being 'pure'. Which makes your argument about design completely invalid.

It doesnt matter if a game like Crysis *was* ground breaking in its design (it wasn't it was highly evolutionary), fact is its nowhere near as popular in design as a game like Call of Duty, which is the popular trend in shooter design today.

And because the option in Crysis is there to pickup and object and throw it - essentially using it as a weapon, its suddenly less of a shooter that forces you to hide behind a brick wall, and sit there waiting, right?

I highly doubt that either KZ2 and Halo 3 provide as much freedom as Crysis or as much improvisation. None of these games will be remember for their narratives though :P biggest_loser

Halo will be memorable to fans of the franchise and while I don't like any game in the series but the first I do like the Halo universe. KZ has great atmosphere at least. Crysis just... annoyed the hell out of me.

Crytek is going to make a multi-platform game and it will suck. PC gamers will say it's because they went multi-plat and consoles ruined the game. I say it's because they are a one trick pony; that trick being top notch visuals. Take that away from them and they are a mediocre developer.

The original Far Cry felt much more open to me. Do I take this base from the west or the east? I actually found the game linear even though the world was open. It felt like a linear game inside a sand box to me.

Kiyobear

Playing Crysis actually made me appreciate Killzone 2 more.

Story wise Crysis > Killzone 2

Voice Acting narration Crysis >>>>>>>>> Killzone 2

Gameplay Crysis =/= Killzne 2

Graphics...in some places better in Crysis in some places better in Killzone 2

Atmosphere Killzone > Crysis

Action/pace/setting Killzone 2 >>> Crysis

Over all either way

What happened to a fun experience?dakan45

What is fun to you, does not to equate to shooter correct shooter design conventions.

A game like Killzone 2 might satisfy what *you* want t from a shooter, but it sure as hell is not a 'pure' shooter, by definition of design.

A game like Crysis might not satisfy what *you* want from a shooter, but it sure as hell proves to be an excellent shooter by its own design.

Again I am not talking about what is 'more fun' I am talking about *shooter design*, defining and separating the two - correcting your statement that Crysis has 'weak first person shooter gameplay'

Reality is it doesn't.

You argued 'pure design' - reality is none of these games are 'pure first person shooters' in design, that the genre has evolved substantially.

And now you cite your own 'fun' which is, in your own subjectivity does not support your original argument at all.

All you are doing is highliting your own opinion on these games; what is better and worse *to you*.

And for the record Half Life as a shooter also blends interactive story design, puzzle, platformer and adventure and survival horror into its 'first person shooter design'. What you deem as an 'FPS done right' is completely subjective.

There is no 'right or wrong' there is good and bad design.

None of these games have bad First Person Shooter design, they are all different.

Hmm, Imo Crysis >> Halo 3 = Killzone 2 as far as overall quality goes.

for single player I agree it beats both Halo 3 and KZ2....but it doesn't beat Halo 3 in MP