I never said the game sucks, I simply said it's not the best FPS this gen, or close to being the best. For me, the pacing was awful. Mostly because of the sandbox. You could go on for quite a while without getting into a fight, bored out of your mind. The level design was pretty good at times and pretty bad in others(the alien ship). The story was laughable. The vehicle segments were well..really, really, really bad. And again - I'm not saying the game is bad, but it's not even close to being the best FPS this gen, let alone the greatest game of all time.
waltefmoney
No what you did say was: The only reason they blabber about Crysis all the time is because of the graphics.
waltefmoney
Followed by: Nah, I mean Crysis is not even close to being the best fps this gen. Heck, it's not even close to being one of the best. Heck, it's not even the best PC FPS.
waltefmoney
As I have pointed out, I'd like you to show 5 shooters this generation that are progressive and inventive as Crysis, or have as original game design. These happen to be strengths of the game that puts it well beyond most shooters this gen, in a genre that has stagnated.Otherwise you are wrong about pacing. I don't care if you have found it awful; This is not Call of Duty, this is a completely different game by design, as far as a sandbox layout goes in pacing and providing player space, it is very impressive. I don't care if you didn't enjoy the game or found it boring, that's your opinion, simply you are wrong about it being poorly paced: as a piece of game design and level design; let alone something that is extremely unconventional, it is very well done.
The level design for most of the part is excellent. The player almost always is given enough visual direction and funneling to know where to progress, and in the better sections of the game, ample amounts of freedom (something extremely admirable and completely outside nearly every genre trope). The biggest issue is that the inventiveness and gameplay changing level design for the first two thirds is lost in the last; spoiling everything that made the game stand out.
Otherwise I am inclined to agree that one vehicle section being the VTOL bit was simply bad, and the on rails shooting section completely defied everything good about the game. These two are negligible compared to the amount of weight the positive aspects hold.
As I said about the 'story' "It's story is predictable, however it is well presented and decently told, despite lacking originality. It is a weak point, however as with shooters, this is not the driving force of the game; even touted titles like Bioshock dive into mediocrity after a certain point, while others like Halo 3 are so wound up in their own logic completely defy intelligent storytelling conventions (Call of Duty included)." You weren't playing the game for the story, or even the narrative, you were playing it for the gameplay.
The narrative carries the game well, however it is never the driving force compared to games with a narrative focus; it's biggest problem is how predictable and un-original it is.
If it's not close to being the best FPS gen then prove it.
Prove that the games originality and inventiveness, scope, polish and successful ambition (as well as obvious production values) somehow ARE NOT evidence of it being one of the 'the best' FPS this generation.
I do not believe in there being a single 'best' title, nor I believe in trivial point scoring like 'the greatest game ever'.What I do know is a games worth, and I do know when a particular title stands above others.
Log in to comment