Great graphics but crap gameplay.

[QUOTE="noswear"]hmm, probably lair. but definetly NOT crysis, anyone who said it's all graphics HAS NOT PLAYED IT.DustAmulet

Crysis. Oh and yes I own it.

Bouncer on PS3 immediately comes to mind. Alot of people thought that game was going to be godlike because of all the bullet time and kicking people through objects. That wore thin quickly and all you were left with was crap.

I'm glad things have changed, but back in the old days "great graphics but crap gameplay" was also known as a launch title.

Can any of the people saying that Crysis has crap gameplay specify why they feel that way?Zeliard9

Can any of the people saying that Crysis has crap gameplay specify why they feel that way?Zeliard9

Main reason?

Anything to do with being in a vehicle, outside of that I enjoyed the game to pieces.

Pokemon Battle revolution, not that Pokemon battles aren't good but just battles aren't enough on a pokemon game... heck pokemon stadium games at least had minigames and much more other things to do.

Gears of war, horrible "tactical" gameplay FTL

Zombie thread fun!

Can any of the people saying that Crysis has crap gameplay specify why they feel that way?Zeliard9

In short, Crysis was essentially FarCry with an updated SFX engine and a few tweaks. Gameplay wise, it failed to live up to the hype in any sense and wasn't even original: the "nanosuit" was essentially 11 years old! Jedi Knight: Dark Forces 2 had the whole speed up/extra jump etc."force power" in a FPS. And a damn lot more, too.

That said, I am only speaking SP here. I never, ever bothered with Speed. Strength was only used when required; as in forced to do so by progression points of the map. Cloak, I admit, was pretty fun providing the helicopter wasn't around. Armour was used 90% of the time. This was no System Shock 2, or even dare say Deus Ex. Most gratifying with gameplay!

Regarding weapons: they were uninspiring at best. There isn't much more to say there.

The entire game lost all redeeming features after Core. It could easily have been designed such that the essentials of the first half, in relation to the open fun of toying with human soldiers, could have been retained. The alien force need not have been what it was, and they are serious flaws of design and gameplay. Why bother to continue after that? Oh yeah: to finish it. And my, what a total insult of an ending.

Before I forget -- the graphics are supreme.

Oblivion.

Don't advertise your game as a deep RPG and then deliver an action/adventure

lair and doom3jaisimar_chelse

I liked Doom 3 :(

I respect your opinion, but I can still see myself loading up Doom 3 here and there in order to get the satisfaction of just blowing things away.

[QUOTE="jaisimar_chelse"][QUOTE="DustAmulet"]

[QUOTE="noswear"]hmm, probably lair. but definetly NOT crysis, anyone who said it's all graphics HAS NOT PLAYED IT.DustAmulet

Crysis. Oh and yes I own it.

no proof. not believing.

Crysis instruction book. Page 13.

"Switch the Nanosuit's energy flow to one of four modes - Speed, Strength, Armor or Cloak - to augment your capabilities and meet the changing situation in the field......."

I can play the game with half the settings on high, and half on medium.

Crysis sucks.

You not liking the gameplay does not make it bad.

Zombie thread fun!

[QUOTE="Zeliard9"]Can any of the people saying that Crysis has crap gameplay specify why they feel that way?einnalollington

In short, Crysis was essentially FarCry with an updated SFX engine and a few tweaks. Gameplay wise, it failed to live up to the hype in any sense and wasn't even original: the "nanosuit" was essentially 11 years old! Jedi Knight: Dark Forces 2 had the whole speed up/extra jump etc."force power" in a FPS. And a damn lot more, too.

That said, I am only speaking SP here. I never, ever bothered with Speed. Strength was only used when required; as in forced to do so by progression points of the map. Cloak, I admit, was pretty fun providing the helicopter wasn't around. Armour was used 90% of the time. This was no System Shock 2, or even dare say Deus Ex. Most gratifying with gameplay!

Regarding weapons: they were uninspiring at best. There isn't much more to say there.

The entire game lost all redeeming features after Core. It could easily have been designed such that the essentials of the first half, in relation to the open fun of toying with human soldiers, could have been retained. The alien force need not have been what it was, and they are serious flaws of design and gameplay. Why bother to continue after that? Oh yeah: to finish it. And my, what a total insult of an ending.

Before I forget -- the graphics are supreme.

What is wrong with being similar to Far Cry with updated visuals? If you have a problem with that then you would also will have a problem with Halo, Elder Scrolls and CoD.

And just because you did not like or use the nano suit does not mean it is useless.

This is not SS or DE, it does not try to be like SS or DE, its an non-linear(most of the levels anyway) FPS that is suppose to give you choise on how you kill(or not kill) your enemies.

If you want to use stealth you can. If you want to go rambo, you can. I personally like to switch between all of the suit's function.

Resistance

MGS4

Perfect Dark 0

Assassins creed

Gameplay wise, it failed to live up to the hype in any sense and wasn't even original: the "nanosuit" was essentially 11 years old! Jedi Knight: Dark Forces 2 had the whole speed up/extra jump etc."force power" in a FPS. And a damn lot more, too. That said, I am only speaking SP here. I never, ever bothered with Speed. Strength was only used when requiredeinnalollington

Lonelynight:

It was billed as something spectacular yet all knowing eyes could see FC with an improved SFX engine, and if just that I'd not complain. The gameplay, at least, would be equal. And indeed it was, for a while -- it was even worse than FC in that when the alien force hit there were no more human enemies. Just a blast-a-thon. Bad gameplay given the bill! Any improvement would have been most welcomed! But it was a step back and one despite criticism against the flaws of FC.

Regarding the Nanosuit: I liked the implementation (control) of it. Alas, as the weapons, it was uninspiring and seemingly a feature gone to waste; with more creative thinking it was capable of much more. I referenced JK:DF2 as it has many interesting powers, some useless, some amazingly overpowered. The suit could have been far more exotic, is what I am saying. Yes, I could have played about more -- the features are not useless -- it's just that what is there is far too predicated on the dynamics of the map itself (e.g. carrier: strength for punching doors, jumping electro-water, control rods etc...) ... I feel what was given was a limitation to the design of the game in a way that was quite conventional and thus uninspiring gameplay.

It's just a game though! :-)

Lonelynight:

It was billed as something spectacular yet all knowing eyes could see FC with an improved SFX engine, and if just that I'd not complain. The gameplay, at least, would be equal. And indeed it was, for a while -- it was even worse than FC in that when the alien force hit there were no more human enemies. Just a blast-a-thon. Bad gameplay given the bill! Any improvement would have been most welcomed! But it was a step back and one despite criticism against the flaws of FC.

Regarding the Nanosuit: I liked the implementation (control) of it. Alas, as the weapons, it was uninspiring and seemingly a feature gone to waste; with more creative thinking it was capable of much more. I referenced JK: DF2 as it has many interesting powers, some useless, some amazingly overpowered. The suit could have been far more exotic, is what I am saying. Yes, I could have played about more -- the features are not useless -- it's just that what is there is far too predicated on the dynamics of the map itself (e.g. carrier: strength for punching doors, jumping electro-water, control rods etc...) ... I feel what was given was a limitation to the design of the game in a way that was quite conventional and thus uninspiring gameplay.

It's just a game though! :-)

einnalollington

Well I say judge a game on what it is, rather than what it should have been or should be.

I personally also didin't have any problems with the things you mentioned, but if you did not like them or felt that it made the game worse, I can deal with that, whatever flouts in your boat.

But I don't think you should call Crysis' gameplay "crap" you can say that you found it unintresting to you or you didn't like it but that does not make it crap.

Lonelynight:

Yes, certainly!

Although I've said what I think it is and compared to what I think it was capable of being.

I had registered and posted after reading some "system war" thread which I realised was dated before the game was released. Haha, silly me -- there was much Crysis hype despite nobody ever playing it; all what it would be. I just finished it, and reading such threads: how wrong speculation can be!

It's all opinion, folks.

Anyway, that's all from me! :-)

Edit given Lonelynight added more:

I have never called it 'crap' ...! It's good in so far as it plays to its strengths, just like FC. After that? Well... as I've implied.

Lair and OniAgentA-Mi6

hmmm.. if i recall you made a thread saying lair had great gameplay and youre review score would be a 9.0 ;)

indeed... definitely bioshock. The previews for that game showed it as some kind of adventure, but it was condemned but under water... How anyone can say that game is stunning beyond it's graphics (framerate issues, animation rigidness and stiff controls kind of counter that) is beyond me.leejohnson7

I didn't have any of those issues. Neither did reviewers. You didn't even play it.

[QUOTE="leejohnson7"]indeed... definitely bioshock. The previews for that game showed it as some kind of adventure, but it was condemned but under water... How anyone can say that game is stunning beyond it's graphics (framerate issues, animation rigidness and stiff controls kind of counter that) is beyond me.BioShockOwnz

I didn't have any of those issues. Neither did reviewers. You didn't even play it.

Yes.... I did

The frame rate issues are widely known

The animation rigidness when an enemy dies

The stiff controls are when you are shooting, in condemned i forgiven it because it wasn't a shooter, but bioshock is.

I guess thats why the call it a demo.

Gears of War.soulsofblayck

second.

[QUOTE="AgentA-Mi6"]Lair and OniVendettaRed07

hmmm.. if i recall you made a thread saying lair had great gameplay and youre review score would be a 9.0 ;)

I have a dark past you know...

Crysis. COD4 is wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy more fun!AgentH

Resistance, though I've only played the demo. :P

I just didn't enjoy it really; I wouldn't say "crap gameplay".

[QUOTE="soulsofblayck"]Gears of War.Carbine_Wasted

Are you kidding me? This game has the best TPS gameplay out there.

Max Payne the original is a better TPS

American McGee's Alice

Not a bad game at all, but the graphics overwhelmed the gameplay.

[QUOTE="Carbine_Wasted"]

[QUOTE="soulsofblayck"]Gears of War.xNJN

Are you kidding me? This game has the best TPS gameplay out there.

Max Payne the original is a better TPS

agreed

Army of two ? Haze ? THeir graphics were okay but gameplay was dissapointing.