Is crytek actually a good developer?

Every one of their games is so buggy on release, and their multiplayer is neveractually "good." Crysis was (and still is to an extent) full of terrible AI and bugs, and Crysis 2... kill yourself. The Far Cry games had giant patches... I mean... are these guys legitimate just because they make "open world" shooters that look good... kind of?Other games have their problems... but my goodness, Crytek is absurd.

I never liked them, and Crysis 2 confirms that they, at the least, need better QA and beta testers.

I like them plenty. Granted I've only played Crysis, Crysis: Warhead and Crysis 2. But all three were fun. Crysis 1 is still the best however. I'd certainly say that they're up there.

They were before Yerli brothers got all greedy and wanted to be the next Call of Duty, which in turn made Crysis 2 suck.

They were before Yerli brothers got all greedy and wanted to be the next Call of Duty, which in turn made Crysis 2 suck.

ChubbyGuy40

Which in turn plays absolutely nothing like Call of Duty. :roll:

[QUOTE="ChubbyGuy40"]

They were before Yerli brothers got all greedy and wanted to be the next Call of Duty, which in turn made Crysis 2 suck.

NeonNinja

Which in turn plays absolutely nothing like Call of Duty. :roll:

They made Crysis. So yes, a very good developer.

[QUOTE="ChubbyGuy40"]

They were before Yerli brothers got all greedy and wanted to be the next Call of Duty, which in turn made Crysis 2 suck.

NeonNinja

Which in turn plays absolutely nothing like Call of Duty. :roll:

They've got better. Far Cry and Crysis 1 were both boring and horribly paced, but they redeemed themselves with Crysis 2, which is excellent.IronBass

This is literally the first time I've seen someone claim that.

They've got better. Far Cry and Crysis 1 were both boring and horribly paced, but they redeemed themselves with Crysis 2, which is excellent.IronBass

With Crysis 1 they have demonstrated that they are capable of making AMAZING games, Crysis 2 demonstrated that they are being forced to try and appeal to the masses by making it less hardcore and more like CoD.

[QUOTE="NeonNinja"]

[QUOTE="ChubbyGuy40"]

They were before Yerli brothers got all greedy and wanted to be the next Call of Duty, which in turn made Crysis 2 suck.

KHAndAnime

Which in turn plays absolutely nothing like Call of Duty. :roll:

[QUOTE="IronBass"]They've got better. Far Cry and Crysis 1 were both boring and horribly paced, but they redeemed themselves with Crysis 2, which is excellent.ChubbyGuy40

This is literally the first time I've seen someone claim that.

He isn't serious he always does that in PC related threads.. especially those consolization threads.. I'm surprised people don't notice. Anyway I think they are a good dev, C2 is probably their worst work IMO and that game is more disappointing than bad.

They have shown they can make great games, they have also shown they can make downright horrible games as well.

Crysis 1 is their best work. Crysis 2, in last place. Not a bad game, just very disappointing. They were good developers, but I don't know if their intentions are good any more.

Crysis and Far Cry are great games, one of the best PC shooters.

Crysis 2 was just good and nothing special thanks to consoles.

Far Cry and Crysis are both AAA shooters with excellent visuals and gameplay and Crysis 2 is an excellent AA shooter. I'd definitely say they're a good developer.

I find all the Crysis hate threads funny, almost as bad as COD threads. Look at the size of some of the Maps in the multiplayer in Crysis 2 (xbox version), multiple buildings, underground, roof tops and ground level in all the same map with really decent graphics for multiplayer. If Crysis and COD remained exclusive on a console or PC then they would be hyped, but as they are multiplat then Fanboys are hurt for some reason.

To make a game the size of Crysis on the PC means they have talent, all the developers that make successful open world games have talent as its obviously much harder to code than something small leveled and scripted like Uncharted, Gears or Mass Effect. The problem I think Crytek had this time around was developing for all 3 platforms versus the single platform development of Crysis 1.

No.

I have only played Farcry and Crysis 2. They are good devs overall and up with the best when it comes to push tech.

I find all the Crysis hate threads funny, almost as bad as COD threads. Look at the size of some of the Maps in the multiplayer in Crysis 2 (xbox version), multiple buildings, underground, roof tops and ground level in all the same map with really decent graphics for multiplayer. If Crysis and COD remained exclusive on a console or PC then they would be hyped, but as they are multiplat then Fanboys are hurt for some reason.

To make a game the size of Crysis on the PC means they have talent, all the developers that make successful open world games have talent as its obviously much harder to code than something small leveled and scripted like Uncharted, Gears or Mass Effect. The problem I think Crytek had this time around was developing for all 3 platforms versus the single platform development of Crysis 1.

ccagracing

Who's hating on Crysis here?

I have and will continue to consciously avoid the consolized piece of trash that is Crysis 2. That being said, Crysis and Warhead, despite being very poorly optimized, were some of the best FPS experiences of the decade. And anyone who hasn't played Far Cry isn't qualified to talk about Crytek's skills as a developer. That game did alot of what Half Life 2 did, but better, half a year earlier, and nobody knew about it.

I never liked them

stiggy321

And anyone who hasn't played Far Cry isn't qualified to talk about Crytek's skills as a developer. That game did alot of what Half Life 2 did, but better, half a year earlier, and nobody knew about it.

Brendissimo35

Nobody knew about it because it was an inconsistent mess that couldn't decide if it wanted to be a run-and-gun FPS or a tactical shooter. Then there was the dodgy AI that was in turns omniscient and dumb as a box of rocks, the lame story, the even worse voice acting, the wildly inconsistent difficulty curve, the "sudden death" level design that forced rote memorization and repetition, an atrocious checkpoint save system (No save anywhere? In a PC game released in 2004? WTF!)...

But the graphics sure were purty.

[QUOTE="Brendissimo35"]

And anyone who hasn't played Far Cry isn't qualified to talk about Crytek's skills as a developer. That game did alot of what Half Life 2 did, but better, half a year earlier, and nobody knew about it.

dzimm

Nobody knew about it because it was an inconsistent mess that couldn't decide if it wanted to be a run-and-gun FPS or a tactical shooter. Then there was the dodgy AI that was in turns omniscient and dumb as a box of rocks, the lame story, the even worse voice acting, the wildly inconsistent difficulty curve, the "sudden death" level design that forced rote memorization and repetition, an atrocious checkpoint save system (No save anywhere? In a PC game released in 2004? WTF!)...

But the graphics sure were purty.

Nowhere in that game did I see elements of tactical shooters (if you mean games like rainbow six). I thought the AI was quite good on the whole for 2004, it flanked, had leadership structure, threw grenades, called in unscripted backup, etc. Of course the story is **** but it's really fun in a B movie sort of way. Pure action, no brains. You can call the level design "sudden death" if you like, but I think it was brilliant. Especially in the more open levels that deal less with mutants, the game really shined. Multiple objectives, dozens of distinct paths to them, and many different approaches to combat. From a pure gameplay perspective, I think Far Cry was easily the best out of 2004's "big three" (Doom 3, Half Life 2, and Far Cry).

Seeing they've made 4 extremely quality SP games with unbelieveable production values. I would call them a good developer.

[QUOTE="Brendissimo35"]

And anyone who hasn't played Far Cry isn't qualified to talk about Crytek's skills as a developer. That game did alot of what Half Life 2 did, but better, half a year earlier, and nobody knew about it.

dzimm

Nobody knew about it because it was an inconsistent mess that couldn't decide if it wanted to be a run-and-gun FPS or a tactical shooter. Then there was the dodgy AI that was in turns omniscient and dumb as a box of rocks, the lame story, the even worse voice acting, the wildly inconsistent difficulty curve, the "sudden death" level design that forced rote memorization and repetition, an atrocious checkpoint save system (No save anywhere? In a PC game released in 2004? WTF!)...

But the graphics sure were purty.

Well the scores of amazing reviews and thousands of PC gamers who love the original Far Cry will love to disagree with you.

[QUOTE="dzimm"]

[QUOTE="Brendissimo35"]

snip

Brendissimo35

snip

Nowhere in that game did I see elements of tactical shooters (if you mean games like rainbow six). I thought the AI was quite good on the whole for 2004, it flanked, had leadership structure, threw grenades, called in unscripted backup, etc. Of course the story is **** but it's really fun in a B movie sort of way. Pure action, no brains. You can call the level design "sudden death" if you like, but I think it was brilliant. Especially in the more open levels that deal less with mutants, the game really shined. Multiple objectives, dozens of distinct paths to them, and many different approaches to combat. From a pure gameplay perspective, I think Far Cry was easily the best out of 2004's "big three" (Doom 3, Half Life 2, and Far Cry).

Since gameplay includes AI, innovative use of physics, pacing, interaction with NPC's, I think FarCry was MILES, MILES below Half Life 2.

From a strictly gunplay perspective, yes I agree with you. Besides the gravity gun, HL2 guns were more or less par for the course.

And with regards to the thread, I feel that Crytek is a good developer whose last game wasn't that good. Just that and nothing else.

The only gripe I have is with Cevat "captain obvious" yerli who has the penchant for pointing out and saying things of general knowledge like hes's doing us ignoramuses a favour. Like how consoles are holding Pc's back.

I group them together with Gorilla Games.

Have lots of technical and core developer talent, but generally lack a uniformed creative head to properly guide that talent.

[QUOTE="dzimm"]

[QUOTE="Brendissimo35"]

And anyone who hasn't played Far Cry isn't qualified to talk about Crytek's skills as a developer. That game did alot of what Half Life 2 did, but better, half a year earlier, and nobody knew about it.

Wasdie

Nobody knew about it because it was an inconsistent mess that couldn't decide if it wanted to be a run-and-gun FPS or a tactical shooter. Then there was the dodgy AI that was in turns omniscient and dumb as a box of rocks, the lame story, the even worse voice acting, the wildly inconsistent difficulty curve, the "sudden death" level design that forced rote memorization and repetition, an atrocious checkpoint save system (No save anywhere? In a PC game released in 2004? WTF!)...

But the graphics sure were purty.

Well the scores of amazing reviews and thousands of PC gamers who love the original Far Cry will love to disagree with you.

Thousands of people think Justin Beiber is a quality entertainer, too. :o

They were before Yerli brothers got all greedy and wanted to be the next Call of Duty, which in turn made Crysis 2 suck.

ChubbyGuy40

I don't like any of their games. They feel like graphics demos to me.

I don't like any of their games. They feel like graphics demos to me.

nameless12345

[QUOTE="ccagracing"]

I find all the Crysis hate threads funny, almost as bad as COD threads. Look at the size of some of the Maps in the multiplayer in Crysis 2 (xbox version), multiple buildings, underground, roof tops and ground level in all the same map with really decent graphics for multiplayer. If Crysis and COD remained exclusive on a console or PC then they would be hyped, but as they are multiplat then Fanboys are hurt for some reason.

To make a game the size of Crysis on the PC means they have talent, all the developers that make successful open world games have talent as its obviously much harder to code than something small leveled and scripted like Uncharted, Gears or Mass Effect. The problem I think Crytek had this time around was developing for all 3 platforms versus the single platform development of Crysis 1.

UnrealLegend

Who's hating on Crysis here?

Look in system wars for the amount of Crysis hate it gets.

[QUOTE="UnrealLegend"]

[QUOTE="ccagracing"]

I find all the Crysis hate threads funny, almost as bad as COD threads. Look at the size of some of the Maps in the multiplayer in Crysis 2 (xbox version), multiple buildings, underground, roof tops and ground level in all the same map with really decent graphics for multiplayer. If Crysis and COD remained exclusive on a console or PC then they would be hyped, but as they are multiplat then Fanboys are hurt for some reason.

To make a game the size of Crysis on the PC means they have talent, all the developers that make successful open world games have talent as its obviously much harder to code than something small leveled and scripted like Uncharted, Gears or Mass Effect. The problem I think Crytek had this time around was developing for all 3 platforms versus the single platform development of Crysis 1.

ccagracing

Who's hating on Crysis here?

Look in system wars for the amount of Crysis hate it gets.

The hype thread was full of hate.

crysis was just a tech demo