To the people who say Crysis is rubbish...

Crysis... to me... is PC.

The greatest gunplay ever, brilliant design, huge replay value... and some cool characters (Psycho!)

Every level brought something new to the table, or was simply brilliant. Alot like Halo CE, my other favourite game of all time.

*Extended rant*

Contact- That ridiculously awesome Vista section, cruisin' the beach, very well placed

Second level- Epic.Village.Tank.Battle.

Relic- Italian Job-esque race with like six legs of the race

Assault- Team battles, the bridge

Onslaught- Tanks!!!! Lots of tanks!!!

Sixth Level- The strip mine, Kyong

Core- Zero G, worst level

Paradise Lost- Continual tension...

Exodus- My fave level. The entire thing, every section, was brilliant.The Hunter...

Ascension- Too short to be called a level. 1: 28 completion time.

Last level- Like Exodus, simply brilliant.

Crysis, Genius.

Crysis is awesome, I'm playing through it now and even on easy I'm finding it hard. The AI is so much better than any console I've ever played!

Crysis is awesome, I'm playing through it now and even on easy I'm finding it hard. The AI is so much better than any console I've ever played!

clyde46

Crysis is awesome, I'm playing through it now and even on easy I'm finding it hard. The AI is so much better than any console I've ever played!

clyde46

[QUOTE="clyde46"]

Crysis is awesome, I'm playing through it now and even on easy I'm finding it hard. The AI is so much better than any console I've ever played!

PC360Wii

Another gripe I have with Crysis is the sound. There is very little 'oomph' to it. The explosions, the gunshot reports...all of it just sounds smaller than it should. For instance, if you're in an area where no enemies are yelling or shooting at you, and a gunship comes in and starts firing its minigun at you, listen to the sound of the bullets hitting the ground. It is this cutesy 'tickitytickitytickitytickity' sound that doesn't sound threatening at all. The explosions also don't sound that fantastic, especially when that universal hit sound (a loud 'THIP') is always able to mask a good part of it. These are just minor gripes, but things like this were able to add up until I could not see why it was being called the holy grail of PC gaming.

Any game that isn't on your platform of choice is rubbish, that's how SW thinks.

AnnoyedDragon

Baloney. A singular human being cannot create an "objective" assessment of a game free of their own bias, personal viewpoints, perspective, life-experience, enjoyment, etc. Even if such a thing were possible, the result would be a completely detached review based upon some kind of "formula", one that would have no means of adjusting without invalidating its "human free" premise. - A person's "analysis of its quality" is an OPINION. Any attempt to escape this is MYSTICISM - which is anathema to any claim of "statistical soundness" or "scientific methodology". QED.

subrosian

I like it for the graphics, I don't think the gameplay is anything special. My biggest detraction from it, call it nit-picky if you like but its something I value highly in games, is that there are no dead body physics. With the graphics and explosions and everythign else being so amazing, it just seems kind of lazy. That's how I feel at least.BobRea

Thats because of german laws, Crytek is based in in germany and its illegal to have games that allow you to interact with bodies once there dead. Dismemberment is out too.

crysis is only good for graphics, everything else is better in other games e.g. killzone 2

sikanderahmed

Crysis... to me... is PC.

The greatest gunplay ever, brilliant design, huge replay value... and some cool characters (Psycho!)

Every level brought something new to the table, or was simply brilliant. Alot like Halo CE, my other favourite game of all time.

*Extended rant*

Contact- That ridiculously awesome Vista section, cruisin' the beach, very well placed

Second level- Epic.Village.Tank.Battle.

Relic- Italian Job-esque race with like six legs of the race

Assault- Team battles, the bridge

Onslaught- Tanks!!!! Lots of tanks!!!

Sixth Level- The strip mine, Kyong

Core- Zero G, worst level

Paradise Lost- Continual tension...

Exodus- My fave level. The entire thing, every section, was brilliant.The Hunter...

Ascension- Too short to be called a level. 1: 28 completion time.

Last level- Like Exodus, simply brilliant.

Crysis, Genius.

muzik_mafia

[QUOTE="BobRea"]I like it for the graphics, I don't think the gameplay is anything special. My biggest detraction from it, call it nit-picky if you like but its something I value highly in games, is that there are no dead body physics. With the graphics and explosions and everythign else being so amazing, it just seems kind of lazy. That's how I feel at least.Snagal123

Thats because of german laws, Crytek is based in in germany and its illegal to have games that allow you to interact with bodies once there dead. Dismemberment is out too.

...you clearly have not played it. Because I just did, and its ****ing awesome.

dommeus

[QUOTE="Gxgear"]

[QUOTE="dommeus"]

...you clearly have not played it. Because I just did, and its ****ing awesome.

Velocitas8

Boring FPS game, stopped after 4 hours.

People need to learn to look at a game beyond the pretty exterior.

All I can say is that I find singleplayer FPS games in general to be extremely boring (I generally stick to multiplayer.)

Crysis is one of the few recent ones with fresh and entertaining gameplay. No other recent singleplayer shooter really compares in my mind, outside of the S.T.A.L.K.E.R. games...

I agree with you that a lot of single player campaigns on FPSs are snoozers. To be honest I haven't finish many of the campaigns for PC shooters because it's such a snorefest, just dive straight into online multiplayer.

To give Crysis credit, it did last longer than most for me in single-play, right behind Bioshock (which I finished because the story and atmosphere was pretty amazing) and COD4 (not finished)

I have finished all the FPSs on shooters on consoles though, not for the fact that they're better but because I find they a little bit more interesting since using a controller reduces my aiming skills and the singole player campaign is just over the bearable threshold.

In this generation with so many shooters flooding the market, it's hard to feel excited about any of them without good reason. I guess my standards is just higher than yours in this case. Again I'm probably pretty harsh on PC shooters.

Any game that is rubbish is rubbish. And crysis is pretty rubbishy.walter429

That was pretty weak.

I know consolites are feeling insecure because there is a game that highlights their technological inferiority; so criticising every little aspect of it into the ground makes them feel better, but if you going to attack it at least try to put effort in.

I enjoyed it a lot. It was a great FPS, and was just enhanced by the graphics. Very well rounded game.

[QUOTE="BobRea"]I like it for the graphics, I don't think the gameplay is anything special. My biggest detraction from it, call it nit-picky if you like but its something I value highly in games, is that there are no dead body physics. With the graphics and explosions and everythign else being so amazing, it just seems kind of lazy. That's how I feel at least.Snagal123

Thats because of german laws, Crytek is based in in germany and its illegal to have games that allow you to interact with bodies once there dead. Dismemberment is out too.

I agree with you that a lot of single player campaigns on FPSs are snoozers. To be honest I haven't finish many of the campaigns for PC shooters because it's such a snorefest, just dive straight into online multiplayer.

To give Crysis credit, it did last longer than most for me in single-play, right behind Bioshock (which I finished because the story and atmosphere was pretty amazing) and COD4 (not finished)

I have finished all the FPSs on shooters on consoles though, not for the fact that they're better but because I find they a little bit more interesting since using a controller reduces my aiming skills and the singole player campaign is just over the bearable threshold.

In this generation with so many shooters flooding the market, it's hard to feel excited about any of them without good reason. I guess my standards is just higher than yours in this case. Again I'm probably pretty harsh on PC shooters.

Gxgear

I own a 360, so I made that post with console shooters in mind as well..

Singleplayer console shooters are even more boring for me, simply because I grew up with the KB+M, and using a controller to play a FPS game feels probably close to what trying to shave with a bowling pin would. I wouldn't say it's "harder" to play console shooters, because it really isn't (in fact, it's probably easier to master than a KB+M.) It just feels like such a chore when I know that there's a better tool for the job..

I think the last singleplayer campaign I completed in a console shooter was Halo: Combat Evolved. I own Halo 2 and 3, of course, but I couldn't stand playing the campaign in either, and only beat them in Coop (Coop is pretty much the only reason I own a console.)

I'm really surprised no one's taking on my posts. Am I losing my edge? :?

...you clearly have not played it. Because I just did, and its ****ing awesome.

dommeus

I totally agree. I remember seeing all these fanboys sayign Crysis sucks,etc... when they never played it.

Then when i first got my hadns on Crysis i was simply blown away. The presentation, graphics, gameplay, good ai and sound editing is top notch. Masterpeice of a game and the best singelplayer FPS in ages imo.

Ohh yeah, i almost forgot.. plus Crysis has HANDS DOWN THE BEST MAP EDITOR OF ALL TIME. Crysis had some amazing mods, the potential for mods in Crysis is unlimited.

[QUOTE="Gxgear"]I agree with you that a lot of single player campaigns on FPSs are snoozers. To be honest I haven't finish many of the campaigns for PC shooters because it's such a snorefest, just dive straight into online multiplayer.

To give Crysis credit, it did last longer than most for me in single-play, right behind Bioshock (which I finished because the story and atmosphere was pretty amazing) and COD4 (not finished)

I have finished all the FPSs on shooters on consoles though, not for the fact that they're better but because I find they a little bit more interesting since using a controller reduces my aiming skills and the singole player campaign is just over the bearable threshold.

In this generation with so many shooters flooding the market, it's hard to feel excited about any of them without good reason. I guess my standards is just higher than yours in this case. Again I'm probably pretty harsh on PC shooters.

Velocitas8

I own a 360, so I made that post with console shooters in mind as well..

Singleplayer console shooters are even more boring for me, simply because I grew up with the KB+M, and using a controller to play a FPS game feels probably close to what trying to shave with a bowling pin would. I wouldn't say it's "harder" to play console shooters, because it really isn't (in fact, it's probably easier to master than a KB+M.) It just feels like such a chore when I know that there's a better tool for the job..

I think the last singleplayer campaign I completed in a console shooter was Halo: Combat Evolved. I own Halo 2 and 3, of course, but I couldn't stand playing the campaign in either, and only beat them in Coop (Coop is pretty much the only reason I own a console.)

There's a certain "awkwardness" in console shooters controls that I enjoy. Kb+M just feels way to natural for me. To follow up on your analogy of shaving with a bowling pin, using Kb+M is like using a electric razor; you're just going through the motions but your mind is wandering somewhere else. Like I said, a PC shooter has to do a lot more for me to impress, whether it's gameplay, story, or visual presentation (not the lifelike approach but something unqiue like Bioshock or XIII).

[QUOTE="subrosian"]Baloney. A singular human being cannot create an "objective" assessment of a game free of their own bias, personal viewpoints, perspective, life-experience, enjoyment, etc. Even if such a thing were possible, the result would be a completely detached review based upon some kind of "formula", one that would have no means of adjusting without invalidating its "human free" premise. - A person's "analysis of its quality" is an OPINION. Any attempt to escape this is MYSTICISM - which is anathema to any claim of "statistical soundness" or "scientific methodology". QED.

foxhound_fox

-

Being able to tell if a game is technically sound does not guarantee that you're able to tell if it's actually a "good game". And what is a "good game"? That's *personal*, it's a matter of opinion. There's no universal, or "objective", means of an individual judging a game. Even the so-called "technical" aspects of a game are subjective. What technical aspects are important? Polygon counts? Shading? View Distance? Color Depth? Anti-Aliasing? Resolution? Ultimately even graphical fidelity ultimately comes down to how our eye is pleased - a SUBJECTIVE observation.

-

Game reviews CAN NEVER be objective.

No "objective" review can address the things that actually makes a game "good", "timeless" or "special".

And it's BALONEY

[QUOTE="clyde46"]

Crysis is awesome, I'm playing through it now and even on easy I'm finding it hard. The AI is so much better than any console I've ever played!

PC360Wii

After i beat it i never played it again. I usually play good games that i beat to try different strategies. Or maybe Warhead isnt as goodthe first 1.

[QUOTE="PC360Wii"][QUOTE="clyde46"]

Crysis is awesome, I'm playing through it now and even on easy I'm finding it hard. The AI is so much better than any console I've ever played!

JangoWuzHere

if you shoot them with the pistol it takes ages. If you shoot them with bazooka it takes 1-2 shots

And people complaining about the A.I. and beign easy there is a simple solution you know . Play it on delta. If even that is not enough for you download the A.I. tweek mod ( that makes thinks really interesting and hard). See there is a solution even for that ( unlike some console fps's when the A.I. is stupid and you cant do anything about it)

[QUOTE="dommeus"]

...you clearly have not played it. Because I just did, and its ****ing awesome.

kozzy1234

I totally agree. I remember seeing all these fanboys sayign Crysis sucks,etc... when they never played it.

Then when i first got my hadns on Crysis i was simply blown away. The presentation, graphics, gameplay, good ai and sound editing is top notch. Masterpeice of a game and the best singelplayer FPS in ages imo.

Ohh yeah, i almost forgot.. plus Crysis has HANDS DOWN THE BEST MAP EDITOR OF ALL TIME. Crysis had some amazing mods, the potential for mods in Crysis is unlimited.

[QUOTE="skrat_01"][QUOTE="whatisazerg"]]

I didn't say the amount of content was equal a Tech Demo..... But Crysis is about as exciting as a Tech Demo..... it's fun to look at it and go "oooohh...ahhhhhh" but then you get into the meat of the game..... and are left wondering "why"..... Crysis is the hot chick you knew in school, really nice to look at, but nothing to like beneath the surface.

There was nothing interesting under its Pretty, Shiny graphics..... "Oh wow see that branch fall off the tree..... HOLY **** that was so realistic dude""OMG pick up that turtle and throw it..... WHhhheeewwww, turtle tossing is da best" and I love how everyone tries to say how "THE GAME IS FULLY DESTRUCTIBLE"when in reality less than 15% of stuff can actually be destroyed.

Sorry but I need more than pretty graphics to entertain me.

PS. And I love how when buildings fall apart they look like a house of cards coming down..... "OOOOOoooohhhh teh realism"

Please if you like the game fine..... but that doesnt make it any better than a mediocre title compared to games that are actually, you know..... FUN!

[QUOTE="Squeets"]

[QUOTE="whatisazerg"]

I didn't say the amount of content was equal a Tech Demo..... But Crysis is about as exciting as a Tech Demo..... it's fun to look at it and go "oooohh...ahhhhhh" but then you get into the meat of the game..... and are left wondering "why"..... Crysis is the hot chick you knew in school, really nice to look at, but nothing to like beneath the surface.

Oh and the text in red is sig worthy :| :| :lol:

"Hundreds of ways".... yeah okay :roll:

"one of the most populated multiplayer games in PC"..... LOLthis put the final nail in your coffin.

1) All of the guns/equipment as well as weapon attachments make 140 possible combination (using every single attachment on every single gun 1 time each)... then you factor in the fact that 1: Not all guns take attachments (which removes a few from that number) and 2: The fact that you don't have to have all of the attachments on at the same time... you can mix and match which makes 500+ combinations (on the weapons with 4 attachments)...

2) I have been playing Crysis and Warhead since release... Every game I ever join is full... there are always plenty of people on... Most other games I play on PC (besides TF2/CSS) only have 200-300 people on maybe... and games are always underpopulated...

So I don't see what you are saying here?

1) Those combinations are minor at best, bar the alien tech, which was a good concept, the weapons themselves in Crysis are fine... the mechanics are not.

2) Well ofcourse everygame you join is full IF YOU FILTER BY FULL SERVERS.... pretty silly thing to say. Ironically, Crysis is the most unpopular main-stream PC shooter:

ONLINE RIGHT NOW.

Crysis = Players: 299 / 1,971 (15.17%) Average: 4.10 / 27.00 ... Pathetic.

Quake Wars = Players: 745 / 8,644 (8.62%) Average: 1.83 / 21.29 .... we know how much of a fail quake wars was and still more people play it.

Battlefield 2 = Players: 14,873 / 108,881 (13.66%) Average: 4.46 / 32.63

CS:S = Players: 63,716 / 479,268 (13.29%) Average: 2.20 / 16.57

Americas Army = Players: 2,274 / 20,710 (10.98%) Average: 1.96 / 17.87

CoD4 = Players: 33,044 / 286,286 (11.54%) Average: 2.29 / 19.84

Team Fortress 2 = Players: 12,105 / 84,875 (14.26%) Average: 3.23 / 22.62

CS 1.6 = Players: 147,669 / 918,430 (16.08%) Average: 3.07 / 19.08

Unreal Tournement 3 = Players: 546 / 8,310 (6.57%) Average: 1.03 / 15.74 ... god even this fail of a sequal has more playing.

Medal of Honour Allied Assault = Players: 1,352 / 15,833 (8.54%) Average: 1.68 / 19.64 ... A TEN YEAR OLD GAME....

Sorry, I'm a big PC supporter but I will never defence Crysis, beyond its graphics and sand box nature, it was a repetitive single player, lack of presentation, and the multiplayer was an unbalanced mess... and it shows, most of the other shooters not even on the list above have players.

Why do I get the impression many of the people criticising Crysis love some generic run of the mill title like COD4? They highlight what they consider wrong with Crysis but often fail to provide what they consider better examples, because criticism is easier to get away with than defending why their chosen game is better.

No one is arguing Crysis is the end all shooter, but it does a damn good job for what it has; and if you think that's boring/generic what game do you think does it better? Seriously, where is this game that is apparently so much freaking better in every way than the 9.5 scoring PC shooter of 2007?

You can criticise the scratch on a luxury car; but even with that it's still far better than most of what else is out there. If you are going to say otherwise you had better have a very convincing argument.

Crysis ultimately does not seem to be the future direction of gaming. If you're trying to argue Crysis solely advanced physics or graphics - well, that's an absurd claim. If you're claiming it did something advanced in terms of gameplay design, it did nothing that wasn't done in a better way by previous games - the whole "aliens show up" thing is so trite it's almost insulting. Crysis isn't even the cusp of PC graphics anymore - so yes, I deny it's technicality. Technical execution isn't the most important aspect of graphics anyway. If you went to Prat and suggested that "realism" was the most important aspect of art, you'd be laughed off the campus - it's absurd. - There's no "undeniable and unchanging objective reality" - anywhere.

Reality is subjective, and it constantly changes. What was a "graphical masterpiece" becomes archaic and dated. What was 'sound gameplay' in one era is considered trite and boring in another. What was the most important technical characteristic in one year becomes unimportant in the next. What games are "stepping stones" or "the influencing force" changes every few years. Two years ago, no one was saying "oh yeah, Punch Out, that's important" - now the Wii version is coming and everyone is nostalgic as though Punch Out was an important legacy.

subrosian

Honestly, Crysis does point towards the future. Its evidence of how organic gameworlds can be, and will become; instead of limiting how reactive the game world can be - due to software and hardware limitations, Crysis represents the complexity and interactivity possibilities in design. Visually the game is also a step into the future... That is.. obvious. The engine can render huge environments in extremely high detail (instead of compromising one for the other (alongside the physics engine and adaptive A.i - that works with whatever play styl-e the player chooses)).

Mind you this is mainlytechnicalaspect of Crysis's progressiveness, from a design perspective its less progressive though it has 'signs of the future'in itsdesign in a few regards is very progressive. The game world is probably the biggest example of the 'future' of gaming, and the sheer amount of interactivity - from a design perspective, as well as technical.

Now 'open' environments with multiple approaches, and ways of completing objectives has been done before... in many games But none have given you the ability to change your play sty-le on the fly so seamlessly, and on topof that give you such a reactive world, a.i. high level of detail and interactivity to truly enhance the 'sandbox' nature of the design. The only other shooters in particular that really have tried to achieve a reactive world / environment with sandbox design is Trespasser (which was a mess) and Deus Ex (which boiled down to object moving i.e crates / explosives, to block the paths of NPCs, or blow things up).

There is no single direct 'future' of gaming, game design and the technicalities are far too complex to point at a single direction of the future... No game can be a single representation of it. HoweverCrysis certainly represents aspects of the future of games as a whole, and the shooter genre.

Why do I get the impression many of the people criticising Crysis love some generic run of the mill title like COD4? They highlight what they consider wrong with Crysis but often fail to provide what they consider better examples, because criticism is easier to get away with than defending why their chosen game is better.

No one is arguing Crysis is the end all shooter, but it does a damn good job for what it has; and if you think that's boring/generic what game do you think does it better? Seriously, where is this game that is apparently so much freaking better in every way than the 9.5 scoring PC shooter of 2007?

You can criticise the scratch on a luxury car; but even with that it's still far better than most of what else is out there. If you are going to say otherwise you had better have a very convincing argument.

AnnoyedDragon

Erm Crysis sports the BEST graphics on any console ever...Who says it sucks??

[QUOTE="JangoWuzHere"][QUOTE="PC360Wii"] You mean how they randomly look at you and dont fire, yelling crap, or how if you run around the harbour level long enough they all stack up and get stuck inside the building, or how 1 of the 2 helicopters can randomly bug out and fly to the cieling of the sky, and take ages to kill? but still shooting perfectly at you.adamosmaki

if you shoot them with the pistol it takes ages. If you shoot them with bazooka it takes 1-2 shots

And people complaining about the A.I. and beign easy there is a simple solution you know . Play it on delta. If even that is not enough for you download the A.I. tweek mod ( that makes thinks really interesting and hard). See there is a solution even for that ( unlike some console fps's when the A.I. is stupid and you cant do anything about it)

Why are you using a pistol? Do you just constaintly waste your ammo? And its not like ammo is really hard to find either. Just use something like the scar and it will go down in 3-4 clips.

Im a cow and I think that Crysis is a damn fine shooter. With damn fine graphics.

Im a cow and I think that Crysis is a damn fine shooter. With damn fine graphics.

PSGamerforlife

This:D

[QUOTE="skrat_01"][QUOTE="whatisazerg"]]

I didn't say the amount of content was equal a Tech Demo..... But Crysis is about as exciting as a Tech Demo..... it's fun to look at it and go "oooohh...ahhhhhh" but then you get into the meat of the game..... and are left wondering "why"..... Crysis is the hot chick you knew in school, really nice to look at, but nothing to like beneath the surface.

There was nothing interesting under its Pretty, Shiny graphics..... "Oh wow see that branch fall off the tree..... HOLY **** that was so realistic dude""OMG pick up that turtle and throw it..... WHhhheeewwww, turtle tossing is da best" and I love how everyone tries to say how "THE GAME IS FULLY DESTRUCTIBLE"when in reality less than 15% of stuff can actually be destroyed.

Sorry but I need more than pretty graphics to entertain me.

PS. And I love how when buildings fall apart they look like a house of cards coming down..... "OOOOOoooohhhh teh realism"

Please if you like the game fine..... but that doesnt make it any better than a mediocre title compared to games that are actually, you know..... FUN!

Crysis was probably the most boring fps I've ever played. Which is pretty amazing because I played pdz.

I don't understand how people can say Crysis is boring. I found it to be one of the most visceral FPS's to be released this generation. Some of that has to do with the sound and graphics, but mostly because the gameplay is very tight and responsive. The graphics just compliment and already awesome game.

crysis is only good for graphics, everything else is better in other games e.g. killzone 2

sikanderahmed

First off i'm going to say the obvious, which still seems to slip the minds of most people in this forum, everything that has been said about this game is opinion not fact. If you have something to say about the game you should use IMO(In My Opinion for the dense) and not act like what you say is fact or a majority rule or something of that ignorance.

This is the third time I have said this.

Criticising Crysis doesn't mean jack if you don't justify your criticism.

I swear, the number of people who have jumped in this thread just to take a jab at the game; but made no attempt to explain why they think what they do.

AnnoyedDragon

AnnoyedDragon, typically I would be right there with you but I find it difficult to truly explain why I didn't like the game, maybe i'm just not that smart I don't know but I have a proposition for you and others who found crysis to be good or great.

I want to ask something of those who like Crysis to play the Devil's Advocate and say why they didn't like the game.

To say the game is terrible/rubbish is just dumb, I found Crysis to be ok to mediocre, why? I will try my best to explain but without any factual evidence of flaws but just to rely on opinion I will have do my best game comparison.

I would like to mention that I did enjoy COD4 more than Crysis, does that mean I prefer games that are linear, shallow flashy games without substance? NO! in fact I love open sandbox games for example Operation Flashpoint and Armed Assault are some of my favorite types of games. As a closing to COD4, the guns and the feel of the game are a big factor into what makes a good game IMO, the guns felt like they had more of an impact and the fact they are more relatable having used and M16, M4 and an AK-47, the Crysis guns seems had a fake feel to them IMO. I'm not bringing realism into account just what brings more enjoyment for me out of a game.

Crysis on paper sounds like a great game with it's graphics, physics, open design and variety I can definitely see why many people enjoy it, with that in mind the game still just hasn't caught on for me, the story doesn't grab me and i'm usually quite easy with the "aliens are invading the earth" scenario that has been done to death. Like I said the guns just don't do it for me even with the variety, I did enjoy the suit's abilities especially the stealth mode but it wasn't enough to make the game great.

As said earlier a game I feel comparable is OFP and Arma, I will use Arma as an example as it is more recent. Arma is even more open ended than Crysis as Crysis has it's barriers where as Arma goes on for miles. The difficulty and realism I really enjoy out of this game and with yet again guns that are relatable and have more of an impact IMO. Co-op missions are a huge plus for me, I may have enjoyed Crysis more with Co-op. The Vehicles land, sea and air and the mission editor which is quick and easy to make fun missions to share with friends all come to a greater enjoyment despite the flaws Arma had.

I enjoy hardcore games to arcadey, open ended games to linear so using that argument against me won't work, maybe Crysis struck and uncomfortable/awkward balance between the two? Hard to say really, in conclusion it really all just comes down to taste and it's almost as hard as trying to say why you don't like a certain food type other than the way it tastes.

I could have made this as short as my conclusion but with the demand of a good description I felt I should rise up to the challenge, hopefully I didn't fail. :P

First off i'm going to say the obvious, which still seems to slip the minds of most people in this forum, everything that has been said about this game is opinion not fact. If you have something to say about the game you should use IMO(In My Opinion for the dense) and not act like what you say is fact or a majority rule or something of that ignorance.

[QUOTE="AnnoyedDragon"]

This is the third time I have said this.

Criticising Crysis doesn't mean jack if you don't justify your criticism.

I swear, the number of people who have jumped in this thread just to take a jab at the game; but made no attempt to explain why they think what they do.

-keola-

AnnoyedDragon, typically I would be right there with you but I find it difficult to truly explain why I didn't like the game, maybe i'm just not that smart I don't know but I have a proposition for you and others who found crysis to be good or great.

I want to ask something of those who like Crysis to play the Devil's Advocate and say why they didn't like the game.

To say the game is terrible/rubbish is just dumb, I found Crysis to be ok to mediocre, why? I will try my best to explain but without any factual evidence of flaws but just to rely on opinion I will have do my best game comparison.

I would like to mention that I did enjoy COD4 more than Crysis, does that mean I prefer games that are linear, shallow flashy games without substance? NO! in fact I love open sandbox games for example Operation Flashpoint and Armed Assault are some of my favorite types of games. As a closing to COD4, the guns and the feel of the game are a big factor into what makes a good game IMO, the guns felt like they had more of an impact and the fact they are more relatable having used and M16, M4 and an AK-47, the Crysis guns seems had a fake feel to them IMO. I'm not bringing realism into account just what brings more enjoyment for me out of a game.

Crysis on paper sounds like a great game with it's graphics, physics, open design and variety I can definitely see why many people enjoy it, with that in mind the game still just hasn't caught on for me, the story doesn't grab me and i'm usually quite easy with the "aliens are invading the earth" scenario that has been done to death. Like I said the guns just don't do it for me even with the variety, I did enjoy the suit's abilities especially the stealth mode but it wasn't enough to make the game great.

As said earlier a game I feel comparable is OFP and Arma, I will use Arma as an example as it is more recent. Arma is even more open ended than Crysis as Crysis has it's barriers where as Arma goes on for miles. The difficulty and realism I really enjoy out of this game and with yet again guns that are relatable and have more of an impact IMO. Co-op missions are a huge plus for me, I may have enjoyed Crysis more with Co-op. The Vehicles land, sea and air and the mission editor which is quick and easy to make fun missions to share with friends all come to a greater enjoyment despite the flaws Arma had.

I enjoy hardcore games to arcadey, open ended games to linear so using that argument against me won't work, maybe Crysis struck and uncomfortable/awkward balance between the two? Hard to say really, in conclusion it really all just comes down to taste and it's almost as hard as trying to say why you don't like a certain food type other than the way it tastes.

I could have made this as short as my conclusion but with the demand of a good description I felt I should rise up to the challenge, hopefully I didn't fail. :P

Sounds to me like you only like things to be realistic to you; to be able to happen in real life. You prefer realistic guns and realistic scenarios.

But saying that, you should look at the Call of Duty series and say, why does my health regenerate? Am I a super soldier? There's no explanation. :cry:

There's the flip side of this fence. I thought CoD4 had rubbish single player. Why can't I jump over these fences? Why do soldiers never stop coming from out of that wall even though I've killed a thousand of them? Why do grenades always land 6 inches from my feet? Why does the enemy always know where I am? This is just a simple shooter with a very linear presentation. There's nothing that sticks out, in fact I'd say it's call of duty 2 with a new paint job.

My standards have grown though, I've been playing these types of linear shooters forever, so maybe I've just outgrown them. I needed something fresh, something I could play around with and do my own thing. Rather then what the millions of gamers across America are doing in the same game. Crysis brought that to me, it delivered on all fronts(except for the story, but I don't play video games for the story, since most of them lack a decent one anyway - this includes pretty much every FPS ever made.)

[QUOTE="whatisazerg"]

[QUOTE="skrat_01"]So how is its design shallow? Care to elaborate?skrat_01

There was nothing interesting under its Pretty, Shiny graphics..... "Oh wow see that branch fall off the tree..... HOLY **** that was so realistic dude""OMG pick up that turtle and throw it..... WHhhheeewwww, turtle tossing is da best" and I love how everyone tries to say how "THE GAME IS FULLY DESTRUCTIBLE"when in reality less than 15% of stuff can actually be destroyed.

Sorry but I need more than pretty graphics to entertain me.

PS. And I love how when buildings fall apart they look like a house of cards coming down..... "OOOOOoooohhhh teh realism"

Please if you like the game fine..... but that doesnt make it any better than a mediocre title compared to games that are actually, you know..... FUN!

If anything you proved how good Crysis's design is, due to the sheer lack of your ability to come up with a decent reason otherwise.

Fun is subjective, you can have fun with a ball and cup more so than any game created - difference is the ball and cups complexity, design and quality is not near that of a modern video game - remove the subjective 'fun'and then you have a proper objective comparison.

Hell would freeze over before geting an objective argument out of you, so it seems.

So your opinion doesn't count for anything as far as the topic goes.

Because you hating the game isn't making isn't diminishing its quality.

It's making it even better.

I don't have to remove the fun.... the devs did that for me.

[QUOTE="skrat_01"]

[QUOTE="whatisazerg"]

There was nothing interesting under its Pretty, Shiny graphics..... "Oh wow see that branch fall off the tree..... HOLY **** that was so realistic dude""OMG pick up that turtle and throw it..... WHhhheeewwww, turtle tossing is da best" and I love how everyone tries to say how "THE GAME IS FULLY DESTRUCTIBLE"when in reality less than 15% of stuff can actually be destroyed.

Sorry but I need more than pretty graphics to entertain me.

PS. And I love how when buildings fall apart they look like a house of cards coming down..... "OOOOOoooohhhh teh realism"

Please if you like the game fine..... but that doesnt make it any better than a mediocre title compared to games that are actually, you know..... FUN!

whatisazerg

If anything you proved how good Crysis's design is, due to the sheer lack of your ability to come up with a decent reason otherwise.

Fun is subjective, you can have fun with a ball and cup more so than any game created - difference is the ball and cups complexity, design and quality is not near that of a modern video game - remove the subjective 'fun'and then you have a proper objective comparison.

Hell would freeze over before geting an objective argument out of you, so it seems.

So your opinion doesn't count for anything as far as the topic goes.

Because you hating the game isn't making isn't diminishing its quality.

It's making it even better.

I don't have to remove the fun.... the devs did that for me.

There are two reasons for people saying its rubbish:

1) They have not played it but say they have, or based their "playing" it off gameplay videos and,
2) They have different tastes in shooters and are biased against ones that don't hold your hand from checkpoint to checkpoint guiding your every move.

foxhound_fox

LOL.... so everyone who doesnt like it are just biased and don't know what they are talking about?

And everyone who likes it, has teh bestest taste in games ever!? RIGHT!?

LOL... you Hermits are the worst fanboys ever... I used to think it was the Cows.... but they are no where near Hermits lvl of fanboyishness!

Put your blinders on, Crysis lovers.... keep telling yourself how great Crysis is..... ignorance is bliss....

and don't try and label me as a fanboy on either side of the fence, the games I've spent the most time with ever are PC Exclusives.... but I love consoles too....

Crysis is nota GREAT FPS.... it's an average FPS, with GREAT visuals..... If Crysis looked like The Conduit, we'd never hear anything about it on System Wars.

[QUOTE="whatisazerg"]

[QUOTE="skrat_01"] You didn't explain anything....

If anything you proved how good Crysis's design is, due to the sheer lack of your ability to come up with a decent reason otherwise.

Fun is subjective, you can have fun with a ball and cup more so than any game created - difference is the ball and cups complexity, design and quality is not near that of a modern video game - remove the subjective 'fun'and then you have a proper objective comparison.

Hell would freeze over before geting an objective argument out of you, so it seems.

So your opinion doesn't count for anything as far as the topic goes.

Because you hating the game isn't making isn't diminishing its quality.

It's making it even better.

AAllxxjjnn

I don't have to remove the fun.... the devs did that for me.

Oh..... I didn't know you even knew where I lived..... and who gave you the code to my door? Tell me, I wanna know.......