game is a pos. I cant play any game at 25-35 fps. I some how manage to get better fps in crysis even though fc2 is less graphicly intence. Ill play the game once its playableicey6ch9

you are the only one everyone claims outherwise, me too

[QUOTE="thenewau25"][QUOTE="Muhannad_basic"]

it is confirmed, and am getting seriously sick and tired of PC games being delayed all the time, first Saint Row 2 and now this?? Atleast its only two weeks, hopefully it won't be pushed back further than that.

Omegax23

let em work you want bugs in your game?

QFT

what that means?

it is confirmed, and am getting seriously sick and tired of PC games being delayed all the time, first Saint Row 2 and now this?? Atleast its only two weeks, hopefully it won't be pushed back further than that.

Muhannad_basic

let em work you want bugs in your game?

honestly i dont care let em work on the game, we got games to play!

How old are you, thenewau25?

thegfl

older than you since i played fallout 1, but some people dont get that not every adult is so good at english as teenagers are for 2 reasons, first its being a long time since i was a teenager and learn english every day, and second if you speak many languges you propably miss some details, also some things maybe make sense some not, eg in german, (not my language) the words that mean objects or itmes like car, cups. pens, keys are written with CAPITOLS , makes sense?

[QUOTE="chesterocks7"]

[QUOTE="October_Tide"]thenewau25 is a far cry 2 fanboy, just ignore every thing he says. If you mention another game he will say it's utterly crap comparred to FC2. October_Tide

With the amount of time he spends on these boards I'm starting to wonder if he's played any of the games he goes on about.

Lololol, wonder if he's even played Far Cry 2 :lol:

amd i wonder if chesterocks7 ever played stalker or he is just hyping what he heard, cuz it sound so...like the review and only just like you guys claim far cry aint like the review but i dont see why...MAYBE BECASUE THE BRAIN OF ITS PERSON HAS A DIFFIRENT PERSPECTIVE OF THINGS, its called taste

[QUOTE="thenewau25"][QUOTE="October_Tide"][QUOTE="thenewau25"]

[QUOTE="October_Tide"]thenewau25 is a far cry 2 fanboy, just ignore every thing he says. If you mention another game he will say it's utterly crap comparred to FC2. October_Tide

october_tide why dont you post something in you profile to figiure if you are a crysis fanboy and everything i say about crysis is wrong cuz its a perferct game for you?, or why dont check that i was talking about stalker, you wanna ask me something ask me and am sure i can answer without fanboizym you calim jsut try out!

LOLOLOLOL here you go again. I didn't mention anything about Crysis and yet you bring it up lol. And yes I did see that you were talking about stalker from the endless posts of you saying how much it sucks like every other game in the world compared to far cry 2.

no i jsut assume people say i hate crysis while a rate warhead with an 8 and i dont got something against stalker i gave it a 7 to shadow of cherrobyl clear sky is much better, now about far cry 2? i think its better than stalker for bigger worldmap the story explains stuff also driving and buying stuff has a meaning, GUNS but in stalker no need for sidequests for bonus money that will be used for guns or amrors since there arent any extra expensive powerfull guns or equipment to buy, only generic ones the good ones you gotta progress the main missions so you can take them from masterstalkers after you kill them, cant find them in shops! About far cry 2? many people defend crysis for the flaws that they hate far cry 2 for, i dont get why all that unfairness so that flaw rocks in crysis but in far cry the same flaw turns the game bad? i dont get it why bashing far cry 2 for the same reasons many outher games can be bashed, its just like they expect to be better than anything but turn like a huge dissapoitment , or simply defend crysis cuz they hate they possubility that MIGHT a bette game comes out, eg that user said that stalker has a big worldmap, wrong everyouther game with a worldmap has bigger so its small, perhaps fable has smaller, so why to listen to him? i completed stalker 4 times and i know everything apart from artifact names and weapon names, so how can he say ma wrong on what i say? do you know of stalker? ask me something...

For one there are plenty of games better than crysis imo, deadspace, cod4, stalker SOC (although CS wasn't that great), Bioshock, Warhead is better than the original. But what does Crysis have to do with Far Cry 2? Stalker is a better comparison to far cry 2. People bash far cry 2 like they bash all games (Stalker got bad reception by some people for all its bugs, Crysis certainly did after the hype died down). Most people just don't seem to like far cry 2 because its flaws are hard to look past to enjoy the game.

i completly i agree on what you said, even on the cod4 is better than crysis and warhead is better than the original but nashing a free roam game or a game with a lot of features because it aint good as fps is not something new, so why all that? i mean people still haven get past the idea tht you cant plat stalker crysi fallout 3 and bioshock or far cry 2 by the same way you play cod 4 because cod is perfectizing it self in the shoot enemies with weapon sight idea, not having armors like stalker or jam like far cry or the fact that far cry 2 has not so reallistic combat is the same as crysis not having reallistic combat but instead you use the suit abilities, but if you dont have all these it would play like cod4, but cod 4 is more polished on "using guns ONLY to kill enemies" so it fells better, so people miss the difirent ideas crysis offers cuz they want cod 4, but because far cry 2 doesnt have those ideas its like you remove the powers from crysis, looks unreallistic so they bash far cry 2 for not being as proper as cod4 and not crysis because it has abilities, but people miss that some people might not see anything great in suit abilities but in far cry 2 worldmap, or again like to play with guns, but still if you use weapons inc far cry 2 and crysis its the shame thing, not very real, but in crysis you shoot the head, well in far cry 2you better shoot the body a headshot isnt that subtle in this game, this is how mostly i paly fps no headshots, guns killl people! Now why i didnt include stalker? simple becaus it relies more in the armor you are wearing and the weapon you use, for me stalker is hyped its not a travel in chernobyl jsut a short game in 5 years in development with small map and bad story, unlikely clear sky is a great game, there is even actual faction joining, but as you said the flaws.. eg its so buggy that ign or gt trailers gaave it gameplay 5.3 but thats wrong its so much better than the previous game!

[QUOTE="thenewau25"]

I COMPLETED THE GAME 4 TIMES? HAVE YOU PLAYED IT AT ALL? ASK ME WHATEVER YOU WANT just not weapon names, i can remeber that in wild territory there is an easter egg about gordon freeman and big ben gun SEE I PLAYED IT!

chesterocks7

Knowing easter egg locations simply means you know how to read the Hints & Cheats page on gamespot.

ask me something i only read faqs on survival horror games

[QUOTE="zomglolcats"][QUOTE="Omegax23"][QUOTE="Mochyc"]

[QUOTE="Baselerd"]Gametrailers is a joke.... they say dont go in with the pretense that it's going to be another Halo or GoW? Wth?smerlus

Probably to assure people that it's not just another shooter but it's actually a RPG.

Exactly! People need to stop comparing games as well.

Well, the sad thing behind the whole comparison, is that if they were going to compare it to ANYTHING, how about the original fallout games? Would have made more sense to say "Don't expect it to be like the old school fallout games", as anybody with a brain wasn't expecting it to be a Halo, or Gears. Fallout was never a console game, until the 3rd one.

I think it's almost impossible to actually compare Fallout 3 to Fallout 1 or 2 just because of the time difference and the change in game style.

Combat in Fallout 3 is much better than the combat in Fallout 1 & 2. Now when I overpower an enemy I can kill them with real time speed. If I run into an enemy I'm having a hard time with, I use VATS and slow the game down a bit and try to get some crucial hits in.

AI is far better in Fallout 3. If I shoot someone in town, not everyone runs at me, just the people that think they can take me while everyone else runs away.

The graphics are amazing. Now I can actually see a ghoul that looks like a ghoul instead of a green colored 2d sprite. just everything is great looking.

I'm not too far into the game but I can already tell the RPG aspects are better than Oblivion's. There is hardly any humor so i would compare the story to Fallout 1 and not Fallout 2. So for now strickly speaking about RPG's Fallout 1 & 2 > Fallout 3 >>>>>> Oblivion

Other than that I don't see how the games can be compared.

id say i dint find fallout 1 that great, find the water chip , ## that days remaining and in terms of options it had plenty in sidequests but the last main quest was hard to find you neeed to talk to someone in libary to revel the next part of the game, well....

[QUOTE="thenewau25"][QUOTE="thegfl"][QUOTE="thenewau25"][QUOTE="chesterocks7"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="thenewau25"]

[QUOTE="SuperBeast"]GT is the site that refused to give Crysis the best graphics of the year award because of how demanding it was and it wouldn't be "fair" for the other games. Thats the day I stopped going to that site. zomglolcats

thats why i love these guys they dont care only about crysis ulike 80% of pc & mac forums

Lol thenew stop posting seriously, we arn't talking about the quality of the game we are talkinga bout its graphics.. Which is undeniable how good it looks REGARDLESS how much you despise it, and then hump the leg of Farcry 2.. :P

For real kid, you cannot deny that Crysis is the best looking game ever made, no matter how much you hate it. If you try to deny it, no one is going to take you seriously.

am no kid i dont deny being the most technical advanced in graphical section but graphics are a taste eg i dont give a damn about the way it looks ill go fo far cry 2 and fallout 3, but seriously the ONLY reason the graphics are so good is the high requirements that consoles can much, crysis has much higher requirements than outher games to max out, if every game had so good graphics then we gonna need better video cards, just like oblivion some years ago or far cry 1, few pcs can max them, so the fact crysis or whatever outher game comes out EXCLUSIVLY on pc and has the best graphics, is cheating in competition by settings the standards too high, dont you think that they could do the same with eg far cry 2 or fallout 3, IF they werent so wide and open worldmap games, and IF they were only in pc? eg doom 3 was a pc exclusive that still you need an 8800 to max out even the 16X antialising, so simply doom 3 had so good graphics cuz it require a pc from feature, thats what fear did, and came out later in x360 that it was "possible to work with so good graphics in a console" ,NOT ON RELEASE BUT LATER! thats what crysis does and thats what doom did tey set graphics too high eg brother in arms came after a year from doom 3, but the graphics were a joke compared to doom 3, but still considered great , DUH, see jsut like chronicles or riddick amazing graphics but few know of the game so outher games considered as great graphics, thats why gt didn give it the reward because it did the same as far cry that came before doom 3, they gave as graphics that "back then" most of us couldnt handle, the term great graphics somes with great optimization in consoles, so having a greater pc made to get those graphics, eg the vista dx10 excuse made it like comparing a Plasystation 4 to x360, so crysis was so superior that it demanded a next generation system that consoles though as impossible, crysis graphics were too good so good that requiere to compare the game for the xbox console and not x360, crysis was way too good to win the award, its a pure winner not a compettitor since its superior so they keep it away from compatition and compare the equal technology games, every heard of weight category? you dont let someone weight 120 kg to fight with outhers that weight about 50 -80 kg!

Crysis has better graphics than any game available technically, that's a fact. Sorry.

THATS EXACTLY WHAT I SAID DID YOU EVEN READ? WHAT I SAID IS THAT THE TECHNICAL SECTOR IS SO HIGH THAT THEY CANT COMPARE IT WITH X360 OR PS3, IN FACT THEY GONNA HAVE TO COMPARE IT TO A PS4 SO ITS FAIR, EVER HEARD OF WEIGHT CATERGORIES? YOU DONT SEND SOMEONE WEIGHT 120 KG TO FIGHT PEOPLE WHO WEIGHT 50- 80 KG! THATS WHY CRYSIS CAN BE COMPARE IT BELONGS TO THE CATEGORY OF THE NEXT CONSOLES SINCE THEY CANT MUCH, IT GT REVIEWS BELIEVES THAT CRYSIS JSUT LIKE FAR CRY IS CHEATING BY SIMPLE USING A PC FROM SPACE TO LOOK SUPERIOR THAN CONSOLES SO IT CANT BE COMPARED WITH X360 AND PS3 THAT DONT KNOW WHAT DX10 IS , SO ITS OUT OF COMPETITION, ITS LIKE SENDING A PROFESSIONAL TO COMPETITE WITH AMATEURS, now if i like crysis graphics thats another thing...

Crysis shouldn't be compared to consoles period, since you can't own it on one. How about comparing PC games with PC games, and console games with console games? Your analogy is innaccurate to say the least. There is no reason a game, Crysis or not, should get a lower score in graphics because consoles can't handle it. That's completely asanine.

let me explain

SuperBeast wrote: GT is the site that refused to give Crysis the best graphics of the year award because of how demanding it was and it wouldn't be "fair" for the other games. Thats the day I stopped going to that site.

I said yeah and explained what happen and its true crysis requirements are like it should be compared with the next consoles eg playstation 4 so they couldnt compare it it was far too superior in technologies that x360 and ps3 could NEVER use, so yes i agreee that its a stupid thing to give lower score to a game just for that, but the reason they did it cuz crysis just like far cry and doom 3, demanded from a pc to use at least 1 year later hardware since the game came out, so crytek was like screw them we will make a game with graphics a lot over the limits so the consoles cant match as, as result that was like cheating as doom 3 and fear did, remeber fear it came out later on x360, so thats the point, in order a game to win the best graphics award it has to smply show graphics like it was released one year later and judging by that the requirements will be much higher so every game that increases the graphics is the winner, at the end the game will alg terribly if you keep it this way, but in consoles they optimize the graphics but crytek NEVER cared about optimizng, they always say dont worry you gonna max our game with the next year hardware!(i am talking about far cry 1) so id rahter to say that it aint gt fault but the reviwers who at the same time decided to keep the console anger down, try to keep all ina good stat, we gotta make sacrifises!