Printable View
Well I've been out of gaming for a few months and I just got back into it like wild fire just recently and I was wondering if crysis is worth it? I'm building a kickass pc to play games like that on the highest graphics possible, but is it worth playing on low for the content?
I played it on a decent machine. The graphics were at like high settings.
To be honest, I thought it was mediocre. For a game that boasts a nice physics engine, you can't shoot through concrete walls. I mean really. Call of Duty 4 is no Crysis game engine wise, but it's brilliant with bullet penetration.
Plus, I didn't think Crysis' gameplay was that fun. The nano suits features are pretty cool and the game looks pretty, but other than that I'd pick up something else. If I had the choice of Half Life or Crysis, HL all the way.
But that's just me.
Admittedly, Crysis was actually pretty good.
....well, it should have been. Something about it just made me yawn. I'm not exactly sure what it was - I mean it has all the aspects of a great shooter - it just felt....meh.
Maybe it was just the linearity (given the fact that it was supposed to be a sandbox game).
I thought it was a pretty bad game. I wouldn't buy it if I were you.
It was too easy, the suit (that fully healed you so long as you stood out of the line of fire for like 20 seconds) made you feel like you were invincible and the cloak reinforced it.
For some reason I enjoy playing old FPS games on emulators (like Goldeneye) rather than Crysis. In fact if Goldeneye had better AI it'd probably be totally awesome in every aspect in today's day.
Also we're seeing half-assed attempts at sub-genres. A half-sandbox/half-linear game doesn't work well if the only 'sandbox' parts are the fact that the map is really damn big but you have nothing to do in it anyway besides move to the designated spot.
It honestly felt as linear as Goldeneye. In Goldeneye you had the opportunity on two levels to go on foot or take a tank. We haven't moved from that. (Only Goldeneye's action is fast and fun)
And yet it received huge critical acclaim.
Oi, I'm tired of mediocre or worse games receiving rave reviews. EA games (like this and Snore... I mean Spore) are even more frequently like this, most likely due to EA's manipulations and arm twistings of the review sites and publications.
It is a mediocre games gameplay wise, although I'd say higher than mediocre. The suit means you can do things lots of different ways, but its still essentially the same.
The reason it got huge critical acclaim is because it was groundbreaking graphics wise.
But that doesn't make it a great game.
I'd say its worth buying though.
I played it, enjoyed it, but the zero G atmosphere was absolutely annoying.
Oh fuck yeah, that shit was gay. That took me ages.
Warhead probably isn't worth it as it will be the same game pretty much from the sounds of it.
A friend is bringing it over tonight so I will have a play around with it and post my remarks on it later.
Well, Gamespot, for example, praised its "dynamic, emergent shooter gameplay." In fact, most of the review is a litany of praise for the gameplay. In fact, in this 2 page review, the graphics aren't discussed until the 4th to last paragraph, more than 3/4 of the way into it.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShitFace
If the gameplay really is mediocre, it's just another example of gaming publications kowtowing to the gaming industry in order to not lose access to things like game previews, interviews with developers, and the like.
Personally, I really enjoyed it. The graphics were probably a better aspect of the game, right after gameplay.
Hussein, if you say this game was too easy then you obviously have more skill than I.
One of the hardest games that I've ever played on Hard, so take that as you will.
I played on hard too. Thing is, the game would of been much harder had the player not have been able to cloak himself at random (or at least make it harder to move and such) nor have been to automatically heal. In some cases I could just open fire, get shot at, hide behind a rock and wait about 10 seconds before cloaking, moving a bit, and killing enemies before they have time to react.
I didn't find AI that intelligent, which was depressing. Of course, they weren't to smart in Farcry either.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJkCW...eature=relatedQuote:
Originally Posted by TheOriginalGrumpySpy
Either I was super smart, my game was bugged or they were actually retarded. Then again, I played on Medium... which might have to do with AI intelligence.
[video=youtube;OOeL_cOWHa0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XzRF9A3Gf4&feature=related"]He was[/url] being [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOeL_cOWHa0&feature=related[/video]Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOriginalGrumpySpy
(Note they're speaking Korean in the last video, meaning it's at the highest difficulty level.)
yeah, gamespot/ign fucking suck and can be bought at the right price. i lol'd when too human got a 5 from gamespot, but kung fu panda got a 5.5.
and i would just wait for far cry 2. it comes out on the 21st of this month and looks like what crysis could/should of been.