bit-gamer.net

Crysis Was Terrible

Comments 1 to 25 of 217

Reply
Guinevere 14th June 2010, 09:39 Quote
Quote:
Crysis Was Terrible

What he said
Vode 14th June 2010, 09:44 Quote
Don't forget that obligatory flying level at the end... I'm hoping I'm not the only one that found it annoying:

Here have 10 missiles and an ineffective gun to go up against 30+ alien craft, and it's also a escort mission, what fun!
Bindibadgi 14th June 2010, 09:48 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vode
Don't forget that obligatory flying level at the end... I'm hoping I'm not the only one that found it annoying:

Here have 10 missiles and an ineffective gun to go up against 30+ alien craft, and it's also a escort mission, what fun!

I broke a keyboard with a fist smack playing that mission.

**** you Crytek. You owe me a keyboard.
AcidJiles 14th June 2010, 09:49 Quote
Have to agree. Played it a few times to try and get into it but it was never what I would call anything other than marginal fun.
yakyb 14th June 2010, 09:52 Quote
wow thats a bit of a slating

i sit on both sides of the fences in this argument, which coincidentally places me smack bang in the middle

Trigens in far cry where awful and like wise with the aliens in crysis, they just where not necessary.

however if you watch one of Gunsmiths (nanosuitninja) videos it is clear to see how the game can be played and enjoyed well.

I love the island setting and it speaks to me perfectly of dr evils lair in austin powers where you should be attempting to kill some terrorist leader not some random alien
gavomatic57 14th June 2010, 09:53 Quote
I have to disagree. I loved it and I replay it quite often. Admittedly I usually stop and start again when it gets chilly.

Trouble is, it is never going to be Half Life 2.
Silver51 14th June 2010, 09:55 Quote
So Far Cry 2 is Underappreciated, BioShock was Unmissable and Crysis Was Terrible? Uh, so I'm either suffering the effects of an early morning sugar crash or I've accidentally navigated my way to the Sun's homepage.

I'm just going to say that I disagree with the article and leave it at that.
Instagib 14th June 2010, 10:03 Quote
There was never any re-playability on offer for me. Yes i am aware some like to play it as a stealth 'em up; but i rather play Splinter Cell. Or as a shooter; well there's more shooters better than Crysis than i care to mention.

But at the same time, there is no denying Crysis was a landmark game. It laid down the gauntlet to nVidia and Ati to drag their gfx r'n'd up to speed.
outlawaol 14th June 2010, 10:12 Quote
I enjoyed the game. What Crytek should have done is develop the engine entirely and let a great studio write a story. Its pretty obvious that story clearly out weights the graphics (I am yet to see a game that looks as stunning as Crysis). I honestly think the problem with todays games is that 101 people have their hands in the development. Great movies are case in point of single writers making block buster awesome films - so why not do it the same way with games? (Please dont get me wrong, I know thousands of people are needed to make a film... just think about Star Wars).
MathiasLM 14th June 2010, 10:14 Quote
I also disagree.
It's easy to point out all the flaws of a game (as seen a few times here recently), but no game is perfect.
Crytek never promised a game, that would run smoothly on any machine. They made this as a benchmark for how well graphics could be in the future.
Your examples of competitive engines are laughable to be honest - Unreal Engine 3 doesn't require much, but it doesn't deliver near this level of detail either?? It's true, most gamers never even notice basic things like AA, but Crysis wasn't made for those kinda people. Same goes for the Source Engine. In fact - you can see just how little the CryEngine 2 requires, when it's dropped to the same level as the Unreal Engine 3, in Far Cry 2. Reflections are just random lowres images as if this was a bad cartoon.

Crysis was overhyped, yes, but so are most games these days. Pre-renders have become normal and EA can cut out another NFS-game in 2 months... Crysis deserves it's place in history as a hardware-killer with stunning visuals. Much like the Bugatti Veyron, it isn't a game that's meant to be played, but rather an example of how great things can be if you can afford them.
crazyceo 14th June 2010, 10:15 Quote
I actually liked the idea that you had to upgrade your system to get the best results playing a game. However, I have to admit I was a little disappointed with the overall game. It looked fantastic but just didn't grab you in like HL2 - HL2:EP2.

Shame really, especially since we heard here it looks like Crysis 2 will be a console port.
Fabou 14th June 2010, 10:17 Quote
I had fun in Crysis. Even if fight was low, destroying tower and house with bomb while corean were in it was priceless. I had no difficulty (when my PC wasn't laggging), I had no interest for the story. But it was the first game who gave this feeling of power on the environnement.
DbD 14th June 2010, 10:39 Quote
Enjoyed Crysis - was it the best game of all time? No. Was it a fun? Certainly.

Tbh this is the on-line equivalent of a daily mail article - inventing drama where there is none to get a few page hits and sell a few more adverts.
lacuna 14th June 2010, 10:41 Quote
I much preferred Far Cry to Crysis. It was much longer (or took me a lot longer anyway) and it felt a lot more open. I played Crysis once but I haven't felt the need to replay whereas I have replayed levels on Farcry a lot.

As regards the enemies, I had no issue with the Trigens; they posed a real challenge and built in a lot of tension. They weren't as tough as what people claim and could very often be bypassed, especially the biggest ones. The aliens in Crysis were boring in comparison.
Ph4ZeD 14th June 2010, 10:45 Quote
Crysis was quite sucky, but when my Dell U2410 arrives tomorrow, guess which game I'm firing up first to see how it looks...
Pieface 14th June 2010, 10:54 Quote
I agree, it was too linear and such a boring story that it ruined the game for me. It showed how Graphics came before Gameplay, and that ruined the game.
Jim 14th June 2010, 11:03 Quote
I agree to be honest.

Crysis was amazing for so many reasons - great graphics, brilliant gameplay ideas, lifelike touches here and there.

Problem is, it just wasn't fun to play. I used to get so angry watching those videos of someone effortlessly flitting between "maximum modes" to execute some amazing run through a base that was more reminiscent of Tony Hawks than Half-Life.

My memory of the game is never using maximum speed, because it would usually deplete your energy just as you arrived inside a room of angry Koreans, never using maximum strength because shooting two guys in the head is far more productive than running up to them and grabbing them round the throat, whilst having bullets pumped into your head, and finally sitting in a bush for hours waiting for the energy to come back so I could re-stealth. Which was a bit like playing Mouse Simulator 2007.
Combatus 14th June 2010, 11:07 Quote
I'm in the disagree camp mostly. The only real issue I had with the game was that the graphics needed to be toned down significantly, even for cutting edge hardware a year after it's release. I simply refuse to play a new game that I can't max out or nearly max out the settings and get playable frame rates. Because Crysis was all about visual splendour, this had to wait nearly two years until I had a system capable of doing this. At least Far Cry actually ran well when you got back with your shiny new Shader Model 3-equipped 6800GT...
Phalanx 14th June 2010, 11:09 Quote
You know, I've never played Crysis. I did consider buying it at one point simply to test my hardware, but then I realised it would literally just be a benchmark, which I could get online for free and would do a better job.

Looks like I never missed anything :)
lysaer 14th June 2010, 11:22 Quote
I'd have to strongly disagree, I really enjoyed Cyysis and Crysis Warhead
alex101 14th June 2010, 11:26 Quote
I strongly disagree... half the reason I play games is for the graphics, so for me Crysis ticks all the boxes for me.
Pete J 14th June 2010, 11:29 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vode
Don't forget that obligatory flying level at the end... I'm hoping I'm not the only one that found it annoying:

Here have 10 missiles and an ineffective gun to go up against 30+ alien craft, and it's also a escort mission, what fun!
Am I the only one who found that level piss easy?

Where's Gunsmith? He must have had an aneurysm or something :D

All I'll say is that personally I found Crysis a solid 80% game - good fun. Of course it looks absolutely stunning on its highest settings but there again it takes, what, £2000+ to be able to do that?

I'm surprised there hasn't been any flaming yet. Oh well, the day hasn't really begun yet; I'll get me some popcorn, sit back and watch the inevitable unfold...
Orionche 14th June 2010, 11:29 Quote
Took 3 years to figure out it was ****? :p Like the article mention's, its like a Michael Bay movie. All hyped up, shiny looking, you have fun watching it, but forget what was it about 15 minutes after you finish it.

Tech demo with shitty gameplay and a somewhat bland and predictable story.
recognize 14th June 2010, 11:30 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silver51
So Far Cry 2 is Underappreciated, BioShock was Unmissable and Crysis Was Terrible? Uh, so I'm either suffering the effects of an early morning sugar crash or I've accidentally navigated my way to the Sun's homepage.

I'm just going to say that I disagree with the article and leave it at that.

What this guy said
Bad_cancer 14th June 2010, 11:39 Quote
If gunsmith had an aneurysm, warrior must have died of happiness. lol
I declare thee flame wars open.

Where my beer and snacks?

Edit: It must be pointed out that gunsmith isn't a raving fanatic btw...
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums