just picked up Crysis from Circuit City for 20 bucks

[andylawcc]

I don't see why ppl here would say it's boring. That was the most fun I've had from FPS in a while (not counting CoD4, which is very fun too, but I say it's behind Crysis).

next up: Bioshock.


and to the critics of Crysis: please name the FPS to prefer more.

 

[SunnyD]

And I just sold Crysis on the forums for $25. Big deal.

My review of Crysis:

Visuals: So-so eye candy, nothing special.
Gameplay: Run... run... run some more... oh, shoot something. And run some more... *yawn*

 

[shortylickens]

Aside from graphics which are too good to run properly on modern video cards, Crysis has nothing going for it.

Also, when did we get a backpack avatar?
Is it new? I havent seen it before.

 

[SunnyD]

Originally posted by: shortylickens
Aside from graphics which are too good to run properly on modern video cards, Crysis has nothing going for it.

Also, when did we get a backpack avatar?
Is it new? I havent seen it before.

It's been there for as long as I can remember.

 

[andylawcc]

aw, come on guy, what FPS you would consider better? Half Life?

 

[skace]

Crysis is amazing, it will be several years before most machines can fully appreciate it. I whole heartedly expect a large change of opinion some years from now when people can actually enjoy the game for what it is.

 

[CottonRabbit]

Sigh, every thread about Crysis will get the same knee-jerk replies about how it sucks.

To the OP, I suggest you at least take a look at the sandbox before moving on, I had more fun with that than the campaign.

 

[SunnyD]

Originally posted by: CottonRabbit
Sigh, every thread about Crysis will get the same knee-jerk replies about how it sucks.

To the OP, I suggest you at least take a look at the sandbox before moving on, I had more fun with that than the campaign.

Not knee-jerk. I played it. It was meh at best. Certainly nothing "ahead of it's time".

 

[GundamSonicZeroX]

Originally posted by: shortylickens
Aside from graphics which are "too good to run properly on modern video cards", Crysis has nothing going for it.

Sorry, had to put that in quotation marks.

 

[mundane]

Originally posted by: andylawcc
aw, come on guy, what FPS you would consider better? Half Life?

I'm about 2/3 of the way through, and think it's been great for only $20.

 

[TheVrolok]

Originally posted by: SunnyD

Originally posted by: CottonRabbit
Sigh, every thread about Crysis will get the same knee-jerk replies about how it sucks.

To the OP, I suggest you at least take a look at the sandbox before moving on, I had more fun with that than the campaign.

Not knee-jerk. I played it. It was meh at best. Certainly nothing "ahead of it's time".

I'm curious how you can claim the graphics were "so-so" and that it's nothing "ahead of it's time" when it boasts perhaps the best graphics of an FPS to date .. provided you have some powerful hardware. It's so good .. that the best hardware out there still can't run it at 60 fps. Given some time machines will catch up and you'll get to see how amazing the graphics really can be but they're still damned good now as long as you have an adequate machine.

I would agree that the gameplay was definitely nothing new.. another run and gun FPS with a few vehicles here and there. Sure, the suit "added something" but I wouldn't call it innovative. I still enjoyed it though, for it's somewhat cinematic quality.

 

[Renob]

I'm curious how you can claim the graphics were "so-so" and that it's nothing "ahead of it's time" when it boasts perhaps the best graphics of an FPS to date .. provided you have some powerful hardware. It's so good .. that the best hardware out there still can't run it at 60 fps. Given some time machines will catch up and you'll get to see how amazing the graphics really can be but they're still damned good now as long as you have an adequate machine.

What if part of the problem is the software is poorly coded that is the reason for the poor FPS, no I dont know this to be the case jut tossing it in the mix, and why would you release a game that runs like crap on 95% of the worlds computers I think that was a bad move!

I remember when Far Cry came out, my PC sucked and i played it with all the cool stuff turned off, Im now playing it for the second time with everything MAXEd out and I must say it has added a lot to the game, I always say "game play first" but dang the eye candy sure imporves it for me!!! lol 180FPS for the win!!

I have seen video of Crysis and the eye candy is KILLER looking, I guess I will just have to get me a copy!

 

[SunnyD]

Originally posted by: TheVrolok

Originally posted by: SunnyD

Originally posted by: CottonRabbit
Sigh, every thread about Crysis will get the same knee-jerk replies about how it sucks.

To the OP, I suggest you at least take a look at the sandbox before moving on, I had more fun with that than the campaign.

Not knee-jerk. I played it. It was meh at best. Certainly nothing "ahead of it's time".

I'm curious how you can claim the graphics were "so-so" and that it's nothing "ahead of it's time" when it boasts perhaps the best graphics of an FPS to date .. provided you have some powerful hardware. It's so good .. that the best hardware out there still can't run it at 60 fps. Given some time machines will catch up and you'll get to see how amazing the graphics really can be but they're still damned good now as long as you have an adequate machine.

I would agree that the gameplay was definitely nothing new.. another run and gun FPS with a few vehicles here and there. Sure, the suit "added something" but I wouldn't call it innovative. I still enjoyed it though, for it's somewhat cinematic quality.

I'm curious how you can claim they kicked ass. It's relative. Basically I saw nothing that I haven't seen in other engines. Okay, they pushed more "foliage" on the screen. However that foliage wasn't anything special - still static polys with transparent textures on it. That's about it. All Crysis is is another FPS with liberal post-processing effects. Unless I missed a checkbox in the settings that turns on live-filmed-action mode, the game was meh. Graphically, UT3 is more appealing. Gameplay-wise, meh.

 

[DSF]

Originally posted by: skace
Crysis is amazing, it will be several years before most machines can fully appreciate it. I whole heartedly expect a large change of opinion some years from now when people can actually enjoy the game for what it is.

Even when the game realizes its full graphical potential, there isn't much to it. It's a pretty short game by today's standards, and the cloak mode is broken.

I enjoyed playing it. I feel like I got my money's worth (especially since it was a Christmas present ). I still wouldn't rank it among the greatest games ever, or even the greatest FPSs ever.

 

[andylawcc]

after (finally) beating Quake4 and not discounting it's graphic qualities, game-play wise Crysis is much more engaging than Q4. Yes, both are run and gun, but at least Crysis has a decent storyline and different scenes... island breach, full scale assault on the AA batteries (really gave a feeling of war), ice mountain, USM Continental.... unlike Q4 where you are just in a hostile planet. And to be really pushing it I actually enjoyed the Tank mode more than the Mechs in Q4. the VTOL wasn't as bad as everyone say, but just pointless.

Crysis is not a short game, it's just right; I got 10 hours in Hard mode. CoD4 is a short game.


and to the critics of Crysis, please name the FPS you enjoyed more. I actually enjoyed this a tad more than Half Life 2 to be honest.

and let's put thing in perspective:
I really enjoyed: CoD4, Serious Sam, System Shock, Half Life 1, Max Payne 1, Thief 1&2, Hitman 1
really hated: Q2, Q4.

and I played mine on 1024x768, with Medium Setting with high on some.

 

[CottonRabbit]

Originally posted by: SunnyD

I'm curious how you can claim they kicked ass. It's relative. Basically I saw nothing that I haven't seen in other engines. Okay, they pushed more "foliage" on the screen. However that foliage wasn't anything special - still static polys with transparent textures on it. That's about it. All Crysis is is another FPS with liberal post-processing effects. Unless I missed a checkbox in the settings that turns on live-filmed-action mode, the game was meh. Graphically, UT3 is more appealing. Gameplay-wise, meh.

Most foliage in Crysis isn't static.

It's funny that you claim Crysis uses too many post-processing effects when the UT3 engine probalbly adds more bloom than any other game engine and blooms everything at a distance. The only time I get such large amounts of bloom in Crysis is when I move from a dark room to a sunny outside, which is a far more realistic usage of the effect.

But of course screenshots have been posted dozens of times, so if you still don't like the look, I won't be able to convince you.

 

[EvilComputer92]

Crysis > COD4

 

[SlowSpyder]

Maybe it's becuase I'm not a big fan of first person shooters in the first place, but to me the game just seemed so mind numbingly boring. If you gave it average graphics, then what would the game really have to offer? It's the same vanilla first person shooter you've played 500 times before with better graphics.

Also, it runs really well on my computer, not 60FPS well, but not bad by any means either. I played it at 1680x1050 all settings on 'High' and it was perfectly playable. I didn't bother with AA, but it played fine at those settings. I was expecting a slide show but averaged over 25FPS on my 2900 Pro @ 800mhz and my Phenom 9850.

 

[andylawcc]

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder
Maybe it's becuase I'm not a big fan of first person shooters in the first place, but to me the game just seemed so mind numbingly boring.

ever tried Doom3 or Quake4

 

[BassBomb]

Originally posted by: SunnyD

Originally posted by: TheVrolok

Originally posted by: SunnyD

Originally posted by: CottonRabbit
Sigh, every thread about Crysis will get the same knee-jerk replies about how it sucks.

To the OP, I suggest you at least take a look at the sandbox before moving on, I had more fun with that than the campaign.

Not knee-jerk. I played it. It was meh at best. Certainly nothing "ahead of it's time".

I'm curious how you can claim the graphics were "so-so" and that it's nothing "ahead of it's time" when it boasts perhaps the best graphics of an FPS to date .. provided you have some powerful hardware. It's so good .. that the best hardware out there still can't run it at 60 fps. Given some time machines will catch up and you'll get to see how amazing the graphics really can be but they're still damned good now as long as you have an adequate machine.

I would agree that the gameplay was definitely nothing new.. another run and gun FPS with a few vehicles here and there. Sure, the suit "added something" but I wouldn't call it innovative. I still enjoyed it though, for it's somewhat cinematic quality.

I'm curious how you can claim they kicked ass. It's relative. Basically I saw nothing that I haven't seen in other engines. Okay, they pushed more "foliage" on the screen. However that foliage wasn't anything special - still static polys with transparent textures on it. That's about it. All Crysis is is another FPS with liberal post-processing effects. Unless I missed a checkbox in the settings that turns on live-filmed-action mode, the game was meh. Graphically, UT3 is more appealing. Gameplay-wise, meh.

Thats how all foliage is done, it would be extremely impractical to do otherwise. I loved how it moved WITH you as you went through it so you couldn't just sit in a bush like Far Cry

 

[Canai]

I loved Crysis, and I think it was well worth the money buying it at launch.

Now if they'd only release that MechWarrior mod...

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: andylawcc
and to the critics of Crysis, please name the FPS you enjoyed more. I actually enjoyed this a tad more than Half Life 2 to be honest.

and let's put thing in perspective:
I really enjoyed: CoD4, Serious Sam, System Shock, Half Life 1, Max Payne 1, Thief 1&2, Hitman 1
really hated: Q2, Q4.

and I played mine on 1024x768, with Medium Setting with high on some.

I enjoyed HL2 much more than Crysis. I also like CoD2 & 4, Q2, and Max Payne quite a bit more than Crysis. Add XIII to that list, too.

 

[BassBomb]

Gameplay/fun/singeplayer


HL2 series >> FarCry >> FEAR > Crysis >> COD4 >>>>>>>>>> DOOM3


Graphics

Crysis >>>>> FEAR > HL2 series > Far Cry

 

[jtvang125]

I don't know why so many people are bashing crysis so hard. Everything bad being said about it can be said about all other current FPSs too.

 

[TheVrolok]

Originally posted by: BassBomb

Originally posted by: SunnyD

Originally posted by: TheVrolok

Originally posted by: SunnyD

Originally posted by: CottonRabbit
Sigh, every thread about Crysis will get the same knee-jerk replies about how it sucks.

To the OP, I suggest you at least take a look at the sandbox before moving on, I had more fun with that than the campaign.

Not knee-jerk. I played it. It was meh at best. Certainly nothing "ahead of it's time".

I'm curious how you can claim the graphics were "so-so" and that it's nothing "ahead of it's time" when it boasts perhaps the best graphics of an FPS to date .. provided you have some powerful hardware. It's so good .. that the best hardware out there still can't run it at 60 fps. Given some time machines will catch up and you'll get to see how amazing the graphics really can be but they're still damned good now as long as you have an adequate machine.

I would agree that the gameplay was definitely nothing new.. another run and gun FPS with a few vehicles here and there. Sure, the suit "added something" but I wouldn't call it innovative. I still enjoyed it though, for it's somewhat cinematic quality.

I'm curious how you can claim they kicked ass. It's relative. Basically I saw nothing that I haven't seen in other engines. Okay, they pushed more "foliage" on the screen. However that foliage wasn't anything special - still static polys with transparent textures on it. That's about it. All Crysis is is another FPS with liberal post-processing effects. Unless I missed a checkbox in the settings that turns on live-filmed-action mode, the game was meh. Graphically, UT3 is more appealing. Gameplay-wise, meh.

Thats how all foliage is done, it would be extremely impractical to do otherwise. I loved how it moved WITH you as you went through it so you couldn't just sit in a bush like Far Cry

Yep.


And I never claimed Crysis kicked ass - I said the gameplay was very run of the mill. To claim the graphics were so-so though, was absurd considering they don't get any better anywhere out there. It and UT3 just about cover high end graphics.