Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Krelian]

I find it cute that crytec thought people believed Crysis was a game, when clearly it wasn't anything but a tech demo.
The orginal Crysis was only popular because of the hardware it needed to run it. Due to that it became a wankfest for hardware fans. It also became some strange "right of passage" for pc gamers when they got a system strong enough to run crysis.

Throwing all this out the window, they decided to make another bland shooter with a few gimmicks trying to hold it together. All in the predictable atempt to make Call of Duty: Nanosuit edition.

that sounded too much like a call-of-duty-fanboy rant to me....

I found the first crysis to be super fun, and enjoyable. The suit thing had no equal at the time in a shotter. I decided to play the game as a stealth sniper, and no other game had offered that to me before (besides AvsP primal hunt, but thats different). The part inside the alien ship/base was aweome too.

NOW, about your second game coments, I agree with you. This shit is nothing but a console port. The lack of advanced graphics config just confirms it.

Typical, it always happens when they take PC franchices to the consoles.

We have to conform with shitier graphics, dumbed down game mechanics, and poor controls.

Like Supreme Commander 2.. what a piece of shit compared to the first one.

[Virtz]

I thought the first one was pretty fun at times. Those times when you would fight a bunch of Koreans all alone, that is.

As far as calling it a "Call of Duty clone", that'd include a large percentage of FPSes having nothing to do with CoD-like gameplay. Looking at the original Crysis, there were: no cutscenes every 10 seconds, mostly no waiting for people to open doors for your stupid ass, much more open environment and destructive physics on certain buildings giving some tension to fights against vehicles (provided your physics setting was at least medium). Oh, and also fighting squid-like aliens.

The suit was sort of gimmicky at times, yeah, but in a fun way. Maximum strength ain't ever gonna be really useful in warfare with full automatic weapons, but it sure is fun to punch your way through a wall, grab someone by the neck and hurl him 10 meters into rocks.

I dunno about Crysis 2 singleplayer yet. But the multiplayer demo sucked. 2 out of 3 graphical "settings" made the bloom so bad all I could see was grey blurs on a white background. And the server browser was the worst I've ever seen, it never displayed pings for me and never showed accurate player amounts. Although they made jumping and climbing work pretty smoothly, I guess.

[Vattic]

I mostly enjoyed the first game and especially when it gave me open levels.

Maximum strength ain't ever gonna be really useful in warfare with full automatic weapons

Except when you use it to steady your aim.

[Catastrophic lolcats]

I'm a little confused, I guess I didn't communicate my points across well enough.

Krelain: What makes you think I'm a Call of Duty fan when I just spent a long point expressing it's part of the problem with modern shooters?
I wouldn't say the gameplay was really unique and any of the innovations that they added to it were destroyed (atleast for me) by the over all terrible story and charactors. As I said in my former post the game does have it's better parts, it just seems to be outshined by the buggy physics and other problems that made the experience for me rather bland.

Virtz: My fault, but I was calling the second one a CoD clone. The first one was before the whole Modern Warfare 2 LOLAWSUM "gunplay".
As for my gimmic statement: the first game used the suit a lot, mostly because the environment allowed for it. In the second game the suit just features as a gimmick since all you can really do is run around linear corridors shooting people with ironsights.
The multiplayer is the real proof of how much Crysis 2 is another unimpressive CoD clone, avoid at all costs.

Anyway feel free to tear my arugments to peices. I'm a scientist, debate is always welcome.

[kg333]

I thought the first one was pretty fun at times. Those times when you would fight a bunch of Koreans all alone, that is.

As far as calling it a "Call of Duty clone", that'd include a large percentage of FPSes having nothing to do with CoD-like gameplay. Looking at the original Crysis, there were: no cutscenes every 10 seconds, mostly no waiting for people to open doors for your stupid ass, much more open environment and destructive physics on certain buildings giving some tension to fights against vehicles (provided your physics setting was at least medium). Oh, and also fighting squid-like aliens.

The suit was sort of gimmicky at times, yeah, but in a fun way. Maximum strength ain't ever gonna be really useful in warfare with full automatic weapons, but it sure is fun to punch your way through a wall, grab someone by the neck and hurl him 10 meters into rocks.

I dunno about Crysis 2 singleplayer yet. But the multiplayer demo sucked. 2 out of 3 graphical "settings" made the bloom so bad all I could see was grey blurs on a white background. And the server browser was the worst I've ever seen, it never displayed pings for me and never showed accurate player amounts. Although they made jumping and climbing work pretty smoothly, I guess.

I'd mostly agree, the first game was gimmicky but enjoyable.

The multiplayer demo for Crysis 2, however, was atrocious.  They made no attempt to hide their ripoff of "killstreak perks" a la Call of Duty, and the armor mode upgrades put another nail in the coffin.  I'm not fond of games that reward players for doing well by making it easier to continue to crush their opponents.  It's absurd when I can empty an entire clip point blank into a player, only to have him survive due to his level 5 armor from the 30 hours of play he already has.  The original mostly avoided this in multiplayer by having enough possible tactics to counter (go snipe the guy that's submachine gunning everyone to pieces), but the demo for Crysis 2 lacked any reasonable counter methods on its tiny maps.

The jumping and climbing, however, was indeed nicely done.

KG

[Sowelu]

I liked the first one on its own shooty, physicsy merits.  The suit thing didn't do much for me.

Anyway feel free to tear my arugments to peices. I'm a scientist, debate is always welcome.

That feels empty, because you weren't giving arguments, you were stating your opinion.  This isn't science.  You can't really debate opinion.

[Catastrophic lolcats]

Having no innovation and having less features than the first isn't an argument?

[Sowelu]

It may be trufax, but it's not exactly a "scientific argument".  Just saying.