Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Crysis sucks. Worth getting?

Last response: in Video Games
Share
November 20, 2007 9:58:40 PM

If you've read any of my comments on this or my quote. You've probably notice or not... I really don't like Crysis and think it's overhyped piece of something. But after all it was rated best of the best by alot of review sites. Should I get it? Only for single player campaign? Is only single play worth it? How long is it? Is it replayable? Bunch of questions I have. Alot of weapons?

More about : crysis sucks worth

November 20, 2007 10:17:14 PM

So far I'm at the beginning of Onslaught (5th level) and I must say that it has been a treat, I have loved every second of the single player campaign, since it was pretty much I was expecting and looking forward to.

One thing that I do have to say is that the game will most likely not be all that enjoyable if you play at easy/normal difficulty levels, the reason behind this is that at hard you are forced to plan your attacks a bit or you'll get slaughtered and even more important is that you are forced to rely on the nanosuit to survive, which is the essence of the game.

My verdict, if you are going to buy crysis and are planning to play the SP campaign (Some people only play multiplayer) then do it on hard or don't do it at all, because you'll most likely end up with the feeling that the game is not challenging at all, enemy is weak, and that you can basically run everyone over with a humvee.

One last thing, some people have reported that there's little action on the first half of the game, well... If you seek conflict then you are going to get conflict, instead of just sneaking around the jungle, I look around and take out every settlement I find and do every secondary objective that I get, if you do that, I promise you that you'll be plenty entertained on the first half of the game.
November 20, 2007 10:21:41 PM

I played the demo. I naturally try to play like Hitman in every game that allows me to. Sneak around everything and rarely shot a bullet.
Related resources
November 20, 2007 10:26:29 PM

PS I always play any game on hardest difficulty
November 20, 2007 10:31:20 PM

Another thing that I do is that I don't use a silencer at all, adding more difficulty to the game, because I'm not able to so easily pick enemies without having the rest to notice. It's really up to you to decide how hard you want the game to be, I'm sure there are more ways to intentionally create obstacles while you play if you find it too easy.

And then again, it's up to you on how you prefer to play, I like create chaos on my own orchestrated way and also get in the middle of hard-to-get-out situations (usually rushing in recklessly) to overcome the enemy... takes a few tries anyway, but it's fun :D 
November 21, 2007 3:43:07 PM

Crysis seems like it runs OK on an older system;
AMD3800X2
2Gig RAM
2 x 7800GT SLI
Creative X-Fi

I have the system settings at 1024 x 768 and all graphical toggle sat MEDIUM except sound, which I set at HIGH and shader, which I set to LOW.

The problem with the MID setting on shader quality is that I get twinkling shimmer all over the top of everything which is very distracting. Not so if I set it to low or HIGH, but high kills my frame rate. Compared to FarCry the game engine is recognizable, but different if that makes any sense. The colors are more Technicolor style (sort of matte and dull). But t is still a good-looking game. I use 1024 x 768, even though the supposed game optimizer selected 800 x 600 and low settings, so I don’t use any anti-aliasing, which slows stuff down too much for the benefit.

Some funny things I’ve found playing the game.
- This game has no health, instead using your bio suit to “recharge”, so it seems odd that you can saver on most levels at will. You technically have infinite health if you learn to back away from bad situations quick enough and just hide. FarCry allowed ZERO saves except at checkpoints, and you were limited on health through the levels. This game seems more appropriate to have no saves except at game set points than FarCry.
- On low settings, the background isn’t rendered at all, or very well. OK, this is as it is supposed to be but it is also like cheating. Why? Because all the trees and artifacts the combatants hide behind aren’t there! They stand out in the open like ducks in a pond. When you snipe them, the trees and foliage that they are supposed to have been behind, finally “hides” them. But, you already know they are behind the tree, so just shoot it down! And, once you pop a shot near them, they wander into view anyway.
- The scope graticals are blurry and WAY too thick. This is a gaff in the game. FarCry scope latitude and longitude graticals were razor sharp. And, the scope is a single magnification. This isn’t a good sniper game, just acceptable.
- I found that equipping my character with the silencer is a HUGE advantage. Crawl through the grass and head shot everybody on single shot setting with max strength for a steady aim. Not to mention, no one knows where to find you with the shot silenced. Turn it off for more mayhem..from all directions!
- OK, are these guys all wearing body armor? It just seems way too difficult to kill anyone except with a point blank shotgun blast or an assault rifle headshot. And farther away? Try, try, try is all I can say.
- You clip into walls and things way too easily. Trying to crouch or go prone has to be done well away from anything, or you just stand there.
- A rocket won’t take down a fragile helicopter? Get real, man!
- Grenades seem appropriately effective.

All in all if you liked FarCry you’ll love this game, too. Even with DX9c it looks great…even at low settings.
November 21, 2007 3:49:37 PM

Quote:
I played the demo. I naturally try to play like Hitman in every game that allows me to. Sneak around everything and rarely shot a bullet.
You can definitely play that way if you choose. I actually prefer that approach and find it necessary at certain points. Sometimes there are 25+ KPC and you have to sneak past them and very close range.

Singleplayer is good. Multiplayer... not so much. As for replay value - I'd say it has pretty decent replay value if you enjoy replaying sinlge player campaigns (multiplayer could have added to replay value, but meh)
November 21, 2007 4:40:41 PM

infinite health? no.... your health regenerates yes, but then, even COD2 does that..... and your not wearing a nano suit in that game...
November 21, 2007 4:56:26 PM

Took me about 6 1/2 hours, I went through quick, in between large bases just running and totally skipping smaller camps, did most of the secondary objectives.

I'm going to redo it without silencers and try to use less cloak.

Don't forget, sandbox, can make your own maps and it isnt that hard.

Multiplayer is good, but don't expect alot of teamwork (even less so than bf2 imo, but I don't really care about teamwork, I win, don't get in my way.) unless you're in a clan or have friends playing.
November 21, 2007 9:39:58 PM

What's the point of making a killer gaming pc if you're not going to game on the most beautiful game ever? Isn't what all hardware gaming enthusiast's dream is to build a great pc that can run great on the best games?

Get the game, I assure you it will be worthwhile.
November 22, 2007 1:02:04 AM

Just got my copy last night after having it on pre-order for weeks with Amazon. Being a huge FarCry fan, naturally I love it so far.

6.5 hours sounds short to me, that is gonna be a disappointment. It would still take me at least than long to get done with FarCry on easy, using all the tricks I've learned in 30+ times of completing the game.

Anyhow, I don't think you should get it since you have has "Crysis Sucks" as your sig. You seem to already have you mind made up....

Did you like FarCry BTW?



November 22, 2007 1:11:03 AM

I'll be getting it friday. Dropping by EBgames after school
November 22, 2007 1:58:26 AM

I rushed through and slaughtered everything like I was playing quake or UT. (died quite a bit in the process lol) thats why 6.5hrs

itotallybe lieveyou you shouldnt get the game because someone else thinks its good, unless you live in some weird society with a prophet that tells you your DOOM! Then I guess it's ok to be a weirdo from society.

Have you played the demo or the beta?
November 22, 2007 2:01:25 AM

Yeah demo looks pretty much real, oblivion = nothing now. That's why I'm even thinking of getting it
November 22, 2007 3:06:08 AM

I'll agree with Stemnin that the Sandbox will bring lots and lots of mods and other levels to play with once you're done with SP Campaign. I've done Crysis twice now and finished them in about 20-24 hours each time but I like to plan my attacks. Until I got to the very end, the ship level (Which I died countless times), I had died only 2 times on normal....and about 5 times on very hard.

Get this game...you won't regret it.

PS: Don't be a hater...Crysis as pushed game publishers to the next level. Thanks Crytek!

Alex
November 22, 2007 10:47:37 AM

I'm waiting for mechwarrior: living legends mod.
November 25, 2007 2:27:11 PM

Well, what did you think of Crysis? I just finished the whole game and it seemed just OK for several reasons. My opinion dropped a lot after the cave episode on the the carrier level. Some comments depend on what you run the game with so;
AMD3800X2
7800GT SLI
2GB RAM
XPSP2
Creative X-fi
1024 x 768 MEDIUM setting except Shadows at LOW and sound at High
FPS 30-70 range using “r_displayinfo 1”
HARD difficulty

First, it didn’t really look as good as FarCry in my eyes, with the same system hardware. OK, I don’t use DX10, just DX9.0c. But, why should a game go BACKWARDS from a previous game using the same type of game engine? It seems it should be at least as good a looking a game at reasonable settings. But it isn’t. I ran Far Cry at “high” at the same resolution, and had better performance and graphical looks. So if you run a modest system, forget about a “super” good-looking game, Just OK. Granted, the physics seem better than far cry, and it isn’t awful looking by any means. I just think it could be better on modest systems. If you never saw FarCry, you’d think different. I’m also not into the too dark to see anything stuff, either, which afflicts this game terribly in too many places. Doom3 was about it for grouping in the dark as far as I’m concerned. I have a have good monitor because I like to SEE things!

The weapons are confused, too. Why would the precision rifle have blurry and thick as tree trunk scope reticules and no zoom at all where the assault weapon has a crisp set of reticules and 4x plus 10X scope zoom? The wrong weapon is a sniper rifle! The scope is two inches from your face, why is it blurry on the precision rifle and not on the assault rifle? OK, the backgrounds can fad into a fog, but the scope foreground?

You can’t go prone, or stand up if you’re near anything at all; you just get stuck and died as you try to stand to run to a better vantage point. That got real old and real fast.

The first half of the game was more fun than the last half, about when you go into the “cave” and go weightless and wander around lost, like that’s “fun”. This is where the writers failed miserably with a good story line. There is no science fiction added to the game to make it “plausible”. Who, what, and where were they from, what were they doing, why were they doing it? In this game, they just “do” with zero explanation(s). They gathered “stuff” from above in the caves, but why? They had a TON of good things to work with. OK, the Koreans tried to gather a new power source for themselves. Great, but the alien side of the story was just not there. Granted, we get the idea the aliens want to destroy the world, or just go after power wherever it may be? Who knows, plenty of sci-fi movies have the creature(s) heading toward the power lines, after all. Were they really at war, or just trying to gather a new power source after their old planet died? I could go on and on, but you get the point. No compelling story line.

The vertical lift and take-off flying machine section was TERRIBLE! The darn thing was so slow and cumbersome, we SHOULD LOSE with jets like this! That and the jet would stop forward motion and just fall out of the air for no apparent reason. Was it the ice dome plowing me down? Why? Where’s the story line? Eventually, I found that you could fly at essentially treetop level and hug the far side of the valley, away from the ice dome (was that it?), and somehow escape to the carrier. It never felt like “I” was doing anything. The less I did the better. Kill things? Forget about it. If it wasn’t a direct objective, just move on ahead. It was just dumb luck to fly through the valley without sliding backwards and falling into the ground with no reason as to why.

The carrier episode felt like I was a kid at Burger King that is trying to get from one side of a crayon drawing maze to the other. Either in the carrier itself or on the deck, I seemed to be wandering around hallways or all the strategically placed fire stops and junk lying all over the deck topside. The “magic” gun? OK, how about some explanation on this thing, it only seemed to work at specific locations in the game. I must have gone over and over this ten times before I figured out EXACTLY where to aim the gun to “lock-on”, and only at specific times does it work. Otherwise, you need to use conventional weapons. What weapon ONLY works aimed at specific targets? It doesn’t even use “ammunition” so much as the power from your suit. So what’s with the strange limitations on the gun?

I think that the developers got tired of this thing and threw it out there after years of hype. OK, it is DX10. So what. The story line makes it have replay character. I’ve played FarCry and Quake 4 several times all the way through. The last half of this game isn’t even worth wading through again, its just too frustrating to deal with the weightless cave maze, the lousy flight characteristics of the jet and the stupid crayon maze carrier level. Me, I’ll play up to the cave entrance, and then quit. In general if you liked FarCry, you’ll love the first half of this game, and probably hate the last half.
November 26, 2007 6:05:45 PM

Hey Rower30,

I'll agree with the lack of effort the a good storyline...especially when your game is being compared to the "Halo Killer"! Also, you did bring a few good points as far as "proning" while being right next to a rock...and then dying as a result, which is quite frustrating when it does happen.

But I have to disagree with the other half part. I found the Zero-gravity part pretty cool and the winter levels two.

The infamous carrier was a bit too much...felt like the good old Contra on the NES big boss type level. haha.

Nevertheless, this game rocks. The visuals are fantastic and overall gameplay is pretty good.

BTW: I played farcry and I like the whole game.
November 26, 2007 6:12:43 PM

itotallybelieveyou said:
I really don't like Crysis and think it's overhyped piece of something.


That's because it is.

itotallybelieveyou said:
But after all it was rated best of the best by alot of review sites.


it's all hype. I caved in to the hype as well, wish i would've spent my $50 on a better game.

itotallybelieveyou said:
Should I get it?


Absolutely not.

itotallybelieveyou said:
Only for single player campaign?


Definitely NOT for the single player.

itotallybelieveyou said:
Is only single play worth it?


Nope.

itotallybelieveyou said:
How long is it?


Eh, I'd personally only play the first half, so eh, 4 hours give or take.

itotallybelieveyou said:
Is it replayable?


I wouldn't replay it. Maybe with cheats to have fun with the koreans, but that's about it.

itotallybelieveyou said:
Bunch of questions I have. Alot of weapons?


Not really. I was surprised at how quickly you got all of the weapons. By the way, Gauss Rifle pwns.
November 26, 2007 9:14:36 PM

A lot of people are pretty new to PC games (anyone under 30) so they don't realize the gaffs that were absent in a lot of early games. Example, MechWarrior II was a landmark game, and still is. Not so the mess of Mech Clones that came after it, all with special effects. Who cared about the plot? You have 20 or so minutes to complete your mission with no health or power-up repairs. Once you lose an arm, it is gone for good. The game is just as fun today as it was then. They actually made the game immersive. Crysis just isn't as intense from a skill standpoint as a lot of early games (I go all the way back to 80MHz systems, and all the games from there)were. Graphics and MHz don't make a game easy or hard, by the way. Ever try to finish FINAL DOOM?

I see the lack of substance all over society right now. We have replaced good writing with shock jock stuff. Problem is, sex in every TV show and "graphical" substance just isn't immersive. It's the story stupid! It will come back as soon as everybody gets sick of the level we're at today.

Wanting to see dead bodies be interactive so we can shoot them on the ground and see blood and guts say it all. We need to mature as an audience. We will, eventually. And, games will spring back just as soon as we do.
November 26, 2007 10:12:31 PM

rower30 said:
We need to mature as an audience. We will, eventually.
Man how I wish this were true. Did you see the movie Idiocracy? Got a bad feeling that Idiocracy was more prophetic than funny.
November 27, 2007 12:03:34 AM

Haven't seen Idiocracy, but it sounds like I need to. I've been PC gaming since '85 (anybody remember Rogue? I loved that game!) and I'm amazed how far games have come. I haven't played Crysis yet - my wife picked it up as a Christmas present - but I'm looking forward to it. I loved Far Cry. To me the more realistic the graphics, the better. Or at least the more detailed. Sometimes the advanced tech backfires, like Far Cry when you killed a merc on a hill and the body jerked and slowly slid to the bottom, but mostly I find it simply amazing.

I look at the progress of PC hardware and games and wish other things in my life progressed as well. My first PC had 640 KB RAM (in sixteen separate chips!), two 360 KB floopy drives, no hard drive, and a 12" monitor with sixteen glorious shades of amber. I built it myself for about $1,000. Look at what that buys today. My cars at that time were a 1972 Monte Carlo and a 1970 AMX. Today I could buy a used Mustang that is faster, safer, better handling, and gets the same mileage (WTF?), but marginally on all of those. Imagine if cars had progressed as well as PCs!

Similarly, games have made marvelous gains. Rogue was a game where you were a knight or something - you only appeared as a smiley face - and fought monsters (represented by a single letter, such as 'D' for dragon or 'B' for bat) simply by moving next to them. You found treasure (gold pieces), magic (potions in several colors, wands, and magic weapons) and negotiated mazes formed from IBM characters. Now we have water effects worth staring at and argue about rag-doll physics and weapons authenticity. Even though there are clearly some areas (such as writing and voice acting) which don't always measure up, on balance games are simply amazing. Even Doom 3, at its heart the same corridor crawler as the original Doom with gorgeous graphics, had a bit of story and voice acting.

I think Crysis is worth buying if only to support its next-gen programming. It's the first game ever where all the trees, etc. are actually destructable. Although the setting might now be the most realistic or well developed, at least things are starting to react reasonably realistically when shot or blown up. And that always helps with immersion and suspension of disbelief.
November 27, 2007 12:23:41 AM

werepossum.. your like old and junk, lol. Just kidding. I'm with you on most points. Bring back pong!!!
November 27, 2007 12:26:29 AM

I forgot something. In late '84 I sold the Monte Carlo and bought a Nissan pickup truck which got 28 mpg. In late 2004 we bought a Ford Ranger which gets 19/23 mpg. The Ranger is slower and cost more than twice as much, although it is admittedly much larger and nicer. Cars are actually going backwards in some ways! Compare that to PCs!
November 27, 2007 12:27:39 AM

Yeah, I fart dust. My point though is I'd never want to go back.
November 27, 2007 12:32:22 AM

Funny you should mention Pong. My father was given a Pong knockoff console in the late 70's. It was some sort of freebie with a particular brand of automobile parts or some warehouse, I forget. It played Ping-Pong (large single paddle), tennis (single or double small paddles), and hockey (double large paddles.) In barely a generation home gaming went from that to Crysis and Half Life 2. Imagine if we only had crap like Pong now!
November 27, 2007 2:46:12 AM

I hear ya, tech is a good thing. I myself remember jammin out on a 386sx!!
November 27, 2007 9:42:08 AM

werepossum said:
Haven't seen Idiocracy, but it sounds like I need to.

The concept is unintelligent people enthusiastically outbreeding competent people, creating a future society which is irreversibly less functional. Demographic superiority now favors those least likely to advance the interests of society. Consequently, the children of educated elites become overwhelmed in a sea of promiscuous, illiterate, beer-swilling peers.

You have seen nothing until you witness the "Great Garbage Avalanche of 2505"!!!!

If you can't afford to rent this Nostradamesque instant classic I'll send you a copy myself if you PM me!!

OK it is a bit corny/cheesy but OMG too funny!!!! and too true (which is what makes it funny).

You will personally witness the devolution of Fuddruckers, in simulated real time.
November 27, 2007 10:34:13 AM

they need to bring back the gore in quake (quake wars has none)
they need to bring back the mature taunts in UT3, frakin kiddie console versions BAH!
they need to bring back Duke Nukem so he can kick ass and chew bubble gum, but you know, he's all outta gum.

And I said you shouldn't of gotten crysis! (like I should not of ever gotten wow, biggest waste of a hundred bucks I think I ever did).
November 27, 2007 10:39:02 AM

Electrolytes!
November 27, 2007 11:47:23 AM

lol, I forgot about Duke Nukem... That was a cool game back then
November 27, 2007 5:39:37 PM

werepossum said:

My first PC had 640 KB RAM (in sixteen separate chips!), two 360 KB floopy drives, no hard drive, and a 12" monitor with sixteen glorious shades of amber. I built it myself for about $1,000.



Should have got the Tandy1000...tetris looks totally sweet. Asteroids...wow, don't even get me started. Who needs Crysis when you have pac-man?

Back to Crysis... I know that a lot of people are playing through the game then making their call. Look into Sandbox2 as part of the experience...or at least snag some of the mods and check them out. (www.crymod.com download section) Some really good ones are going to come out soon that may be even better than maps in the retail version. (there are a handfull out already but mostly unfinished)

To be honest I don't have the full version yet but that is only because I spend most of my time working with Sandbox2 in the demo version. I know a lot of people aren't into mods but this really leaves the game wide open for new material in the future. I know this isn't a new concept either but it really adds to the lifetime of this game.

P.S. Isn't that Halo's Cortana doing the voice in the opening scene of Crysis? If not, it sounds EXACTLY like her.
November 27, 2007 6:04:21 PM

Quote:
Back to Crysis... I know that a lot of people are playing through the game then making their call. Look into Sandbox2 as part of the experience...or at least snag some of the mods and check them out. (www.crymod.com download section) Some really good ones are going to come out soon that may be even better than maps in the retail version. (there are a handfull out already but mostly unfinished)

To be honest I don't have the full version yet but that is only because I spend most of my time working with Sandbox2 in the demo version. I know a lot of people aren't into mods but this really leaves the game wide open for new material in the future. I know this isn't a new concept either but it really adds to the lifetime of this game.


I have to agree with including Sandbox2 as part of the experience. You can make some serious levels in it, or just have some great fun with the physics. :D  I was making ramps out of bridge parts and using gas barrels (many, many barrels) to launch jeeps off the ramp and try to crash them into buildings in the distance.
November 27, 2007 6:25:24 PM

itotallybelieveyou said:
If you've read any of my comments on this or my quote. You've probably notice or not... I really don't like Crysis and think it's overhyped piece of something. But after all it was rated best of the best by alot of review sites. Should I get it? Only for single player campaign? Is only single play worth it? How long is it? Is it replayable? Bunch of questions I have. Alot of weapons?



Why would you ask advice on something you already admitted you "don`t like"? I think most people who "don`t like it", do so for the reasons that they can`t run it at 250 FPS on the ultimate settings at a resolution of ultimate magnitude. Those of us who appreciate detailed gameplay are quite satisfied with the Crysis game, even if we must lower our graphic expectations. I suggest you download the demo and see for yourself.
November 27, 2007 6:47:15 PM

Quote:

Why would you ask advice on something you already admitted you "don`t like"? I think most people who "don`t like it", do so for the reasons that they can`t run it at 250 FPS on the ultimate settings at a resolution of ultimate magnitude. Those of us who appreciate detailed gameplay are quite satisfied with the Crysis game, even if we must lower our graphic expectations. I suggest you download the demo and see for yourself.
Yeah, that's a really stupid reason to hate the game. Research it before you buy it... everyone knew full well WAYYYYY in advance that Crysis wasn't going to run at 75FPS on max settings on ANY home computer. Yet people still bought it seemingly just to complain about it.
November 30, 2007 7:09:58 AM

I do like the game it is well done and by far the closest thing to real out there but yes it is the same old FPS redone over and over every time we get a new one with upgraded graphics. Its near impossible to improve a FPS to the point you can with games like MMORPGs.
November 30, 2007 8:57:12 AM

jerseygamer said:
Its near impossible to improve a FPS to the point you can with games like MMORPGs.


do you take drugs?
November 30, 2007 10:14:18 AM

I second that, what have you been smoking?
November 30, 2007 11:13:56 AM

mmos get high fps because theyre made to look like crap to get the highest user base (usually most cases)...

The only good games came from the 90s, when c&c, starcraft, total annihalation (supreme commander predecessor), duke nukem, doom, quake, unreal, goldeneye, mortal kombat, killer instinct (waiting for 3 if it ever comes..) mario, homeworld (2000/01, still a great game), half life, x-com (hasnt been a good one in what.. a decade?), fallout (3 being developped by bethesda), baldur's gate (I don't see them making anymore.. bought by m$, made mass effect), system shock, diablo, warcraft, I can go on all day lol..

and i'm smokin some purple stuff
November 30, 2007 12:04:46 PM

Quote:
The only good games came from the 90s, when c&c, starcraft, total annihalation (supreme commander predecessor), duke nukem, doom, quake, unreal, goldeneye, mortal kombat, killer instinct (waiting for 3 if it ever comes..) mario, homeworld (2000/01, still a great game), half life, x-com (hasnt been a good one in what.. a decade?), fallout (3 being developped by bethesda), baldur's gate (I don't see them making anymore.. bought by m$, made mass effect), system shock, diablo, warcraft, I can go on all day lol..
Most of the good games came out in the 90's because EA wasn't quiet as retarded as they are now. Seems like they haven't had a rushed title since RA2.

Somewhere in an EA office...
Executive: We need a new game, something innovative that will make us lots of cash.
Billy: We could make a shooter/rpg, sir.
Executive: I like it, you have 3 months, Billy. I want to see EA logos stamped all over everything, and make sure to put advertisements all over the textures. I want to see Coca-cola brand flak jackets on all the soldiers.
Billy: But I haven't even told you what the games about.
Executive: I don't care. Release the game in 3 months or your fired. God damn it I'm good at my job!

Rinse and repeat...

I know EA isn't the only company releasing, what we consider, sub-par games when compared to the classics, but one of the largest game manufacturers should be setting an example of quality. I'd love to see another Diablo (not Hellgate: London - that is a piece of trash at the moment.) or Fallout 3. (Zomg, I think it's in development!) The CoD and HL franchise are among some of the best shooters out there at the moment, and if you play through HL2 with commentaries you really see how much work they put in the game to make sure you have an awesome gaming experience. CoD4 was extremely good in terms of graphics and gameplay. I don't think anyone could get bored playing through that campaign.

On another note - I want to see an RTS that was as fun as the C&C Series (Preferrably the RA2 era. Yuri was an awesome bad guy, he made a base on the moon!!!)
November 30, 2007 12:11:25 PM

rgeist554 said:
Quote:
The only good games came from the 90s, when c&c, starcraft, total annihalation (supreme commander predecessor), duke nukem, doom, quake, unreal, goldeneye, mortal kombat, killer instinct (waiting for 3 if it ever comes..) mario, homeworld (2000/01, still a great game), half life, x-com (hasnt been a good one in what.. a decade?), fallout (3 being developped by bethesda), baldur's gate (I don't see them making anymore.. bought by m$, made mass effect), system shock, diablo, warcraft, I can go on all day lol..
Most of the good games came out in the 90's because EA wasn't quiet as retarded as they are now. Seems like they haven't had a rushed title since RA2.

Somewhere in an EA office...
Executive: We need a new game, something innovative that will make us lots of cash.
Billy: We could make a shooter/rpg, sir.
Executive: I like it, you have 3 weeks, Billy. I want to see EA logos stamped all over everything, and make sure to put advertisements all over the textures. I want to see Coca-cola brand flak jackets on all the soldiers.
Billy: But I haven't even told you what the games about.
Executive: I don't care. Release the game in 3 weeks or your fired. God Damnit I'm good at my job!

Rinse and repeat...

lol, just venting. >.>


:lol:  :lol:  :lol:  Too true...
December 1, 2007 3:55:31 AM

On another note - I want to see an RTS that was as fun as the C&C Series (Preferrably the RA2 era. Yuri was an awesome bad guy, he made a base on the moon!!!) said:
On another note - I want to see an RTS that was as fun as the C&C Series (Preferrably the RA2 era. Yuri was an awesome bad guy, he made a base on the moon!!!)


World in Conflict. It's all the RTS you'll ever need. :) 
December 1, 2007 9:23:40 AM

justinmcg67 said:
World in Conflict. It's all the RTS you'll ever need. :) 
WIC oh yeah!


December 1, 2007 9:26:18 PM

Quote:
I want to see an RTS that was as fun as the C&C Series

I second that!
December 1, 2007 9:34:00 PM

World in Conflict is by far the best RTS I've ever played. Before WiC it was Red Alert 2. Worst RTS of all time has got to be Genesis. Just a horrible, horrible game...
May 12, 2008 9:19:05 AM

Crysis is fun only if u play through it the first time or if u get a new gaming PC and want to try it out again. Playing through it several more times gets really boring if u don't use cheats like health, infinite ammo, strength and energy drain cheats or developer mode. Without doing the cheats the nanosuit isn't fun to play with, the strength punch is too weak, u get too little SCAR ammo even though its one of the best guns and u seem to die very easily on hard difficulty levels even though the nanosuit is supposed to be really high tech and the cloak mode doesn't last long enough.
May 12, 2008 5:22:31 PM

A lot of people just use Crysis as a benchmark game. It's short, and nothing special beyond the graphics. The nanosuit is cool at first, but not enough to hold the game together. If you want to know just how your computer is going to handle games for the next 1-2 years, I'd get it, otherwise just wait til it's in the bargain bin if you're still curious.
May 12, 2008 11:23:40 PM

i absolutely love crysis
it is my favorite game

there is so much to do. my favorite thing to do is punch or walk around looking at the amazing scenery.
and it is much more fun to come into a group of enemies blasting away or punching their faces in.


and multiplayer is awesome
THERE IS TEAMWORK INVOLVED
and you will win if you are on MINE and VOLATILE's team
May 13, 2008 11:50:12 AM

itotallybelieveyou said:
If you've read any of my comments on this or my quote. You've probably notice or not... I really don't like Crysis and think it's overhyped piece of something. But after all it was rated best of the best by alot of review sites. Should I get it? Only for single player campaign? Is only single play worth it? How long is it? Is it replayable? Bunch of questions I have. Alot of weapons?


I thought crysis was pretty sweet. Not overly impressed with the level design in early stages, thinking opening levels aren't really memorable as alot of other fps's have some well paced cleverly designed opening levels. That said as far as sandbox type shooters go its a really good one, nice mods, plus, what may sound pretty dumn, the graphics are just soo nice that its a game that you should at least try just to experience them. I found it quite a serene experience just meandering around some areas, avoiding enemies and just taking in the swaying trees, flowing streams and gorgeous sunlight filtering and bouncing off everything. Particulary after you rescue that hostage near the start of the game, leave the town and head up a hill and along a river. Just that whole river bit looked lovely imho. Even if your put off the game by the hype and people flaming it for not being 'all that', even under some harsh critical eyes its an 80%-85% game on gameplay alone, which means its nicely entertaining and plenty replayable, but the engine has to be seen to be believed. Like someone else said, oblivion is now just nothing compared to this.
May 13, 2008 4:53:15 PM

I liked crysis the first part of the game was fun because you could try to reach the objectives in different ways like sneeking or by going in guns blazing, the last bit of the game I like because it was much more action oriented, the only part that I did not like was the zero G level in the alien ship.
!