[GYSB] Games You SHOULDN'T Buy #2 - Crysis

[Öhr]

signed. crysis is just an interactive techdemo with eyecandy and boredom.

 

[Celice]

I have no real clue on what the first post was saying... but for what it's worth, I highly enjoyed Crysis 1 and its expansion content.

Crysis 2 was very mediocre and felt and played like Bioshock Infinite. At least I was able to see a very pretty cityscape thanks to the MaldoHD mod for the game. Crysis 3 similarly felt as boring as the two games, and I never finished it.

I don't like playing games where the playable character is so powerful and the AI so bad that it becomes some weird power masturbatory experience.

 

[Skelletonike]

These " you shouldn't buy topics are getting out of hand" I love these games why? Without bad games there would be no good games, what would happen if no one buy harvest moon or hello kitty? I here and there love a bad game, not because it's there, it's because it has tobe played and that my friends is what true gamers do.
We play everything from simulation of trains, farming, cleaning house, taking care of pets, you name it.
And to say games you shouldn't buy would hurt the gaming industry and people losing jobs.

I'd like to know how how Harvest Moon is a bad game. The series have it's fair of success and most of them are pretty good games. Heck, the latest Harvest Moon in the series was pretty awesome. One thing is an actual bad game, another thing is a game you yourself dislike.



Anwyay, I did try Crysis when it came out just to test me computer, I was actually able to run it in the highest settings at the time, but the game itself wasn't that fun. z.z

 

[jagerstaffel]

Sure, but this thread is about Crysis 1, not 2 or the whole series lol.

Then why is there a screenshot for Crysis 2?

In my honest opinion, this thread should be about Crysis 2 and 3, the real offenders. Crysis 1 and Warhead were, in my opinion, the last Real PC game FPS'. And that is because their developments were meant for PC, and my main gripe with every FPS game (console or PC) since then are the menus. Look at the menu for Crysis 1 and compare it to the console mess that is Crysis 2 and 3. Crysis 1 is clear as day made for a mouse and keyboard, while Crysis 2 and 3 are the silly controller friendly menus. For crying out loud if the game is on the PC, don't make it a freaking clicking mess of menu after menu that has a scrollable mess of options instead of using the rest of the screen real estate available.

And then there's the matter of the menu in-game. In Crysis 1, hey I can save anywhere, change my resolution if an area gets laggy, without the game reloading (changing non-resolution graphical settings does reload the last checkpoint.) Crysis 2 and 3? Forget about it. Reload last checkpoint? Are you kidding me? If I want to test which setting is best for my style of play, I got to quit to the main menu (Crysis 2 requires a game restart), and there's no saving anywhere if I want to test my last rocket against an alien, etc. I'm not even going to talk about the ridiculous debacle of the DirectX 11 1.9GB patch for Crysis 2 which came out much after the game came out.

Some time after Crysis 1 came out, someone made the stupid decision to put it on consoles. Be it greed, or simply wanting to appeal to a bigger market, Crysis 2 and 3 were hampered by a more restricted linear gameplay when compared to Crysis 1, the ridiculous graphics streaming due to console limitations compared to loading elements to RAM on a PC, and then there's the over simplicity of 2 and 3, yeah, if I had to say, games you shouldn't buy are Crysis 2 and 3.

 

[Ryukouki]

Then why is there a screenshot for Crysis 2?

In my honest opinion, this thread should be about Crysis 2 and 3, the real offenders. Crysis 1 and Warhead were, in my opinion, the last Real PC game FPS'. And that is because their developments were meant for PC, and my main gripe with every FPS game (console or PC) since then are the menus. Look at the menu for Crysis 1 and compare it to the console mess that is Crysis 2 and 3. Crysis 1 is clear as day made for a mouse and keyboard, while Crysis 2 and 3 are the silly controller friendly menus. For crying out loud if the game is on the PC, don't make it a freaking clicking mess of menu after menu that has a scrollable mess of options instead of using the rest of the screen real estate available.

And then there's the matter of the menu in-game. In Crysis 1, hey I can save anywhere, change my resolution if an area gets laggy, without the game reloading (changing non-resolution graphical settings does reload the last checkpoint.) Crysis 2 and 3? Forget about it. Reload last checkpoint? Are you kidding me? If I want to test which setting is best for my style of play, I got to quit to the main menu (Crysis 2 requires a game restart), and there's no saving anywhere if I want to test my last rocket against an alien, etc. I'm not even going to talk about the ridiculous debacle of the DirectX 11 1.9GB patch for Crysis 2 which came out much after the game came out.

Some time after Crysis 1 came out, someone made the stupid decision to put it on consoles. Be it greed, or simply wanting to appeal to a bigger market, Crysis 2 and 3 were hampered by a more restricted linear gameplay when compared to Crysis 1, the ridiculous graphics streaming due to console limitations compared to loading elements to RAM on a PC, and then there's the over simplicity of 2 and 3, yeah, if I had to say, games you shouldn't buy are Crysis 2 and 3.

Oh, crap!! That was actually my fault. The screenshots were added by me (original submission was sent as a text-only message) and I was told to add some photos wherever it was convenient. Thank you for catching that. Will rectify shortly.

 

[natkoden]

Yeah, good advice, after 7 years of it's official release.

 

[Tomy Sakazaki]

Yeah, good advice, after 7 years of it's official release.

Well, for starters, there's still supply of the game, seems like Origin won't run out of copies of it.
And then there are some games that even at ridiculously low prices aren't worth to buy, or simply doesn't justify all the hype.
Well, I have a digital copy of Crysis 1 collecting dust at EA's servers, I will have a try of it and see how it fare on my rig.

 

[naxil]

i have finish that games on 360, it's maked with cryengine3 but it is crysis1, for my opinion is very nice fps. a little bit ripetitive, but the games is very good! exist a strange bug in the end of the games, and u can't hit the last boss if u jump some previous step... but isn't bad games.. i don't know the situation on pc but on 360 is good

 

[Hells Malice]

Crysis was never meant to be GOTY. It was pretty much a tech-demo to show off what a PC was capable of.

Though I have to admit, it had some of the funnest multiplayer of all time. I had an absolute blast playing that. Plus nuke tanks and black-hole tanks. How the hell can another game beat that? They can't, that's how. Too bad multiplayer died ages ago.

Also too bad 2 and 3 got royally fucked and turned into Crysis of Duty.

 

[WhiteMaze]

Sure, but this thread is about Crysis 1, not 2 or the whole series lol.

Oh I thought this included the whole series.

Well then, in that case, I agree. The original Crysis is definitely NOT worth a buy.

 

[tbgtbg]

I don't even think someone could even buy this game anymore. It's like a hundred years old.

5 seconds of googling would have stopped you from making such an inaccurate remark.

 

[WhiteMaze]

5 seconds of googling would have stopped you from making such an inaccurate remark.

True lol, the original Crysis sells on Steam.

Along with Warhead and Maximum Editions.

 

[GameSystem]

I meant brick and mortar stores. The "like a hundred years old" thing is just hyperbole.

 

[Dangy]

I actually liked Crysis quite a bit, but it might've been nostalgia for the CryENGINE I fell in love with in Far Cry a couple years prior.

 

[Ericthegreat]

I played like half the first level, didn't like it.

 

[Deleted-188346]

In my honest opinion, this thread should be about Crysis 2 and 3, the real offenders.

Agree. Crysis 1 was great, I loved the "you can approach this combat scenario situation in at least 15 different ways" gameplay, very replayable.
Crysis 2 and 3 however, were terrible. I've tried about 3 times to finish the 2nd one, but always lose interest. It went from a huge variety of combat options that were up to the player to figure out, to OPTION 1: SNIPE, OPTION 2: THROW GRENADE, OPTION 3: FLANK. Just lazy.

Ultimately, whether you should play Crysis or not is based on whether the gameplay resonates with the player in question, and whether they can actually run it. Who cares about Crytek as a developer, or EA; it's the products we care about. You might object, saying "oh, but they're holding back the industry!", or "but...their business practices!", but remember that EA is made up of people. Every game development cycle is overseen by different people, executed by different people, and launched by different people. Granted, they are all under the umbrella of EA, but does that mean that we should pre-emptively hate all EA games regardless of their merits?

As for the issues described, every game has it's oddities, but the question is, does the good outweight the bad? Is the bad generally negligible? I feel that in the case of Crysis, it is. For instance, Skyrim has issues. Whether it's being launched into orbit by giants, a deeply flawed skills progression system, the ability to scale near-vertical walls with jumping horses, repetitive dungeons, or negligible loot. However, the rest of the gameplay generally does make up for it, in my opinion.

I do, however, the negative use of the word "fanboy" to describe people with opposing views to him. When you resort to words like that, it reeks of a desperate and flawed argument.

 

[Ryukouki]

Agree. Crysis 1 was great, I loved the "you can approach this combat scenario situation in at least 15 different ways" gameplay, very replayable.
Crysis 2 and 3 however, were terrible. I've tried about 3 times to finish the 2nd one, but always lose interest. It went from a huge variety of combat options that were up to the player to figure out, to OPTION 1: SNIPE, OPTION 2: THROW GRENADE, OPTION 3: FLANK. Just lazy.

Ultimately, whether you should play Crysis or not is based on whether the gameplay resonates with the player in question, and whether they can actually run it. Who cares about Crytek as a developer, or EA; it's the products we care about. You might object, saying "oh, but they're holding back the industry!", or "but...their business practices!", but remember that EA is made up of people. Every game development cycle is overseen by different people, executed by different people, and launched by different people. Granted, they are all under the umbrella of EA, but does that mean that we should pre-emptively hate all EA games regardless of their merits?

As for the issues described by Ryukouki, every game has it's oddities, but the question is, does the good outweight the bad? Is the bad generally negligible? I feel that in the case of Crysis, it is. For instance, Skyrim has issues. Whether it's being launched into orbit by giants, a deeply flawed skills progression system, the ability to scale near-vertical walls with jumping horses, repetitive dungeons, or negligible loot. However, the rest of the gameplay generally does make up for it, in my opinion.

I do, however, hate Ryukouki's negative use of the word "fanboy" to describe people with opposing views to him. When you resort to words like that, it reeks of a desperate and flawed argument.

Pssst, I'm not the writer of the article. I just posted it on behalf of a member. This article was a guest column piece that someone submitted to me.

 

[Deleted-188346]

Pssst, I'm not the writer of the article. I just posted it on behalf of a member.

My bad, edited.

 

[Taleweaver]

It started out as an interesting article. There is this anecdote about sport shoes and marketing I once heard (I forgot which brand, but a mayor one. Probably nike, but...not sure). Sales were so-so for a particular kind of shoe, and the manufacturers wanted to sell more (obviously). Rather than lowering the price, they INCREASED it. Counterintuitive to the law of supply and demand, sales increased. Not just revenue: the sales. The reason is that people apply the worth of something to what they're paying for it. By making the shoes more expensive, people expected them to have better quality (and believed it to be so). There's this particular marketing segment that will buy something expensive, pretty much more as a marketing statement than as something else.
Crysis certainly tapped into that vein. Pretty much every game reviewer proclaimed that it brought the average gaming PC to its knees or "made the video card bleed" or something. For some reasons, that didn't matter. On the contrary: I bet many people in those days upgraded their PC mainly to play "games like crysis" (the thing is that there were no OTHER games like Crysis for quite some time). And I remember reading quite some video card comparisons that measured crysis' framerates next to 3Dmark (there were even cards that shipped with crysis). In those days, "your pc cannot run this game" had the same effect on nerds' wallets as today's "limited 75% off!". In that regard, I can understand this sentiment. The attitude at which this game was made upped the hardware sales for no other reasons than upping the hardware sales. In fact, if you want to look at the exact opposite of what indy games do, crysis would be pretty much at that other end of the spectrum. Visuals over anything else.



...but it kind of falls flat at this point:

At the time of the game's release, my computer consisted primarily of a Core 2 E6600 CPU, 2 gigs of RAM and an 8800GTS graphics card and Windows XP. Not top of the line, but certainly no slouch in any regard. I had my initial reservations, and naturally wanted to see what the game would run like before buying it. So I did the legitimate thing and downloaded the Single Player demo, as that was the most likely mode I'd be running with the game, and that was also the part of the game that interested me most anyway. In summation, at the only configured settings that did allow me to play fluidly - not exactly 60frames/sec all the time, but not getting hiccups and stutters anywhere either - the graphical quality was somehow worse than running the original Half Life on my prior main computer.

This rig is kind of reminiscent to one I know very well...my own rig was similar. Even slightly below that (I had a 8800GS). I played crysis on it. Not on launch, so perhaps later patches fixed things aside from the grass, but comparing it to half life 1? No way. That sound like serious driver issues. Sure, it wasn't top notch on my end, but more than enough to be playable (okay, the tank section got close to it...but the rest of the game was solid).

But I kind of liked the game. Overhyped? Perhaps. Not worth upgrading your entire rig to? Absolutely. But the article makes it sound as if the game itself was a sell-out, and I must disagree on that. I liked the different ways of using the suit to fit a different playstyle. I liked the overall openness of the game (for that time). And it was the first game I played with auto-healing (which wasn't done to death at that time). No...my ownly gripe was that it was so damn SHORT. After that fight on the aircraft carrier, I was sure that this was about halfway or something. Instead, there were just ending credits. Yeah...ending on a cliffhanger. Who the hell thought THAT was fun? Never played warhead or any of the other Crysii, so can't comment on that. I liked it...but not enough to follow a series.

 

[jdsony]

Because you were butt hurt by a game that didn't run on computers back in 2007 isn't a reason to not buy it today. It was a far far better game than Far Cry 2 which was pretty terrible. I agree other than the graphics here was nothing groundbreaking about Crysis but I did find it to be a solid experience in a world of diminishing quality of FPS games. Crysis Warhead tightened things up in a lot of regards and perhaps might be the better game. It could have been a much better game but I really enjoyed dying and trying different tactics to push forward. Crysis 2 went console friendly and though I find it worse in many regards it's still a bit of mindless fun and still I find it better than Far Cry 3 with it's completely pointless repetitive game play and random loot. Crysis 3 I have yet to play and might never.

The bottom line is Crysis isn't a terrible game and actually it's probably better now when comparing it to how terrible the new "paint by numbers" generation of gaming has become.