Discussion in 'Games, Gaming & Game-demos' started by eduardmc, Jan 21, 2009.
... But you dont sit close to a TV, because it is not a PC screen.
You guys have played it?
Edit* - KZ2 I mean
Agreed, i've played through crysis quite a few times now and am about to go through Warhead for the 4th time (Pistol only this time ), fantasticly replayable IMO.
Plus Wars, i do love that MP, Mesa PowerStruggle FTW.
played it, finished it, uninstalled it.
To be fair, the way I see it is that graphics is all about technology - with some hard programming and hiring some decent artists you are pretty much guaranteed to have good graphics, or just buy in UE3 for your engine.
Making good gameplay requires the ability to entertain, and entertainment is extremely subjective.
I always go back to Crysis/Warhead. I just load up a map depending on what kind of mood I'm in and have at it. I don't see why people always knock the gameplay. What is Crysis missing that Killzone has that makes it that much better? Farcry 2 is a much better example of a pretty and boring game in my opinion.
I second that..
Exactly , I play Crysis/Warhead quite frequiently , it's always fun playing the same area differently..
The fact that some may find it boring doesn't in actually mean it's a boring game , it comes down to how individuals pin the game and how they prefer to play the game..
I as an individual , counter such claims and say the game is very fullfilling and has a huge replay value..
Different tactics in the game work and there are ample amounts of combat tactics that can be using in the game..
The A.I is strong/fine if you'd ask me , all that depends on the settings u play the game at..
Just because it's the most pretty game in the market , people find it's easier slamming it because most people have issues with the games performance..
It grants them a door way to slam the title..
Crysis and the FarCry2 by my opinion both are really boring...Graphics not helping here for those games to be playable often.
I remember when Crysis first came out, there wasn't a PC available to buy you could play it with max graphics without having 9fps (well, maybe something ridiculously expensive). Now this is a big problem with PC's, because you need high specs to be able to play the game. At that time, decent graphics cards were around £300-£400, and they still lagged. Sure, after 1-2 years after the game was released, now that prices have gone down, people can finally enjoy it. With consoles - you buy a game, and you play it without any probs.
I used to love PC gaming, but there is all this bother and distraction about getting it to play well, new drivers coming out, specs constantly updating, which I cannot afford to keep up to date.
Its strange that now PC fans praise on almighty Crysis, when a year back they were calling it a piece of unoptimized s**t, that had good graphics (which nobody was able to run), and boring storyline.
Depends on your definition of max graphics. I had two 8800GTX's for it's launch and could run it at 25-35fps on DX10 @ 1680x1050. On DX9 I was cruising at like 40-50, even with the add-on for the extra Very High stuff.
As for the public reaction when Crysis launched, I remember that. I think most people were thrown off by the fact that Crytek showed us these extreme quality videos that were running so smooth yet when it was actually launched a single 8800GTX couldn't handle DX10. But yeah, most people should have realized that a game that's pushing the most advanced technology, where the lead developer said "We have settings that you won't even be able to use for 2 years" won't be able to run on their 7800GT or w/e.
I'll admit, Crysis is a much better experience now that I can concentrate on playing the game in all it's glory without any stutter, in fact I'm quite enjoying it this time round..
I think a large part of the problem was that people with $500 graphics cards didn't think the 2 year hardware delay applied to them. I had a 8800GTX by the time I picked up Crysis and I thought the performance would be much worse after reading forums and comments about the game. I was surprised to get 20-25 fps with max settings on my 720p tv.
I can't fault Crytec for future proofing their games. I would like to see more companies do this but with the initial reaction to Crysis I doubt it would happen.
I agree. I think another issue was the retarded tweaking that was going on. I mean yeah, tweaking is fun and all. But so many people were spending so much more time tweaking the game then actually playing it. I played it the game through in like 6-7 different sittings not once stopping to tweak or go to the forums and talk about how the performance sucked or the graphics were great or the best tweak options. I really enjoyed the game, I thought the performance was great for my machine - the graphics were absolutely stunning, and the story was as good if not better then 85% of the games that come out today.
The key to future proofing, is to make sure that gamers will still want to play it months/years down the line, unfortunately crysis isn`t one of those games IMO! .
Well what game is like that? I mean besides games with good multiplayers, like COD4 - I can only play a single player game all the way through maybe only once or twice a year. I've played Crysis through twice since it was launched. I mean even like my fav game of all time, Chronotrigger, I can only play once in a while.
I can see myself playing Crysis a few years from now, I bet people play it at least once every time they get a new videocard/processor.
"Future-proofing" is just a lame excuse for crap coding. Like Crysis. Ran like crap first on my old rig... then, Crysis Warhead was released, looked just as good and ran a lot better. So no, Crysis wasn't future-proofed, it was just a pure mess... And why would anyone want to play Crysis a few years from now? it'll look average by then and still have bad gameplay...
I thought warhead was toned down in comaprison to crysis, the story was a little more directed but it definately didn't look as good, imo that's probably why it ran better. I have just finished playing warhead and started crysis again and I could tell the difference straight away...
See? Typical post-crysis launch response. "crap coding" What does that even mean? It ran fine on my rig, so maybe yours was just bad. I though the gameplay was fine, it wasn't "open" but 90% of games that have open gameplay are terrible anyway. Least it lets you a tackle a situation multiple ways and on the hardest difficulty forced you to use stealth and whatnot.
Yeah I find that odd - Warhead runs about the same as Crysis for me. Its more optimization in the sense that there is more charectors and explosions on screen rather than increased performance.