And shouldn't guys squirm or shit themselves a bit after you pump them full of lead before they die? Even if they just darken the textures around the pants area when they die that would be kind of cool.
Before I read this post, I'd never considered the possibilities of a game that simulates post-mortem defecation.
But now that my eyes have been opened, it has become a deal-breaking feature that is essential to my enjoyment of any game. I pray that the mod community will come to my rescue.
My thread title, which i made well before this discussion got started, has become frighteningly poignant
Ragdoll physics were really nifty. Back when I saw them in UT2k3. "Oh man look at that guy falling down a pit hitting all those bars, that's awesome!" Now I just think it looks ridiculous when every enemy goes completely limp at 0hp and crumples awkwardly to the floor. Improvements to this sort of thing are just as important as higher polycounts IMHO.
Ragdoll physics were really nifty. Back when I saw them in UT2k3. "Oh man look at that guy falling down a pit hitting all those bars, that's awesome!" Now I just think it looks ridiculous when every enemy goes completely limp at 0hp and crumples awkwardly to the floor. Improvements to this sort of thing are just as important as higher polycounts IMHO.
Honestly in a game like UT2K3 or Painkiller that shit is fine with me. But in a game like Battlefield 5000 or Call of Duty 9 it's unacceptable.
Hopefully they took some time to optimize the engine. Far Cry was a very pretty resource hog with a lot of AI problems and memory leaks.
I thought Far Cry was actually really well-optimized. It's always run better and looked nicer than Doom 3, in my experience, at least on low to mid-range systems. Definitely way, way better than shit like the various Battlefield engines.
well, this is pre-beta photage, so they have time to polish both the physics and the aliens a bit more.
I'm pretty impressed though. I didn't mind the fight against the alien floaters, and I generally liked their design. Also, the environment is pretty fuckawesome.
In fact, the video reminded me of Half-Life 2 for some strange reason. Must have been the shotgun
This just reminds me; I spent a lot of time in Deus Ex 2 throwing bodies directly into a wall. They crumple in the most hilarious, unrealistic ways possible. In contrast to Deus Ex 1, where the bodies are all stiff as a board no matter what is happening to them.
I love videogames.
Re: Crysis. I hope someone eventually makes an actual game using this engine. Maybe it's time iD and Crytek just got out of the game department and made engines, I dunno. I mean, don't get me wrong, it's brilliant technology. It's just that generic alien shooter #847 isn't doing it for me.
Yeash. When did everyone start hating Far Cry all of a sudden? Did I miss the memo?
From the gameplay vids I've seen this actually looks like an interesting game. The level designer alone is pretty spectacular. But to me it largely comes down to:
Far Cry's non-linear gameplay + New graphics / physics + Interesting suit dynamic + Recognition that Trigens sucked =
When did it stop being OK for first person shooters to put the primary gameplay focus on shooting stuff?
What makes an FPS good isn't "shooting stuff." Otherwise a flat plain with an enemy or two would be fun. It's not fun. What makes an FPS good is the terrain, finding cover, being attacked from new angles, being constantly on the move, getting the drop on your enemies, moving and dodging, etc etc. Frankly I think that it is silly not to implement a Rainbow Six: Vegas or Gears of War style cover system in FPS games at this point, especially if the games are trying to be somewhat realistic like Call of Duty.
Simply shooting things is okay in a game like Serious Sam where you shoot a million things that are also shooting and lunging at you and you have to deal with fifty different things all at once.
In FEAR, whenever you killed a guy, you could do a slide kick on his body and it would go flying unreasonably far in the other direction. It was the awesomest glitch ever
In FEAR, whenever you killed a guy, you could do a slide kick on his body and it would go flying unreasonably far in the other direction. It was the awesomest glitch ever
It was also awesome when you shot a spike at someones head and it didnt kill them, they would be running around with this huge spike in thier eye like everything is ok.
I don't know, the graphics look really good but... eh. I think we've really reached the limit on how realistic graphics can look before taking a massive plunge into the uncanny valley. I'd rather they focuses more on the aspects of interactive environments.
Edit: Non-photorealistic rendering, however, I wholly support improving.
This game interests in me in all ways EXCEPT for super strength retarded punching buildings and what not. I just want a pretty shooter that is semi realistic. I don't want to punch buildings down as I pretend Im some sorta superman knock off without the cape or flying powers. I have guns for crying out loud. I wanna use them.
This game interests in me in all ways EXCEPT for super strength retarded punching buildings and what not. I just want a pretty shooter that is semi realistic. I don't want to punch buildings down as I pretend Im some sorta superman knock off without the cape or flying powers. I have guns for crying out loud. I wanna use them.
... and you can.
There's nothing stopping you from playing it any way you want. You can use the nano-suit or not. But if you're buying Crysis for realism, than you're looking at the wrong game. And what's wrong with punching buildings, or more so, punching people through buildings? Retarded? How about awesome.
You don't do it to be a "superman knock off without the cape or flying powers." It's an ability of the nano-suit which allows more gameplay options for the player. And I'm sorry that not everyone wants to play the same battle the exact same way. These abilities do allow tactics, but it creates opportunities and replayability.
Dashui on
Xbox Live, PSN & Origin: Vacorsis 3DS: 2638-0037-166
Really? I mean, well ... hmmm. I don't think you and I have anything to say to each other in that case.
I can sort of see that though. All the building's were these shanty style, corrugated sheet steel affairs. I'd be more interested in punching through buildings if they were concrete and I could bust holes in them. That would be awesome.
The stealth / speed / strenth powers though, have me intrigued. I very much want to play the Predator.
I'm sorry, but all I saw gameplay wise was running backwards+shooting. Now I know it's a game and all, but when was the last time you saw soldiers sprint-backpedding and shooting, or even people playing airsoft or paintball like that? They don't... humans can't run backwards well.
I just can't play any FPS anymore that doesn't have cover mechanics, e.g. Gears of War, Rainbow Six: Vegas, or GRAW etc... Bioshock gets a pass, kind of, because of the great story.
When I'm playing a cover-based FPS I get so much more engrossed... or should that be - when I'm playing a non-cover based FPS it all seems so silly and fake now.
When you play a non-cover based FPS it feels like you're a floating gun hovering in a fake world. That's how I feel.
F.E.A.R. did a good job in helping that feeling (before cover-based games) by drawing your legs when you look down. That simple thing really helps. I find it amazing that newer FPS don't do that usually.
It's often pretty easy to forget, though, since the genres are pretty darn close in terms of gameplay mechanics.
I think it is more difficult to implement a cover system in first-person shooter than a third, since it often involves taking away or changing some of the controls.
What isn't difficult is to create gameplay that encourages thought, tactics, and use of cover. That's actually pretty easy, though it can be a bitch to balance correctly.
It's often pretty easy to forget, though, since the genres are pretty darn close in terms of gameplay mechanics.
I think it is more difficult to implement a cover system in first-person shooter than a third, since it often involves taking away or changing some of the controls.
What isn't difficult is to create gameplay that encourages thought, tactics, and use of cover. That's actually pretty easy, though it can be a bitch to balance correctly.
Rainbow Six does it perfectly, since it just puts you in third person while you're in cover, and it's utterly seamless.
Also, the only difference between an FPS and a TPS is just that: the camera position. Camera position doesn't change the genre. I'd classify Gears and Rainbow Six as "shooters," regardless of camera.
Also, the only difference between an FPS and a TPS is just that: the camera position. Camera position doesn't change the genre. I'd classify Gears and Rainbow Six as "shooters," regardless of camera.
I'm gonna have to disagree with you there. Pulling the camera back to third person changes the game in a lot of ways. Yes, it is still a shooter, but your entire perspective of the world changes.
It's a lot easier to inspire people to care about their character in a third person game for instance, simply because they are present all the time. Or for a FPS to convey that feeling of "you are the hero".
Of course, they both often do much of the same thing, but I would argue that they do it differently, and are experienced so differently, that you can throw them into the same category.
Also, the only difference between an FPS and a TPS is just that: the camera position. Camera position doesn't change the genre. I'd classify Gears and Rainbow Six as "shooters," regardless of camera.
I'm gonna have to disagree with you there. Pulling the camera back to third person changes the game in a lot of ways. Yes, it is still a shooter, but your entire perspective of the world changes.
It's a lot easier to inspire people to care about their character in a third person game for instance, simply because they are present all the time. Or for a FPS to convey that feeling of "you are the hero".
Of course, they both often do much of the same thing, but I would argue that they do it differently, and are experienced so differently, that you can throw them into the same category.
Well yeah but that's all extra stuff
I'm talking gameplay-wise
Camera position is art direction. Art direction is important, vitally so, but you play Gears the exact same way you'd play it if you were looking out Fenix's eyes, except you can sort of see behind him a bit.
Also, the only difference between an FPS and a TPS is just that: the camera position. Camera position doesn't change the genre. I'd classify Gears and Rainbow Six as "shooters," regardless of camera.
I'm gonna have to disagree with you there. Pulling the camera back to third person changes the game in a lot of ways. Yes, it is still a shooter, but your entire perspective of the world changes.
It's a lot easier to inspire people to care about their character in a third person game for instance, simply because they are present all the time. Or for a FPS to convey that feeling of "you are the hero".
Of course, they both often do much of the same thing, but I would argue that they do it differently, and are experienced so differently, that you can throw them into the same category.
Well yeah but that's all extra stuff
I'm talking gameplay-wise
Camera position is art direction. Art direction is important, vitally so, but you play Gears the exact same way you'd play it if you were looking out Fenix's eyes, except you can sort of see behind him a bit.
I have to disagree there. The gameplay would be VERY different in First Person. Third person cover systems, by their very nature, allow you to see what's happening around a corner / cover without exposing yourself, often without even letting the enemy know you're even there. In Pure First Person games the nearest equivalent is 'leaning', whereby you still cannot see what's happening without first exposing yourself and allowing yourself to get shot.
First person also games tend to have gameplay dynamics more focussed around accurate shooting, whereas TPS games tend to make use of a the better viewing angle to try and promote more 'tactical awareness' of a given encounter and incorporate that into the gameplay. First Person puts you in the limited perspective of the grunt on the ground, so it becomes more difficult to be situationally aware (how the gameplay makes use of this depends on the type of game).
Gears would be a very different game in First Person.
Also, the only difference between an FPS and a TPS is just that: the camera position. Camera position doesn't change the genre. I'd classify Gears and Rainbow Six as "shooters," regardless of camera.
I'm gonna have to disagree with you there. Pulling the camera back to third person changes the game in a lot of ways. Yes, it is still a shooter, but your entire perspective of the world changes.
It's a lot easier to inspire people to care about their character in a third person game for instance, simply because they are present all the time. Or for a FPS to convey that feeling of "you are the hero".
Of course, they both often do much of the same thing, but I would argue that they do it differently, and are experienced so differently, that you can throw them into the same category.
Well yeah but that's all extra stuff
I'm talking gameplay-wise
Camera position is art direction. Art direction is important, vitally so, but you play Gears the exact same way you'd play it if you were looking out Fenix's eyes, except you can sort of see behind him a bit.
I have to disagree there. The gameplay would be VERY different in First Person. Third person cover systems, by their very nature, allow you to see what's happening around a corner / cover without exposing yourself, often without even letting the enemy know you're even there. In Pure First Person games the nearest equivalent is 'leaning', whereby you still cannot see what's happening without first exposing yourself and allowing yourself to get shot.
First person also games tend to have gameplay dynamics more focussed around accurate shooting, whereas TPS games tend to make use of a the better viewing angle to try and promote more 'tactical awareness' of a given encounter and incorporate that into the gameplay. First Person puts you in the limited perspective of the grunt on the ground, so it becomes more difficult to be situationally aware (how the gameplay makes use of this depends on the type of game).
Gears would be a very different game in First Person.
There are no first person cover games except Rainbow Six, which goes to third person when you hit cover. That's the only way to do it, really, unless you wanted to make the game really really hard. I'd be interested in seeing a game where, when you hit cover, you actually are looking away from your cover, just as your character is, and leaning around cover is the only way to see what's going on. It'd be very difficult though, assuming it kept R6:V levels of lethality.
The only thing that makes Gears different from most FPS games is the cover system, and that's a feature of Gears itself, not the camera angle. If Gears were an FPS it would probably do the same as Rainbow Six, and go 3rd person when you hit cover.
I wonder if any of the buildings will simply get holes punched in them when you punch them. You know, instead of the whole house/walls going flying. Like it would if it got hit by a high powered fist sized object. A cannon ball wouldn't do more than put a hole in a building and its sure got more umph then some tiny fist in a superman suit.
aesir on
0
Der Waffle MousBlame this on the misfortune of your birth.New Yark, New Yark.Registered Userregular
my conundrum is that i want to get and play this at high-powered shiny settings, but my current pc won't take it, not even slightly. The hardware i would like to get to make it cry, is probably still too expensive for me to justify, so i was hoping to ignore it, and wait for prices to come down and my pc to conveniently 'have an accident', justifying the expense.
However, my pc has recently signed its suicide note, and refuses to work properly (got a thread in H/A about it), meaning i could possibly be buying a new setup very soon. So i don't know if i want my pc to remain dead, and get a current good pc, or to try and revive it for one last fling, and pick up better/cheaper stuff in a few months.
Damn you Crysis.
Prices are really good right now, if you want to go uber budget, the AMD processors are dirt cheap, and on the other end of the scale, the Q6600 looks to be really good value for money. 2gb of ram can be had for peanuts, and a 8800GTS 320mb seems like an excellent bargain.
i did have quad-core in the back of my mind, after seeing the kinds of things coming up that'll be making use of that (Alan Wake, some Source stuff), but at about £400 for a processor, no. I did go on scan.co.uk though, and price up what seemed a pretty good system for about £800, with a good dual-core Intel, 2gb of good Corsair RAM, and a nice graphics card, which i think was an 8800 of some kind.
This is where my absence from the hardware market shows. Last i'd heard, Intel was the better make to go for on processors, in terms of value for money. That's why i was sizing up their core 2 duo stuff, and checking out the quad core, too. What's the Q6600 like?
apologies if this is getting off-topic, it can go somewhere else.
edit: but i see what you did there. Far cry. Good show.
Posts
My thread title, which i made well before this discussion got started, has become frighteningly poignant
I'm pretty impressed though. I didn't mind the fight against the alien floaters, and I generally liked their design. Also, the environment is pretty fuckawesome.
In fact, the video reminded me of Half-Life 2 for some strange reason. Must have been the shotgun
I love videogames.
Re: Crysis. I hope someone eventually makes an actual game using this engine. Maybe it's time iD and Crytek just got out of the game department and made engines, I dunno. I mean, don't get me wrong, it's brilliant technology. It's just that generic alien shooter #847 isn't doing it for me.
From the gameplay vids I've seen this actually looks like an interesting game. The level designer alone is pretty spectacular. But to me it largely comes down to:
Far Cry's non-linear gameplay + New graphics / physics + Interesting suit dynamic + Recognition that Trigens sucked =
Some pretty awesome potential
What makes an FPS good isn't "shooting stuff." Otherwise a flat plain with an enemy or two would be fun. It's not fun. What makes an FPS good is the terrain, finding cover, being attacked from new angles, being constantly on the move, getting the drop on your enemies, moving and dodging, etc etc. Frankly I think that it is silly not to implement a Rainbow Six: Vegas or Gears of War style cover system in FPS games at this point, especially if the games are trying to be somewhat realistic like Call of Duty.
Simply shooting things is okay in a game like Serious Sam where you shoot a million things that are also shooting and lunging at you and you have to deal with fifty different things all at once.
It was also awesome when you shot a spike at someones head and it didnt kill them, they would be running around with this huge spike in thier eye like everything is ok.
Edit: Non-photorealistic rendering, however, I wholly support improving.
... and you can.
There's nothing stopping you from playing it any way you want. You can use the nano-suit or not. But if you're buying Crysis for realism, than you're looking at the wrong game. And what's wrong with punching buildings, or more so, punching people through buildings? Retarded? How about awesome.
You don't do it to be a "superman knock off without the cape or flying powers." It's an ability of the nano-suit which allows more gameplay options for the player. And I'm sorry that not everyone wants to play the same battle the exact same way. These abilities do allow tactics, but it creates opportunities and replayability.
Really? I mean, well ... hmmm. I don't think you and I have anything to say to each other in that case.
I can sort of see that though. All the building's were these shanty style, corrugated sheet steel affairs. I'd be more interested in punching through buildings if they were concrete and I could bust holes in them. That would be awesome.
The stealth / speed / strenth powers though, have me intrigued. I very much want to play the Predator.
Gameplay = OLD & TIRED
I'm sorry, but all I saw gameplay wise was running backwards+shooting. Now I know it's a game and all, but when was the last time you saw soldiers sprint-backpedding and shooting, or even people playing airsoft or paintball like that? They don't... humans can't run backwards well.
I just can't play any FPS anymore that doesn't have cover mechanics, e.g. Gears of War, Rainbow Six: Vegas, or GRAW etc... Bioshock gets a pass, kind of, because of the great story.
When I'm playing a cover-based FPS I get so much more engrossed... or should that be - when I'm playing a non-cover based FPS it all seems so silly and fake now.
Okay, you got me there... on a technicality heh. I lump all those together.
I think it is more difficult to implement a cover system in first-person shooter than a third, since it often involves taking away or changing some of the controls.
What isn't difficult is to create gameplay that encourages thought, tactics, and use of cover. That's actually pretty easy, though it can be a bitch to balance correctly.
Rainbow Six does it perfectly, since it just puts you in third person while you're in cover, and it's utterly seamless.
Also, the only difference between an FPS and a TPS is just that: the camera position. Camera position doesn't change the genre. I'd classify Gears and Rainbow Six as "shooters," regardless of camera.
I'm gonna have to disagree with you there. Pulling the camera back to third person changes the game in a lot of ways. Yes, it is still a shooter, but your entire perspective of the world changes.
It's a lot easier to inspire people to care about their character in a third person game for instance, simply because they are present all the time. Or for a FPS to convey that feeling of "you are the hero".
Of course, they both often do much of the same thing, but I would argue that they do it differently, and are experienced so differently, that you can throw them into the same category.
Well yeah but that's all extra stuff
I'm talking gameplay-wise
Camera position is art direction. Art direction is important, vitally so, but you play Gears the exact same way you'd play it if you were looking out Fenix's eyes, except you can sort of see behind him a bit.
I have to disagree there. The gameplay would be VERY different in First Person. Third person cover systems, by their very nature, allow you to see what's happening around a corner / cover without exposing yourself, often without even letting the enemy know you're even there. In Pure First Person games the nearest equivalent is 'leaning', whereby you still cannot see what's happening without first exposing yourself and allowing yourself to get shot.
First person also games tend to have gameplay dynamics more focussed around accurate shooting, whereas TPS games tend to make use of a the better viewing angle to try and promote more 'tactical awareness' of a given encounter and incorporate that into the gameplay. First Person puts you in the limited perspective of the grunt on the ground, so it becomes more difficult to be situationally aware (how the gameplay makes use of this depends on the type of game).
Gears would be a very different game in First Person.
There are no first person cover games except Rainbow Six, which goes to third person when you hit cover. That's the only way to do it, really, unless you wanted to make the game really really hard. I'd be interested in seeing a game where, when you hit cover, you actually are looking away from your cover, just as your character is, and leaning around cover is the only way to see what's going on. It'd be very difficult though, assuming it kept R6:V levels of lethality.
The only thing that makes Gears different from most FPS games is the cover system, and that's a feature of Gears itself, not the camera angle. If Gears were an FPS it would probably do the same as Rainbow Six, and go 3rd person when you hit cover.
Not me. It reminds me of Deus Ex.
However wouldn't it be funnier if everyone bought it just to test out there pimped out PCs? Yo? Cuz Vista Rocks? Yo?
More retarded than K_A.
However, my pc has recently signed its suicide note, and refuses to work properly (got a thread in H/A about it), meaning i could possibly be buying a new setup very soon. So i don't know if i want my pc to remain dead, and get a current good pc, or to try and revive it for one last fling, and pick up better/cheaper stuff in a few months.
Damn you Crysis.
apologies if this is getting off-topic, it can go somewhere else.
edit: but i see what you did there. Far cry. Good show.