The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Why the Crysis hate from Gabe and Tycho?
Jharp
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
Yes, the story is awful, and if all you look for in games is a good narrative, then Crysis sure as hell isn't for you. Its story borders on the downright abysmal, granted, but it's far more than just a beautiful game to look at. It has one of the best gameplay models I've ever seen in a shooter. It manages to be almost entirely non-linear without any of the pitfalls that non-linear games often suffer from, and the nanosuit mechanic is far more than a gimmick, as it revolutionizes the gameplay and renders it unlike anything else in the field.
Dismissing a game solely because it's story is bad is ridiculous, and I haven't seen either Gabe or Tycho comment on the gameplay, which leads me to believe neither has really given the game a shot. We, as gamers, typically find ourselves looking down on people who dislike games simply because their graphics are bad, or people who refuse to play older games because the graphics are outdated. I really don't see how this is any different. If you don't want to play the game because it's story is bad, that's fine, but please say so. Don't say things like "there's no reason to play Crysis other than it's graphics", claim it's story is bad, but then say nothing of it's unique, wonderful gameplay.
Need we go over the tons of great games that have terrible stories and manage to be great regardless?
Thanks.
Dismissing a game solely because it's story is bad is ridiculous, and I haven't seen either Gabe or Tycho comment on the gameplay, which leads me to believe neither has really given the game a shot. We, as gamers, typically find ourselves looking down on people who dislike games simply because their graphics are bad, or people who refuse to play older games because the graphics are outdated. I really don't see how this is any different. If you don't want to play the game because it's story is bad, that's fine, but please say so. Don't say things like "there's no reason to play Crysis other than it's graphics", claim it's story is bad, but then say nothing of it's unique, wonderful gameplay.
Need we go over the tons of great games that have terrible stories and manage to be great regardless?
Thanks.
Jharp on
0
This discussion has been closed.
Posts
Going invisible, running faster, and hitting harder certainly aren't revolutions in the FPS genre.
I think the main beef Gabe and Tycho, and people in general have with Crysis was that it seemed more tech demo than game. It certainly isn't a bad game, but I personally it was way too hyped up.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Pretty much yes.
cute.
The best way to consider Cyrsis' gameplay is it all comes down to how you play it. For example, if you play it without ever using the nanosuit, then it's an admittedly very basic shooter, though I'd still say it's immense fun just because of the sprawling environments. But if you utilize the suit to it's fullest extent, it becomes so much more.
For example, the very first level, along the beach. There's a section littered with boulders and rocks patrolled by a number of soldiers. Along the side of the road is a grassy area with a steep cliff next to it. Let me play out a scenario here - you snipe a few soldiers from afar, watch as they run for cover and pop out to fire in your general direction, hit invisibility, crawl through the grass on the side of the road, all the while their eyes are glued to where they last saw you, and a few head out to check out the situation and try to flush you out (they'll flank the position, throw grenades, and use general tactics as if you were still there because, far as they know, you still are), hit max strength and jump of some ledges and make your way towards the top of the cliff wall, then rain down hell upon them. You jump down to finish off whoever you missed while up top, and say there's two; you grab one by the throat, beat him senseless with max strength on, then throw his limp body into his comrade, and make your getaway.
That all hardly amounts to "going invisible, running faster, and hitting harder". And the thing is, the game is literally filled to the brim with moments like these. It just depends on what you make of the resources you're given from your own weaponry to the design of the level you're on.
On another particular level, you're given a tank, a valley, and tons of enemy soldiers, armor, and more between you and your destination. You can blast through it as if this were a regular tank battle game, only difference being that when you fired at buildings, they displayed visibly realistic reactions to the tank's shells, sniper posts comes crashing down, and trees fall over (this all adding to the sense of immersion in the game, almost bringing the graphics engine into the fold of gameplay itself), OR, you can ditch the tank handed to you and stalk from outpost to outpost, stealthily (or not stealthily) killing enemies, taking their anti armor weapons, or avoiding the enemy armor all together.
If you went through the game with the mindset that the naonsuit abilities afforded you were mere gimmicks to enhance your enjoyment, then that obviously had an effect on the way you played the game, and how it felt to you. I can't say you're playing the game wrong, though, because that's the beauty of it, you can't really play this game wrong. It's tantamount to playing through all of the main storyline missions for GTA, and never really exploring the city, or taking on the tons of side missions, then criticizing the game. And would any of you really take those people seriously?
Try to imagine BioShock (a truly mediocre game with a decent narrative, great atmosphere, and the most average gameplay ever) without the plasmids, or Jedi Outcast without the force powers, then realize that the nanosuit in Crysis amounts to far more than either of those.
It was a useful tool that the game was built around, and that is it.
But I also think it's okay if other people disagree with me. After all, everyone is different, as radical as that may sound.
Hardly.
Someone with nothing relevant to add. Cute.
I'd like to know how defending a game's merit makes me a fanboy, especially when I'm utterly willing to admit its faults. A terrible story, some bad optimization, a poor decision to shill Vista/DX10, some horrible choices with the multiplayer (no team deathmatch? bullshit), and a number of bugs at launch. I could go on about even more things I disliked about the game, but the core gameplay is what I'm defending here, and as I'm go about it entirely reasonably, I fail to see how it makes me a fanboy. Quit trolling, thanks.
Feel free to give some examples on how the bee plasmid added anything revolutionary to the gameplay, and I'll do the same for the nanosuit, then we can see who has more!
That's exactly my point. Neither were revolutionary. Bioshock was built around plasmids. They were a facet of the game. You used electricity to open doors, fire to melt ice, and could adjust your tactics for enemies as you saw fit. Crysis had the suit. The game was built around it. Puzzles required suit adjustment, and it let you change tactics for enemies as you saw fit.
Crysis's suit was a cool gimmick, no more.
Also, I had way more fun with Force Powers and Plasmids then I did with the nanosuit. I found only the shield and speed powers were the only useful thing. Strength kind of sucked, and cloaking died too fast.
None of the abilities are very interesting abilities when you come down to it. Useful, yes, but kind of boring.
Your basic question was about why Gabe & Tycho didn't like the game.
They don't read the forums, and they won't answer the question. Nobody here can offer you anything but speculation and their own opinions, so this thread will end up going nowhere productive.
So, if you're getting negative responses, that's probably why. If you'd phrased the question as a general "why do people think this about Crysis" rather than aiming it at Gabe & Tycho, it might've gone over a little better.
But I would dare say I enjoyed Crysis more than Dark Forces 2. DF2 gave you powers, sure, but they were more like extra weapons than ways to change an encounter. Everything blended together better in Crysis, and I really loved the way each area could contain a dozen awesome encounters.
Yes, Crysis was a lot like Far Cry, except that you felt like much more of a badass. I think that's why it sucks so much once the aliens come out; you lose your badassary. Your tactical options narrow to "backpedal and apply shotgun to alien," which is only fun the first two times you do it.
I thought the nanosuit was more than just a gimmick, because it was central to the gameplay in a meaningful way. In Bioshock, the plasmids were largely icing on the cake because there were always other options. I think the line between people who like Crysis and people who don't is whether they liked the nanosuit powers. If you liked the suit, the game was a display in free-form asskicking. If you didn't, it was just another game where you mow down faceless hordes.
sure, no one is really going to have enough evidence to argue with you offhand, but that is because most people simply went "well this game looks alright and is an okay game all around; next."
Granted, it was clunky as an 11 year old usually is. Still, I don't consider building on these ancient principles to be particularly revolutionary. They stream lined it and made it work for today, and that's all.
I'm sorry,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crysis#Reception
http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/pc/crysis?q=crysis
You were saying?
I stand by my words. Look at the other posts in this thread. Not to be a dick, but you are being quite the fanboy about this.
Crysis with a mediocre game with good graphics and a hook that was, to me, less appealing than plasmids or force powers or the gravity gun or any other special doodad that any other far more praise-deserving game had.
So, Crysis is better then Bioshock because it has less options?
You're pretty far off...
User Score
7.7 out of 10
There is some disconnect with gamers and critics, yes, but I think you will find the score reflected in the user score more in line with the discussions you have with regular gamers.
Meh. Everyone everywhere says it's an ok game, nothing more. I trust a huge ammount of people more than a reviewer.
anyways, people are arguing your assertion that the game play in crysis was revolutionary, which it most obviously wasn't.
Tumblr
Fair enough, you are right here. My point as simply to show him that his mention of critics and journalists was wrong.
well maybe i forgot, for a moment, about the terrifying proclivity of this forum's members to meditate on such weighty topics as "meditations on the manifestations of powerups as utilized in first person perspective games: force powers or plasmids? vol. 1"
If we see a slew of FPS games where they point isn't to shoot tons of other mans then yes.
Maybe not all critics agree, Jharp, but that would be a ridiculous and unheard-of event. Many critics still feel that way, and obviously many consumers do too. Also, you didn't use a "fact" to prove me wrong, but I don't want to get into those kinds of semantics.
no. no you would not be going too far.
and anyone who mentions prey gets punched.
No, I believe you completely forgot the fact that an opinion can't be proven, and thus any sort of argument about personal tastes goes in a circle.