Two factors made stopped Crysis being the second best FPS on the next gen...*SPOLIERS

Geff · 22-11-2007 03:09PM #1

Just finished it last night and its an amazing game definetly 9.5+/10 territory but two things ruined it and it could have easily been ahead of COD4 and still below HL2 in the next gen FPS genre. The first of which even though its a landmark game for visuals, it delivered on the astounding graphics previewed in screenshots released years back and like FarCry before it it became a benchmark for FPS PC visuals and Crytek knew this and didn't optimise the game one bit, you either had the hardware to run it or that was it no in between which automatically puts it out of reach of a large market share.

Although my setup is now showing its age (2.8Ghz P4/1.5GB RAM/6600GT) it ran like complete **** on a stick. Understandable I wasn't expecting to run it on anything but low and even still consulted TweakGuides.com to get some extra milage out of my system which was OK. But if you have a similar system or worse you're not going to want to play this game. I struggled through the slow frames per second and stuttering because I've waited so long for this game but again a bit of optimization would've been nice from Crytek this is point one.

Second point is that the game was FAR too short. When the game finally picks up some steam its over. You struggle through a lot of crappy boring levels until finally at the end you're thinking this is great and all of a sudden the credits roll. Even FarCry was much longer than this. Another massive minus point for the game was the Core level which was completely boring, confusing, badly designed and added little in way of story. You're lost deep within the alien structure sounds exciting? It isn't. This one level alone detracts a LOT from the overall game and we could've easily done with it. I completed it on easy and once I upgrade my PC after Christmas I will go back and complete it on difficult and maybe I will think the game is better by then but until then it is a GREAT game and worth the 60 bucks or whatever but some minor negative aspects really haunt it big time.

Pyr0 · 22-11-2007 03:12PM

Try switching your settings to high, I tried it on medium and I couldn't see a thing ! I switched to High which were not the recommended settings and it worked grand.

Geff · 22-11-2007 03:14PM

Also in case you're wondering my own standings on next generation FPSs.

1. HL2 (no contest, nothing will touch this)
2. COD4 (yes its short but its quality over quantity, the guns were perfect and its the closest you're coming to Hollywood in a PC game)
3. Crysis (read above)
4. FarCry (still fun to play to this day and I still have it installed, could've done without the mutants and whatever but...)
5. Halo (the original for PC is still a great game also, fun and engaging, multiplayer is still great to this day also)

Geff · 22-11-2007 03:14PM

Pyr0 wrote: »

Try switching your settings to high, I tried it on medium and I couldn't see a thing ! I switched to High which were not the recommended settings and it worked grand.

I did and got like 0.00000003 frames per second.

Krieg · 22-11-2007 03:25PM

I felt that crytek provided enough optimisation, took a bit of tweaking for me to get it just right but i thought they gave enough options to fiddle around with.

I Agree with point 2. Although the excuse/reason for this is that the levels are "replayable". In that you can approach them in different ways using different tactics. It still feels the same though. If you assault an outpost/compound, the AI isnt that sophisticated and they generally do the same thing over and over, Everyone in the compound attacks you with very little tactics. Ok, they might try and flank you, but even their attempt at flanking is pathetic and obvious.

All criticism aside, Great game!

Mr E · 22-11-2007 03:38PM

Geff wrote: »

Second point is that the game was FAR too short [......] I completed it on easy.

I don't think this criticism is fair. Playing ANY game on easy means you'll breeze through it... You will increase the playtime considerably if you start on Normal or Hard.

Balfa · 22-11-2007 04:40PM

Geff wrote: »

Also in case you're wondering my own standings on next generation FPSs.

1. HL2 (no contest, nothing will touch this)
2. COD4 (yes its short but its quality over quantity, the guns were perfect and its the closest you're coming to Hollywood in a PC game)
3. Crysis (read above)
4. FarCry (still fun to play to this day and I still have it installed, could've done without the mutants and whatever but...)
5. Halo (the original for PC is still a great game also, fun and engaging, multiplayer is still great to this day also)

Not sure what you mean by "next gen". I reckon Halo, HL2 and Crysis are in three different generations. That's if you even consider PC games as having "generations", which they really don't, because it's all small iterative steps, not big leaps like when a new console comes out

If you include Halo, you may as well include HL1 :]

Geff · 22-11-2007 04:41PM

Asbad wrote: »

I felt that crytek provided enough optimisation, took a bit of tweaking for me to get it just right but i thought they gave enough options to fiddle around with.

I Agree with point 2. Although the excuse/reason for this is that the levels are "replayable". In that you can approach them in different ways using different tactics. It still feels the same though. If you assault an outpost/compound, the AI isnt that sophisticated and they generally do the same thing over and over, Everyone in the compound attacks you with very little tactics. Ok, they might try and flank you, but even their attempt at flanking is pathetic and obvious.

All criticism aside, Great game!

Yeah the list of tweaks and command line variables for the engine is amazing. And I'm sure we'll see great discoverys in time for optimizing the game that bit more.

Agreed on the AI its ridiculous, like for instance I'm in the middle of an enemy compound with 20 enemies around me. I stealth into a portacabin stand there huddled in a corner and low and behold one by one they come to check it out as I easily pop them at short range with a shotgun. I mean if they stormed all at once you're ****ed unless you are good with grenades but the AI truely is laughable in some circumstances.

I don't think this criticism is fair. Playing ANY game on easy means you'll breeze through it... You will increase the playtime considerably if you start on Normal or Hard.

I understand your point but it really doesn't matter about difficulty the game is literally that short. I know playing on a higher difficulty would extend the time to complete the game but it doesn't extend the length of the game. Its about 2/3s as big as FarCry level wise which is pretty short.

Geff · 22-11-2007 04:43PM

Balfa wrote: »

Not sure what you mean by "next gen". I reckon Halo, HL2 and Crysis are in three different generations. That's if you even consider PC games as having "generations", which they really don't, because it's all small iterative steps, not big leaps like when a new console comes out

If you include Halo, you may as well include HL1 :]

I would consider anything after Halo for PC to be next generation.

I understand what you're saying but I'm painting them all with next generation.

Azza · 22-11-2007 05:08PM

Personally thought it was a good solid game. But nothing out of this world.

Graphically this game has no peers. Hands down the best looking game yet.
But their is a price for this graphical goodness as unfortunately its high system requirements does effect alot of people who have to make graphical compromises which have an effect on immersion. The lack of blood also I found was abit strange. Might have to do with the company being based in Germany.

Music and audio wise it was pretty good but without being outstanding.

Physics wise its a mixed bag. It pushes the envelope in terms of destructible environments. But after a while you forget about it. I played through the game and in the jungle environment the fire fights rarely lead to much trees coming down. So it did not really add much to immersion in the jungles. The only time I really noticed it is when I attacked buildings with grenades. The lack of ragdoll physics on enemy soldiers was annoying. The throwing enemy soldiers animations seemed really stiff.

Storyline was an improvement over Far Cry. Pretty solid voice acting and a reasonable good story but abit formulaic. It won't stay in the mind too long.
Only really major down side here was the incredible abrupt Halo 2 style ending. Makes me want to say "Screw you sequel!!".

Gameplay wise its competent but thats about it it. The AI breaks too often on the enemy soldiers and the Alien AI is too straight forward and predictable.
Weapons are abit unmemorable too but the customizations feature is pretty nice.Vehicles aren't anything to write home about mostly but the tank level was pretty good with the large viewing distances and firefights. Gave me the impression of a proper world war 2 tank battle. The VTOL mission on the other hand I found horrible and frustrating to play. The low point of the game.

Playing on the Delta difficulty level I found the game more or less on the right difficulty setting. Not crazily hard and not easy. I also found the games length acceptable.

Overall this game biggest let down is the AI which hurts what could of been really good gameplay. Its still quite good to play but the main draw for this game is what it achieves graphically. Had as much innovation gone into the AI as the graphics we would have had a total masterpiece.

Krieg · 22-11-2007 07:16PM

Azza wrote: »

Pretty solid voice acting

Not disagreeing but you just reminded me of something from the game...

Johnson: Wait til I get me one of them suits! and Ill be all ninja over your ass
Pyscho: Now that Id like to see!

I nearly fell off my chair laughing

tman · 22-11-2007 07:54PM

This game is definitely overrated, all of the acclaim so far seems to be for the shiny graphics alone (which admittedly are pretty gobsmacking...)
Is there much of the game left to go after you rejoin the fleet at sea? Really not all that bothered about finishing this game at all, but I might as well seeing as I had to suffer through the excruciatingly (sp!) **** zero gravity bit

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar · 22-11-2007 08:21PM

im

rescuing the chick from thje crashed Vtol atm

should I play on? is ther emuch left? i'm really not enjoying the aliens, does it get worse?

mewso · 22-11-2007 10:42PM

I actually thought the Core level was fine. Confusing as it surely would be. For me the game declines literally over a cliff edge after that. This thread has spoilers in the title so I'll say I'm at the bit where you have to fly the evac thingy and it's just annoying. Just at a bit where they say watch the ice and suddenly I'm on the ground wondering what the F is going on. Before that they are telling me to clear the air space or they can't lift off. I'm looking around for ages and one idiot alien is stuck in the sky. In Far Cry things declined once you got to the monsters but you could still take your time and plan your action. Once you meet the aliens here it's run, run and keep running. Really really annoying. In COD I always hated having to drive tanks, sit on the back of trucks etc. Here they do the same and they obviously think it's going to be great fun. Sorry but not for me. The game has so much to offer up to this point it's a real shame.

0ubliette · 22-11-2007 11:35PM

i honestly wonder what scores this would get if its graphics werent the best ever seen.
Would it still be getting 9's?
I havent played crysis but i have played far cry, and if it didnt look as good as it did i think it easily would have been a 7 for gameplay.
Assassins creed is one of the most amazing looking games ive ever seen in my life, but that didnt stop it getting 7's.
Just makes you wonder how much of the score goes on looks alone.

tman · 24-11-2007 01:28AM

I've finally given up on this game.
Trudged through the ship level and the most enjoyment I got out of it was from the immortal line; "If you want a guarantee, get a toaster!"
A solid game, let down by a terrible mid section (I could even be near the end now for all I know, but I have no intention of finding out)

mewso · 24-11-2007 11:40AM

0ubliette wrote: »

I havent played crysis but i have played far cry, and if it didnt look as good as it did i think it easily would have been a 7 for gameplay.

Far Cry is a game I loved and replay often. So I expected alot from Crysis. Oh well.

Venom · 25-11-2007 12:45AM

musician wrote: »

Far Cry is a game I loved and replay often. So I expected alot from Crysis. Oh well.

QFT.

Its like all the fun things in Farcry were ignored to rush out a dull game with pretty graphics.

d22ontour · 25-11-2007 01:40AM

Gameplay > graphics and never forget it.All i am seeing is visualy this/that etc.Any game that needs the visuals to be mentioned before the gameplay isn't a good sign of any games qualities imo.Yes it appears to be the shiniest thing about but it still has the awful ai from farcry and the awful storyline too.Lets all upgrade our pc's for farcry 1.5 .Rofl....

_CreeD_ · 26-11-2007 05:32PM

I loved it. Yes it could have been longer but it is longer than the majority of FPS these days. I've read a lot of comments here and in reviews referring to the alien ship as a 'section', it's one level, 10 minutes and you're done. I thought it was a fun distraction from normal play, grabbing the aliens and punching the crap out of them in zero-g was a laugh
As for performance there's tweaking and there's working miracles. With the level of detail and sheer size of some of the levels I'm actually amazed it runs at all (I averaged about 30FPS 1280x1024 everything on high bar FSAA disabled). No offense to the OP but you talk about missing optimisations but class anything newer than Halo PC as next gen, you're comparing it to games that are about 2 generations behind. Next gen is cutting edge current or soon to be released milestone technical achievements not 3-4 years old. Play through the first tank level and look at the size of that valley, complete with crumbling mountain, the number of units etc. and think is there anything that matches it at the moment, nothing even comes close, not even UT3 as it doesn't have the size or detail/physics depth capabilites.

BizzyC · 01-12-2007 05:24PM

My main problems with Crysis were that it was too short and too easy.

Any game where you can beat the final level on your first try is too easy IMO.
I started playing over on Hard, but gave up halfway cause it didn't really seem that hard.

chamlis · 03-12-2007 11:01AM

FarCry for me was the best "lone wolf" game I've ever played. There were so many memorable moments that could never be repeated, like only having 3 bullets in the pistol left while fighting 4 or 5 guys, so using the nearly destroyed jeep to ramp over a ditch, bail out, and blow it up with the 3 bullets. killing all the guys

You can never repeat that.

With Crysis I'm not having the same feeling. I should, but I'm not and I can't figure out why. I am liking the (albeit fairly small) tactical element that the suit gives you, and the guns customisation options. I don't know what it is, but I feel like it might actually be slightly more linear than Farcry. You are directed to where you need to go. I know this is necessary in a game with large open levels, but in Farcry if you wanted to, you could swim around the island for 20 minutes. Put a paperweight balanced on the 'W' key, make a cup of tea, come in to check progress and steer every once in a while, have your cuppa, get on land again and do your worst! Now THAT'S flanking

L31mr0d · 03-12-2007 11:17AM

chamlis wrote: »

With Crysis I'm not having the same feeling. I should, but I'm not and I can't figure out why. I am liking the (albeit fairly small) tactical element that the suit gives you, and the guns customisation options. I don't know what it is, but I feel like it might actually be slightly more linear than Farcry.

same here. They have attempted to make it sandbox like far cry, but if you take any course other than the one of least resistance you make it unbearably difficult for yourself. Like there is one bit early on when you come across a broken bridge and your options are to go back to the road, pick up a jeep and follow it down to the base, or jump off the cliff into the water and swim along the edge and navigate to the back of the base on foot. I chose to jump off the cliff a few times, but at a certain point along the river 2 helicopters would appear out of nowhere and start shooting me through the trees even though I was in complete tree cover. The only weapon I had was a crappy SMG. So I died and retried this a few times, never being able to take down the choppers. Then I decided to take the road, and lo and behold, at the point where the helicopters spawn from nowhere there is a hut on the road that just so happens to be a rocket launcher stockpile. So from then on in I decided to just take the route Crytek clearly wanted me to take because they have neglected to make it even an option to do otherwise.

kaimera · 03-12-2007 11:19AM

I didn't even finish the first level before I uninstalled it. :-/

Just wasn't feeling it tbh. Looked nice but was somewhat bored.

WellyJ · 03-12-2007 11:55AM

Geff wrote: »

Also in case you're wondering my own standings on next generation FPSs.

1. HL2 (no contest, nothing will touch this)
2. COD4 (yes its short but its quality over quantity, the guns were perfect and its the closest you're coming to Hollywood in a PC game)
3. Crysis (read above)
4. FarCry (still fun to play to this day and I still have it installed, could've done without the mutants and whatever but...)
5. Halo (the original for PC is still a great game also, fun and engaging, multiplayer is still great to this day also)

Halo on PC was an awful port.

MooseJam · 03-12-2007 04:18PM

My XFX GeForce 8800GT arrived today, I can play crysis with everything on High woot

Creature · 03-12-2007 04:30PM

I liked the zero-gravity bit

chamlis · 03-12-2007 04:52PM

Speaking of Zero-G, I finished at that bit last night. Is there much left? I'll be very disapointed if there isn't

BizzyC · 03-12-2007 05:08PM

Probably not as much as you hope...

chamlis · 03-12-2007 05:09PM

balls...

stakey · 06-12-2007 05:49PM

Okay, so i'd give it the following breakdown:

Graphics 9/10

Great graphics, undeniably pretty, but I found the performance of the graphics engine a little poor at the best of times, ie. did anyone notice how much more smoother the game ran when you were in a vehicle? Maybe that was just me, i dunno...

Sound: 7/10

I actually thought the sounds were just okay, the guns really didn't feel like they had any kick in them and some of the major battles didn't make me feel immersed enough.

Gameplay: 8/10

Hats off to them, the suit is cracking and good fun to play with. But i started the game off in Delta mode and tbh this game was faaaaar to easy to complete. The overall lenght of the game was very disappointing too, that last battle on the aircraft carrier was a piece of piss (even in delta mode) and i have to admit, when i saw the credits roll i was VERY surprised.

Story: 4/10

Really badly executed story line. Could almost break it down into

- Grunt knows nothing lands on island
- Grunt kills Koreans, notices aliens strangely calm
- Grunt follows orders
- Other grunts die or lose their marbles
- Grunt finds out more about aliens but nothing revealed
- Grunt kicks aliens ass

Overall i knew what the story was from the first 20 minutes, big **** off ship gonna wake up and pwn us all.

Overall didn't care for any of the characters, obligatory crytek chick that had to be saved.

But at the end of the day this game is waaaaay too easy and waaaaay too short... shame really as everything else was fairly decent.

Two factors made stopped Crysis being the second best FPS on the next gen...*SPOLIERS

Comments