Far Cry 2 - max settings screenshots

kadozer said:
Well if I followed the game I wouldn't be asking :) Been years since I played FC1 so memory is fuzzy. His name is John Carver right?
Click to expand...
Jack Carver but Far Cry 2 has nothing to do wih Far Cry. TBH they should have gone with a different name for this game. there are tons of videos on gametrailers.com if you want to get up to speed on Far Cry 2. ;)
 
aznpxdd said:
And this somehow...turned into a Crysis hate thread?

LOL @ people who always says the same shit about Crysis, all graphics and no gameplay? Did you actually play the game? The first 2/3 of Crysis (especially Assault and Onslaught) blows most recent FPS out of the water. Crysis can be boring if your play style is boring. But with the pseudo-open ended maps and the powers available, it is incredibly fun if you are creative.
Click to expand...

Yes I played the game and finished it. The A.I and physics where HORRIBLE! But the one thing that damned the game for me was the attempt at a Nuclear Explosion. I figured with all the pretty graphics the game offered they would be able to pull off a realistic nuclear detonation ...... I was wrong, the explosion ended up looking like a big red shit blob. I was disgusted!.

Another thing about FarCry 2 that you need to put into consideration about the graphics is that its a transition from lush jungles into desert savannah's, so from a graphical standpoint its going to look deceiving when compaired to Crysis.

But there are way more innovations in FC2

1. A weather System , (wind, rain, lightning, dust stroms)
2. the ability to patch yourself and pull pieces of shrapnel out of your body
3. fixing objects with tools such as machinery and vehicels.
4. Fire that can spread using the wind system. (what can burn, does burn).
5. The A.I. will help there fallen comrades, giving them medical attention or escape.
6. Gun degradation

those are just some of the few things that I have noticed so far.
 
Krenum said:
Yes I played the game and finished it. The A.I and physics where HORRIBLE! But the one thing that damned the game for me was the attempt at a Nuclear Explosion. I figured with all the pretty graphics the game offered they would be able to pull off a realistic nuclear detonation ...... I was wrong, the explosion ended up looking like a big red shit blob. I was disgusted!.

Another thing about FarCry 2 that you need to put into consideration about the graphics is that its a transition from lush jungles into desert savannah's, so from a graphical standpoint its going to look deceiving when compaired to Crysis.

But there are way more innovations in FC2

1. A weather System , (wind, rain, lightning, dust stroms)
2. the ability to patch yourself and pull pieces of shrapnel out of your body
3. fixing objects with tools such as machinery and vehicels.
4. Fire that can spread using the wind system. (what can burn, does burn).
5. The A.I. will help there fallen comrades, giving them medical attention or escape.
6. Gun degradation

those are just some of the few things that I have noticed so far.
Click to expand...

They need to add Cyborg Zombie Ninjas now that would be epic. JC is too uber to fight boring humans.
 
Dethred said:
I have played both Crysis games, and I can't stomach playing them a second time. Nanosuits? Come on. Aliens? Crytek ruined a decent concept, but its still a freaking island with monsters/aliens and absolutely shit multiplayer.
Click to expand...

Completely disagree, the nanosuit was genius in that it opened up a ton of options for players. It opened up a virtual plethora of approach avenues to any given situation and provides for extremely dynamic gameplay in SP and MP depending how its' used. Yes, maybe it's a bit "over the top" but the gameplay element it adds is remarkable.

Aliens? Anyone who played the demo shouldn't have been surprised they were present, and with all the other over the top concepts and ideas thrown in (your despised nanosuit chiefly among them) can one honestly say they were surprised, especially considering the games' roots? Sure, it wasn't the games strongest point, but it's not a reason to game-hate.

Would it have been any better for you if it was based inland and had monsters/aliens and "shit" multiplayer? Sure, call me a fanboy if you want. Crysis was not nearly as terrible as people have made it out to be, and I have played much worse games that don't receive nearly the hate.
 
I've actually seen better screens, but it still looks great. Some other screens/vids (non-rendered) I've seen off IGN look phenomenal. Never been big on desert settings, but actually looking forward to FC2. The fire effects look particularly impressive from all I've seen.
 
FrozenLiquidity said:
Completely disagree, the nanosuit was genius in that it opened up a ton of options for players. It opened up a virtual plethora of approach avenues to any given situation and provides for extremely dynamic gameplay in SP and MP depending how its' used. Yes, maybe it's a bit "over the top" but the gameplay element it adds is remarkable.

Aliens? Anyone who played the demo shouldn't have been surprised they were present, and with all the other over the top concepts and ideas thrown in (your despised nanosuit chiefly among them) can one honestly say they were surprised, especially considering the games' roots? Sure, it wasn't the games strongest point, but it's not a reason to game-hate.
FrozenLiquidity said:
Come on Man cant you jump off the bandwagon just for a few seconds! Nanosuites? lol they obviously stole that from "The Predator" and "Metal Gear Solid". The Plot is pure cookie cutter. In fact they stole the plot from"The Predator", there's nothing that Crysis offered us that is original, Hell most of there ideas other than that they got from the original Far Cry. if you can find and idea that is truly unique I would like to hear it.

Now take Far Cry 2 and compare,


1. A weather System , (wind, rain, lightning, dust stroms)
2. the ability to patch yourself and pull pieces of shrapnel out of your body
3. fixing objects with tools such as machinery and vehicels.
4. Fire that can spread using the wind system. (what can burn, does burn).
5. The A.I. will help there fallen comrades, giving them medical attention or escape.
6. Gun degradation
7. Interactive map
8. more realistic involving Interaction with NPC's such as them helping you out on missions.
9. More variety of Vehicles and Vehicle classes.

just a few to mention but you you see what im talking about.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
The fuck? Crytek made Far Cry you dumbass. That's like saying Super Mario World stole all of its ideas from Super Mario Bros.

Half the "innovations" you listed belongs on the back of retail box, lol. Wait until FC2 comes out before claiming it is innovative.
 
aznpxdd said:
The fuck? Crytek made Far Cry you dumbass. That's like saying Super Mario World stole all of its ideas from Super Mario Bros.

Half the "innovations" you listed belongs on the back of retail box, lol. Wait until FC2 comes out before claiming it is innovative.
Click to expand...

First off? where do you get off calling me a dumbass? secondly I didn't say that Crytek stole the Ideas from Far Cry , stop taking things out of context. As far as the "innovations" are concerned I have not read anything on the box, those are my own observations, maybe if you were a little more observant you could see beyond that hole in your ass. I can see that 3rd year at UCR is really paying off for you.
 
Krenum said:
lol they obviously stole that from "The Predator" and "Metal Gear Solid". The Plot is pure cookie cutter. In fact they stole the plot from"The Predator", there's nothing that Crysis offered us that is original, Hell most of there ideas other than that they got from the original Far Cry.
Click to expand...

Yeah, my fault for taking things out of context. :rolleyes:
 
Far Cry is going in the direction of Breakdown. They pulled off the "Full on First person" thing a LONG time ago on XBOX and it was sweet.

Wish a sequel was made, I liked the Hand to Hand focus in that game.
 
Reading the last couple posts we might aswell start talking about how good Bioshock was.

lol Krenum
Krenum said:
I can see that 3rd year at UCR is really paying off for you.
Click to expand...
Edited just to add this? :p
 
Krenum said:
Come on Man cant you jump off the bandwagon just for a few seconds! Nanosuites? lol they obviously stole that from "The Predator" and "Metal Gear Solid". The Plot is pure cookie cutter. In fact they stole the plot from"The Predator", there's nothing that Crysis offered us that is original, Hell most of there ideas other than that they got from the original Far Cry. if you can find and idea that is truly unique I would like to hear it.
Click to expand...

I just have to say all your postings in this thread are just ridiculous.

first off the plot to Predator is about one creature hunting humans for sport. Crysis is an alien invasion that has been dormant for years and recently uncovered.

Stealing from Metal Gear Solid. Interesting since it's based off of real research the military is working on for such camouflage (invisible like suit) Nanosuit and nano technology isn't anything new. Sorry you're learning this from video games however. The idea of a suit like this isn't really that far off being as something "fantastic"

The pedistal you're holding FC2 is laughable. But I guess the plot of Far Cry 2 is gonna be scary original right? :rolleyes: I mean I know none of us have seen any movie at all similiar to this.

Gun degradation - Weee.. STALKER rip offs
More variety of Vehicles and Vehicle classes. - ...seriously? wow innovation there
 
Netrat33 said:
I just have to say all your postings in this thread are just ridiculous.

first off the plot to Predator is about one creature hunting humans for sport. Crysis is an alien invasion that has been dormant for years and recently uncovered.

Stealing from Metal Gear Solid. Interesting since it's based off of real research the military is working on for such camouflage (invisible like suit) Nanosuit and nano technology isn't anything new. Sorry you're learning this from video games however. The idea of a suit like this isn't really that far off being as something "fantastic"

The pedistal you're holding FC2 is laughable. But I guess the plot of Far Cry 2 is gonna be scary original right? :rolleyes: I mean I know none of us have seen any movie at all similiar to this.

Gun degradation - Weee.. STALKER rip offs
More variety of Vehicles and Vehicle classes. - ...seriously? wow innovation there
Click to expand...



Then by all means tell us what new forms of gameplay and Mechanics Crysis has brought us? Can you even name one? I'm willing to bet that you cannot.
 
Krenum said:
Come on Man cant you jump off the bandwagon just for a few seconds! Nanosuites? lol they obviously stole that from "The Predator" and "Metal Gear Solid". The Plot is pure cookie cutter. In fact they stole the plot from"The Predator", there's nothing that Crysis offered us that is original, Hell most of there ideas other than that they got from the original Far Cry. if you can find and idea that is truly unique I would like to hear it.

Now take Far Cry 2 and compare,


1. A weather System , (wind, rain, lightning, dust stroms)
2. the ability to patch yourself and pull pieces of shrapnel out of your body
3. fixing objects with tools such as machinery and vehicels.
4. Fire that can spread using the wind system. (what can burn, does burn).
5. The A.I. will help there fallen comrades, giving them medical attention or escape.
6. Gun degradation
7. Interactive map
8. more realistic involving Interaction with NPC's such as them helping you out on missions.
9. More variety of Vehicles and Vehicle classes.

just a few to mention but you you see what im talking about.
Click to expand...

I'd like to point out that many of the features you've listed have been seen in other games to lesser extents. So they're not exactly original either. For example: Weather has been present in many games, WoW, Crysis, CoH, etc... Patching or bandaging oneself is also nothing new, and many fps games feature this. Fire that spreads has at least been in Supreme Commander, and Total Annihilation (it's been a while, but I still seem to remember it), Gun degradation has been present at least since System Shock 2 (and was heavily complained about at that). Involvement and interaction with NPCs was really introduced at or before the original Half-Life. I'd also believe and agree that it really is difficult to find any ideas that are truly unique in FPS games these days...

I think what you're trying to get at here, is that FC2 is *supposed* to improve dramatically these ideas, though they are by no means new, and perhaps when they were considered new, they were poorly implemented enough where the idea was essentially forgotten. For instance: FC2 supposedly has a more dynamic and lifelike weather system that affects the environment, not just like the rain in CoH which is dependant on level settings or the weather systems in WoW, which simply add flavor. Perhaps, FC2 bandaging includes a mini game like "Operation" where you have to pick out shreds of shrapnel with your quivering fingers before one can completely clean the wound and bandage it properly. Either way, the point is here that these are all "supposed" features of FC2, and may or may not adequately reflect what will *actually* be there when the game is released. It's happened too many times in the recent past where developers state that X and Y will be in the game and you'll be able to do Z... and it turns out being completely untrue.

Now, I don't know, and I don't really care where Crysis got the idea of a nanosuit from, one could even claim that it was akin to Gordons' HEV suit with some extensive modifications for all I care, but it adds tremendous opportunities to the gameplay and offers many more avenues for the player to choose than your standard FPS. See, the thing is I don't care where the idea comes from or if it was ripped off of the Barbie and Ken go to the mall video game. I care that it adds something to the gameplay and style of the game. In this case, the nanosuit may not be a completely original idea, but it added many possibilities for the player and opens many more approaches to any given situation than your traditional FPS game. This is true in multiplayer as well, and that reason alone is enough for me to enjoy the game in lieu of a more standard run of the mill FPS like COD4.

They can say all they like about Farcry 2, and I am sure that if they do even half of those "original" ideas well, that it will grab my attention and keep it for the duration of the single player experience. I will be purchasing it unless it sucks as bad from idea to reality as Spore did. But I'm not going to take their word for granted, as that privileged has been abused far too much lately. So, praise it all you want, herald it as the best FPS game of the year, or whatever. All I am saying is that I am not going to be convinced or at all impressed until these features have proven themselves to be what they have claimed them to be.

The game isn't even out FFS, so I don't see how one can say it's better than "X" game, because of.... You haven't played it, so that sort of statement is pure speculation, and there really isn't anything more to it.
 
I can see your side of some things, I was just doing a compare and contrast. I have no bad feelings for you either seeing how you are one of the only few eagerly awaiting Fallout 3 , so atleast if we don't share the same views we still have that in common.
 
aznpxdd said:
Looks great, but yeah, its nowhere near Crysis/Warhead.
Click to expand...

Maybe not, but it's possible FarCry 2 with have some sort of Enjoyable Gameplay element to it which compensates.

Also, the aesthetic is far nicer.
 
Lets just put it this way... if FC2 delivers on everything that is promised, I am sure that it will be an amazing experience if they don't dumb it down too much for consoles.

That said, my MP tastes are more along the lines of BF2 style gameplay, but without the crappy hitboxes, nonexistant widescreen support and lackluster infantry combat. For me in this aspect, Crysis delivers (I pretty much only play the MP part after beating SP). It's got good vehicle physcis (hilarious at times) good infantry and vehicle combat, a BF2 style game mode (with a twist) and a good balance between infantry and vehicles. I know other people don't feel the same, but it takes the cake for me.

I'm kinda curious what FC2 will offer for MP.

I hold high hopes for Fallout 3, hopefully they do it well!
 
Why do people argue over such trivial matters? Its a fucking VIDEOGAME jebus titty fucking christ. Everyone on gaming forums, blogs, etc takes all this stupid shit way too far. Just wait till the fucking game comes out and play it if you are interested. Who the fuck cares what other people's opinions are? Let them be and just fucking play games
 
simon741 said:
Why do people argue over such trivial matters? Its a fucking VIDEOGAME jebus titty fucking christ. Everyone on gaming forums, blogs, etc takes all this stupid shit way too far. Just wait till the fucking game comes out and play it if you are interested. Who the fuck cares what other people's opinions are? Let them be and just fucking play games
Click to expand...

The same reason why people who wonder why people argue over such trivial matters, post in threads concerning these trivial matters to voice their own opinions when no one should care what the fuck they are, and they should be fucking playing games instead.
 
You know this nanosuit business? About it offering so much more gameplay?

If you really use it, then its not even fair. I played the game on the hardest difficulty (delta) and died once or twice. You can literally stand in the middle of a battlefield, go into cloak mode, and the shitty AI won't have a clue. You can blast their buddy in the face and they will eventually just go about their business. You can literally uncloak for half a second, shoot an alien or KPA in the face, and cloak again... only no one sees you. You can literally play most of the game and never get shot if you take your time. Speed mode was worthless, and strength mode just got you over high ledges and added the gimmick of throwing shit around.

There is nothing less fun than shooting retarded Asians that you can hide from, with a super suit.

The game play essentially was balanced by making the retarded Asians able to take 5-100 bullets anywhere but in the face. Three magazines to the balls from 100 yards? No problem. The game just felt like a tech demo the entire time, worthless in the realm of pure fun.

It would have been better to remove the nanosuit, and make the enemy more realistic to kill. For instance, if someone gets shot with light infantry body armor, they will at least fall back. If you fire a fully automatic rifle into the balls of the enemy, he's not getting back up. They could have simply made the KPA less accurate, and more vulnerable, and then you could have used "sprint", "sneak", and worn heavier (yet restrictive) armor. Stuff like that would have made the game much better.

And the Multiplayer is/was pure shit. There were/are more hackers in the game than I've ever seen. The deathmatch gets boring after a few minutes, and the domination style matches always ended in a draw. There was one DX10 server I ever saw in Crysis, even checked in January and it was still the only one. The only worse multiplayer of recent memory was Frontlines.

The thing I really look forward to in Far Cry 2 is the apparent lack of corridors and definite direction. That will be innovative game play. Name one other pure FPS that is 100% free roaming that has the dynamic game play features shown in Far Cry 2? Medal of Honor Allied Assault was just about as narrow as Crysis.

As others have wisely said, we don't know for sure what it will be like (just look at the bullshit hype for Crysis), but the basics for this game claim to be worlds better than the run and gunning against idiot AI.

FrozenLiquidity said:
Completely disagree, the nanosuit was genius in that it opened up a ton of options for players. It opened up a virtual plethora of approach avenues to any given situation and provides for extremely dynamic gameplay in SP and MP depending how its' used. Yes, maybe it's a bit "over the top" but the gameplay element it adds is remarkable.
Click to expand...

And each situation was easily overcome. Any difficulty and the player is forced into cloak mode to evade headshots from patrol boats 2 miles out. You could literally drop whole squads of retarded AI by switching between cloak-armor-cloak after popping one bullet into each guy's head. Its not so much that the idea of the nanosuit was bad, but its implementation was flawed. If they had gotten it right, and balanced the game, the idea would have been decent.

Aliens? Anyone who played the demo shouldn't have been surprised they were present, and with all the other over the top concepts and ideas thrown in (your despised nanosuit chiefly among them) can one honestly say they were surprised, especially considering the games' roots? Sure, it wasn't the games strongest point, but it's not a reason to game-hate.
Click to expand...

No one was surprised they were present, but the game was mediocre during the Human v. Human parts, and atrocious during the alien travesty. I hate it, because it turned a game that was borderline standard, into substandard.

Would it have been any better for you if it was based inland and had monsters/aliens and "shit" multiplayer? Sure, call me a fanboy if you want. Crysis was not nearly as terrible as people have made it out to be, and I have played much worse games that don't receive nearly the hate.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't call anyone a fanboy that enjoys a particular video games. Crysis absolutely not as terrible as I or others have said. The problem is the potential it had within the engine, and the massive failures it contained in the implementation.

When a game is outright terrible, its not even worth mentioning. When a game could have been truly great and was plagued by major issues, it is just as bad.

Essentially my point is this: What sense does it make to create a game with the most realistic graphics and environment possible, and include some of the most unrealistic shit right in the middle of it?
 
Dethred said:
You know this nanosuit business? About it offering so much more gameplay?

If you really use it, then its not even fair. I played the game on the hardest difficulty (delta) and died once or twice. You can literally stand in the middle of a battlefield, go into cloak mode, and the shitty AI won't have a clue. You can blast their buddy in the face and they will eventually just go about their business. You can literally uncloak for half a second, shoot an alien or KPA in the face, and cloak again... only no one sees you. You can literally play most of the game and never get shot if you take your time. Speed mode was worthless, and strength mode just got you over high ledges and added the gimmick of throwing shit around.

There is nothing less fun than shooting retarded Asians that you can hide from, with a super suit.

The game play essentially was balanced by making the retarded Asians able to take 5-100 bullets anywhere but in the face. Three magazines to the balls from 100 yards? No problem. The game just felt like a tech demo the entire time, worthless in the realm of pure fun.

It would have been better to remove the nanosuit, and make the enemy more realistic to kill. For instance, if someone gets shot with light infantry body armor, they will at least fall back. If you fire a fully automatic rifle into the balls of the enemy, he's not getting back up. They could have simply made the KPA less accurate, and more vulnerable, and then you could have used "sprint", "sneak", and worn heavier (yet restrictive) armor. Stuff like that would have made the game much better.
Click to expand...

If I had counted on this game to deliver the single player experience that you were hoping for, I am sure I would have been sadly disappointed too. I didn't however, and I expected a bit over the top gameplay, which is what I got, with it's share of bugs. I have only played through Crysis and Warhead once each (and with a few levels being the exception) that was enough for me. I don't play this game for the SP experience. While Warhead improved it considerably imo, it's still something I don't see myself going back and replaying in the forseeable future. Hell, I didn't even finish the first game because of the bug in the last level, all I had to do to get rid of it supposedly, was to restart the level. I never bothered with it.

Dethred said:
And the Multiplayer is/was pure shit. There were/are more hackers in the game than I've ever seen. The deathmatch gets boring after a few minutes, and the domination style matches always ended in a draw. There was one DX10 server I ever saw in Crysis, even checked in January and it was still the only one. The only worse multiplayer of recent memory was Frontlines.
Click to expand...

The original had a rough MP release. Crytek doomed it by taking forever to get the first patch out which was needed to fix some very obvious and game-breaking bugs. And then shortly after getting a second patch out, ceased support for the game, which opened it up continued exploitation by hackers and other players that knew how to abuse it.
Deathmatch sucks, I couldn't play it for more than a few minutes myself. DX10 servers are a bad idea unless you're on a LAN and it's hosted by a beefy machine, considering how laggy they were, it's no surprise that 99% of servers were DX9. Notice that DX10 servers also had a reduced player cap. They really aren't worth the trouble. In the time between the first patch and the secession of support from Crytek, the original Crysis had replay value through Power Struggle mode. Draws were only common for me when the teams were completely uncooperative, or completely deadlocked with the other team with each side not able to get enough of an advantage to pull out a win. Non-EA publicly run servers fixed this problem in several ways.

Dethred said:
The thing I really look forward to in Far Cry 2 is the apparent lack of corridors and definite direction. That will be innovative game play. Name one other pure FPS that is 100% free roaming that has the dynamic game play features shown in Far Cry 2? Medal of Honor Allied Assault was just about as narrow as Crysis.

As others have wisely said, we don't know for sure what it will be like (just look at the bullshit hype for Crysis), but the basics for this game claim to be worlds better than the run and gunning against idiot AI.
Click to expand...

Like Crysis has been the only game with a bullshit amount of hype. Either way, as I've said time and time again, until FC2 is out, we don't know what it WILL or WILL NOT have, and I've been lied to enough lately concerning games, that I'm not going to buy in to every feature that a publisher or dev says a product will have. Time will tell, and I can only hope that FC2 will be everything that you claim it will be.

Dethred said:
And each situation was easily overcome. Any difficulty and the player is forced into cloak mode to evade headshots from patrol boats 2 miles out. You could literally drop whole squads of retarded AI by switching between cloak-armor-cloak after popping one bullet into each guy's head. Its not so much that the idea of the nanosuit was bad, but its implementation was flawed. If they had gotten it right, and balanced the game, the idea would have been decent.

No one was surprised they were present, but the game was mediocre during the Human v. Human parts, and atrocious during the alien travesty. I hate it, because it turned a game that was borderline standard, into substandard.

I wouldn't call anyone a fanboy that enjoys a particular video games. Crysis absolutely not as terrible as I or others have said. The problem is the potential it had within the engine, and the massive failures it contained in the implementation.

When a game is outright terrible, its not even worth mentioning. When a game could have been truly great and was plagued by major issues, it is just as bad.
Click to expand...

As I've said, if you're coming to Crysis for the SP experience, expect to be disappointed. And while Warhead improves on some of these points, AI still is a long shot off from coming close to the challenge that a living opponent provides. If you're basing your opinion of the nanosuit off of its' utility in the single player mode, the yes, it's overkill and really completely unnecessary for many parts of the game. Maybe that was Cryteks aim, and was trying to give the player a sense of power and uniqueness, similar to the Master Chief in Halo. Either way, even on delta, smart use of the suit makes most of the content trivial. However, in multiplayer, smart use of your suits abilities is required if you want to keep up with your opponents. That's where it shines.

Dethred said:
Essentially my point is this: What sense does it make to create a game with the most realistic graphics and environment possible, and include some of the most unrealistic shit right in the middle of it?
Click to expand...

Maybe their goal wasn't to create a completely 100% realistic game, but maybe just have realistic visuals and have a seperate gameplay style. If I want to play a realistic game, I'll fire up America's Army. When I want to hop in a tank, or have some BF2 style fun, I fire up Crysis Wars. If they expected and lead everyone to believe that Crysis was going to have the most realistic gameplay of any game, then they utterly failed in that. (I try not to dig too deeply into the media and hype before a games' release. It often leads to disappointment). Still, that one mode of Crysis MP has shown me that despite it's flaws it still has redeeming values and can be quite enjoyable. While the first release of Crysis was pretty much dismal (obvious bugs, errors and problems with both SP and MP aspects, promise for patch of said problems within 2 weeks being transformed into 2 months, and the discontinuation of support for the game after the second patch), they seem to be doing a better job on all fronts with Warhead, have gotten rid of many of the problems that plagued the original (especially MP) and have revitalized my interest in the game. Now if they can manage to sustain support and keep the hackers out, I may end up playing it for more than three months. But for those three months, you can bet I'll be enjoying it. Considering the amount of time I've already spent in Crysis Wars, I feel I've gotten my moneys worth and then some.

Either way, one mode of MP is not what should keep a game afloat, and I agree that there's a lot that could be done with SP and their AI that would help the game out quite a bit. They've got some work to do if they want to continue the series successfully. Though at least for me, they've struck a good MP vibe which really makes the elements of the game shine. Perhaps the game simply isn't to your liking, and I think they've gotten off to a rough start with the Crysis series, but if they can improve upon it then it can only get better.

As for FC2, from what I know, I expect it to be quite the SP experience, through after reading up on the MP game modes, none of them really seem to pique my interest. However, I will reserve my judgment until I have the opportunity to try them out.

Ninja-edit: One other thing that has occurred to me now, is how off-topic this is becoming. I suggest, that if we wish to continue the discussion, that we can respectfully take it into PMs and get back to the FC2 screenies. I don't want to hijack this thread any further than it's already gone. :)
 
You just agreed with 99% of what I said, and I consider Crysis to be a massive failure. :p

As for multiplayer, I pretty much only play BF2 and 2142, and when trying Crysis it wasn't even close. There was absolutely no teamwork. If I want to run around shooting people, deathmatch gets the job done. If I want to engage in teamwork, I stick to battlefield.

According to reviews of Far Cry 2, the continuous stats and ranks, as well as unlocks and upgrades already make the game more appealing to me. Also, being able to heal/revive teammates adds even more Battlefield flavor. Crysis ended in draws for a reason... no one worked together, and it was/is too complex.

Are there more than 1000 people playing Crysis wars now? I know the most I ever saw on Crysis MP was about 900, which is 10x less than current BF2 (2005) stats.
 
Looks great but damn... it's way too saturated and bright. I hope that can be turned down.
 
Dethred said:
You just agreed with 99% of what I said, and I consider Crysis to be a massive failure. :p

As for multiplayer, I pretty much only play BF2 and 2142, and when trying Crysis it wasn't even close. There was absolutely no teamwork. If I want to run around shooting people, deathmatch gets the job done. If I want to engage in teamwork, I stick to battlefield.

According to reviews of Far Cry 2, the continuous stats and ranks, as well as unlocks and upgrades already make the game more appealing to me. Also, being able to heal/revive teammates adds even more Battlefield flavor. Crysis ended in draws for a reason... no one worked together, and it was/is too complex.

Are there more than 1000 people playing Crysis wars now? I know the most I ever saw on Crysis MP was about 900, which is 10x less than current BF2 (2005) stats.
Click to expand...

I clairified and sensibily projected the points I thought you were trying to get across. I pointed out only the facts and tried to seperate my opinion of the game from the facts I was displaying. I do not agree with 99% of the things you said, but I do think you missed about 99% of the point of my post. Next time, please read past the first two sentences of each counterpoint. I don't, nor ever have, considered Crysis' single player to be the strength or the defining factor in how I feel, or how much time I will spend playing the game.

I consider BF2 to be a massive failure in terms of infantry combat (winner is determined by who can go prone first). Exceedingly crappy hitboxes. (Did that missile just go streaking underneath my helicopter and then blow me up? Why yes, it did.) Infantry and vehicle balacing (what balance? if you're good in a tank or a helicopter, infantry isn't even an issue) and the continued exclusion of widescreen support. Perhaps people are still playing the game because they're still running the same machine that they were in 2005, regardless, it's a difference in taste. Just because Sims is one of the best-selling computer games ever, doesn't make it a game I'd want to play. I also do not care for stats/ranks/upgrades/etc. I am content to play the game and have fun, and do not feel the need to track my headshot ratio or the amount of kills I've gotten from a knife. :rolleyes: I would prefer, having paid for the game, to just have my content given to me upfront and not spend additional time working for it. If you like it because it keeps you playing, then enjoy yourself. I don't.

Teamwork can vary from server to server, there are plenty of BF2 servers where I encountered absolutely no teamwork, in fact saw (and continue to see) people killing eachother to fight for certain vehicles. Inversely, I've been on Crysis servers where there is a coordinated effort to take and hold certain objectives and to deliver a warhead to the enemy base successfully. Perhaps if you had my experiences in both, you'd feel different, as perhaps I would if I were to have your experiences.

It boils down to a matter of opinion, and in my opinion Crysis Wars MP is far more fun and entertaining for me, not to mention balanced and graphically immersive than any straight up Battlefield 2 game has been. The added complexity keeps away the people that I found in BF2 which helped sour my taste for the game. If that's too complex for you, I think I am rather thankful, and find myself wondering on the other titles you perhaps have missed out on because of their "complexity". For you, it's different. Now we can sit here and continue to royally hijack this thread over a difference of opinions, or we can discuss it in PMs where it won't disrupt threads or annoy other people. Since it seems that you didn't catch that part of my previous post, I will make it clear here.

You will not receive any response from me by posting in this thread. If you wish to continue to discuss this issue, you will only get a response if you continue this discussion in a private message.
 
That's not the issue. More people like BF2. Despite it's many problems, BF2 has better game mechanics and on top of it you don't need a super expensive PC to 60fps. But most of all it's just more fun. Sure it's subjective, but more people like BF2, which means they probably did something right. Some people like games that most people think are horrible. That doesn't mean their good games.

Crysis wasn't bad, it's just that under it's amazing engine, it was a pretty ordinary generic game, and it ran to poorly to get much of a following on online play. I don't regret buying it, but it was a lot less fun than Far Cry. There was nothing in it that really struck me as creative or innovative about the game itself. The nano suit had potential but it was ruined by that horribly awkward scroll wheel select thing, and it made an already short game too easy.
 
aznpxdd said:
And this somehow...turned into a Crysis hate thread?

LOL @ people who always says the same shit about Crysis, all graphics and no gameplay? Did you actually play the game? The first 2/3 of Crysis (especially Assault and Onslaught) blows most recent FPS out of the water. Crysis can be boring if your play style is boring. But with the pseudo-open ended maps and the powers available, it is incredibly fun if you are creative.
Click to expand...

Amen brotha. I loved the gameplay. The only thing that was flubbed was the multiplayer. Not that it was bad, just that it didn't catch on.

The average review the game got was around 9.0-9.5. You don't pull near perfect scores with only good graphics on your side. Fuck I will even say that the audio and voice acting was perfect.
 
FrozenLiquidity said:
I clairified and sensibily projected the points I thought you were trying to get across. I pointed out only the facts and tried to seperate my opinion of the game from the facts I was displaying. I do not agree with 99% of the things you said, but I do think you missed about 99% of the point of my post. Next time, please read past the first two sentences of each counterpoint. I don't, nor ever have, considered Crysis' single player to be the strength or the defining factor in how I feel, or how much time I will spend playing the game.

I consider BF2 to be a massive failure in terms of infantry combat (winner is determined by who can go prone first). Exceedingly crappy hitboxes. (Did that missile just go streaking underneath my helicopter and then blow me up? Why yes, it did.) Infantry and vehicle balacing (what balance? if you're good in a tank or a helicopter, infantry isn't even an issue) and the continued exclusion of widescreen support. Perhaps people are still playing the game because they're still running the same machine that they were in 2005, regardless, it's a difference in taste. Just because Sims is one of the best-selling computer games ever, doesn't make it a game I'd want to play. I also do not care for stats/ranks/upgrades/etc. I am content to play the game and have fun, and do not feel the need to track my headshot ratio or the amount of kills I've gotten from a knife. :rolleyes: I would prefer, having paid for the game, to just have my content given to me upfront and not spend additional time working for it. If you like it because it keeps you playing, then enjoy yourself. I don't.

Teamwork can vary from server to server, there are plenty of BF2 servers where I encountered absolutely no teamwork, in fact saw (and continue to see) people killing eachother to fight for certain vehicles. Inversely, I've been on Crysis servers where there is a coordinated effort to take and hold certain objectives and to deliver a warhead to the enemy base successfully. Perhaps if you had my experiences in both, you'd feel different, as perhaps I would if I were to have your experiences.

It boils down to a matter of opinion, and in my opinion Crysis Wars MP is far more fun and entertaining for me, not to mention balanced and graphically immersive than any straight up Battlefield 2 game has been. The added complexity keeps away the people that I found in BF2 which helped sour my taste for the game. If that's too complex for you, I think I am rather thankful, and find myself wondering on the other titles you perhaps have missed out on because of their "complexity". For you, it's different. Now we can sit here and continue to royally hijack this thread over a difference of opinions, or we can discuss it in PMs where it won't disrupt threads or annoy other people. Since it seems that you didn't catch that part of my previous post, I will make it clear here.

You will not receive any response from me by posting in this thread. If you wish to continue to discuss this issue, you will only get a response if you continue this discussion in a private message.
Click to expand...

Wow, this must be an addiction caused by [H], saying that other people didn't read your post to make your own point?:rolleyes:

I am not talking about opinion here, although mine matches most people who bought the game. Its pretty clear that there are more people playing a game with crappy hitboxes and simple dynamics after 3 years, than the new technological wonder.

There is no way teamwork can be compared between a game with a command structure, clear objectives, and rewards for teamwork, vs. a game with no organization and points only gained for killing and capturing points. Crysis wasn't too complex for me, but as a team there was no prevailing objective that would get everyone working together, thus the capture of bunkers and factories never happened in enough coordination to actually nuke the enemy base. When you make a MP game mode, you don't make it complex and then not even give proper communication tools, or command structures. I played Crysis power struggle for about a week, and after about 20+ rounds, only one ended in an enemy base being destroyed.

From what I've seen, not only will Far Cry 2 have better graphics (on topic, happy?), but it will have better multiplayer with a command structure, and clear objectives.
 
Obi_Kwiet said:
I'm excited about FC2 for the game not the graphics. Cry Tech can make a bleeding edge engine, but they really, really aren't very smart about gameplay. It's only luck that they did as well as they did on Far Cry/
Click to expand...

Are you somehow implying that the gameplay in Crysis is worse than Far Cry 1 ?!
 
aznpxdd said:
And this somehow...turned into a Crysis hate thread?

LOL @ people who always says the same shit about Crysis, all graphics and no gameplay? Did you actually play the game? The first 2/3 of Crysis (especially Assault and Onslaught) blows most recent FPS out of the water. Crysis can be boring if your play style is boring. But with the pseudo-open ended maps and the powers available, it is incredibly fun if you are creative.
Click to expand...

LOL "ain't" that the truth.

Some people are still pissed that they couldn't run it @ 2560x1600, with everything maxed out, on their 2-3 year old system I guess

Crysis has tremendous replayability, which to me is always a plus, for a mostly single player game. All this talk about "It's all graphics, but no gameplay", is a very flawed argument, especially when some of the same people, go to threads about Fallout 3 (which is mostly about gameplay) and complain about the graphics.
 
From the 9 or so characters you can choose I wonder if there will there be any noteworthy difference between playing as them. Like differing starting areas or loadouts.
 
iirc wasn't it revealed that the developers said pc version wont have any graphical enhancements over the console releases?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top