Quake Wars or Crysis? Which would you get?

Which would you get?

  • Quake Wars

    Votes: 45 23.1%

  • Crysis

    Votes: 150 76.9%
  • Total voters
    195
B

Bona Fide

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
2,382
If you could only get one of these two, which would it be? This is based solely on whatever preview material the general public has access to, like screenshots, videos, and gameplay information.

It's tough, but I think I'd take Quake Wars on the basis of a much more in-depth multiplayer mode similar to the Battlefield series.
 
Crysis. I played the QuakeWars beta at Quakecon, and I wasn't impressed.
 
Tough choice ... I've been beta testing Quake Wars for a while now and love it, but Crysis is just so ... WANT :eek:
 
Quake Wars is about as poor a game as Serious Sam, in my eyes. But then, that's just me, and I don't watch animé or have ADHD, so my opinion's probably invalid.
 
I never had much fun in the QW beta so I would have to say Crysis. The intro movie alone to the game might be worth the price of admission. ;)
 
Wally said:
Quake Wars is about as poor a game as Serious Sam, in my eyes. But then, that's just me, and I don't watch animé or have ADHD, so my opinion's probably invalid.
Click to expand...


I don't agree with you on your why, but damn that is a funny way to put it. LOL.

Crysis for me, QWET beta was pretty boring.
 
Most multiplayer fps are boring and have the same game types (koth, ctf, dm, tdm, or even worse, the battlefield sort of "capture the base" type thing).

Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory was leaps and bounds more fun than all that. If Quake Wars is anything like it's predecessor, I know I'll love it.

All that long windedness behind, if I had to choose only one of those, it would be ET, hands down.
 
Quake Wars, mostly because Crysis won't be running that great on my rig, and QW will most probably last much longer.

btw whats with the ADHD needed to enjoy QW point of view? seems to me that Crysis is much more of the run and gun deal.
 
quakewars has delivered in what SD said it would do (I love it), atm there is nothing from crysis (sure vids but what that mean...)
 
I'd probably spring for Crysis (although I thought Farcry was as lame as can be) and maybe pick up Quake Wars when it's on sale or something. My next online FPS probably won't be until Team Fortress 2 comes out. At least they are trying to break the mold... sort of.
 
Quake Wars is based on the BF2 engine if I'm not mistaken, Crysis however is a completely new engine, and from the videos I have seen BETTER! :D.

I will still most likely get Quake Wars still.
 
the gamer said:
Quake Wars is based on the BF2 engine if I'm not mistaken, Crysis however is a completely new engine, and from the videos I have seen BETTER! :D.

I will still most likely get Quake Wars still.
Click to expand...

You are quite mistaken. QuakeWars uses Doom 3 technology.
 
Played the Beta of Quake wars and was unimpressed with it, not saying it was crap or anything just was not my cup of tea.
 
Crysis, especially with the latest videos, looks to be an amazing game. Hopefully it is :D! Obviously, I voted for Crysis in this poll.
 
Quake wars was a huge disappointment. ET is so much better. Also, this game runs on the Doom 3 engine(modified) and it runs/plays like crap. Quake 4's modified D3 engine was so much better.
 
Quakewars beta left me feeling kinda flat.. Graphics were OK, but could use a bit of polish.. It is still a beta so that is forgiven.. I just was not enjoying playing it, once I got past the, "cool, I'm playing the QW beta"....
 
why is there no "Both" option? this thread sucks. lol:p

crysis is prolly getting more votes cuz its getting hyped more. it would prolly be just as lopsided if QW was put against BioShock. :rolleyes:
 
1) Quake wars actually looks pretty crap at the moment, and too much like what we've had in the past.

2) TF2 and UT3 will likey be a lot more fun online multiplayer substitutes.

3) Bioshock has reviatalised my interest in singleplayers and I expect Crysis to have production values comparable to Bioshock so Its something im personally really looking forward to.
 
Mark_Warner said:
You are quite mistaken. QuakeWars uses Doom 3 technology.
Click to expand...

Just comes to show AGAIN how much of a fucking god, Carmack and his crew are. Doom 3's engine is still after all this time, incredible looking.

OP: Crysis... by far.
 
Heh I'd say Quake Wars because from what I've seen Crysis seems to have terrible SP game play and the MP will also just be tacked on also. Looks great though. QW on the other side is lots of fun with MP which is playable for quite a while.
 
I have played ET:QW .. haven't played Crysis therefore I voted ET:QW.

If Crysis released a somewhat open beta to test it, I might change my opinion.

Can't judge a game without playing it.
 
rfwinters77 said:
Most multiplayer fps are boring and have the same game types (koth, ctf, dm, tdm, or even worse, the battlefield sort of "capture the base" type thing).

Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory was leaps and bounds more fun than all that. If Quake Wars is anything like it's predecessor, I know I'll love it.

All that long windedness behind, if I had to choose only one of those, it would be ET, hands down.
Click to expand...

QFT. Wolf:ET was the best multiplayer online experience ever for me. I hope they get the magic right second time. ;)
 
zamardii said:
Just comes to show AGAIN how much of a fucking god, Carmack and his crew are. Doom 3's engine is still after all this time, incredible looking.
Click to expand...

Actually, it looked worse than BF2 too me. At least in parts. It's not what I would call impressive or cutting edge by any means. Textures, vehicles physics, and the shader effects were pretty much crap. Doom III's lighting egnien didn't realy see a whole lot of opportunity to shine, and the LOD and view distance were really bad.

rfwinters77 said:
Most multiplayer fps are boring and have the same game types (koth, ctf, dm, tdm, or even worse, the battlefield sort of "capture the base" type thing).

Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory was leaps and bounds more fun than all that. If Quake Wars is anything like it's predecessor, I know I'll love it.

All that long windedness behind, if I had to choose only one of those, it would be ET, hands down.
Click to expand...

How can you say that when you don't even know what Crysis MP will be like? Crytek have pretty much admitted that their last attempt at MP in Far Cry was tacked on as an after thought. This time they are actually putting effort into it. It's idiotic the way people keep acting like they know exactly how Crysis will play just because they've played Far Cry. If you want to act like an expert at least read developer interviews.
 
Oompa said:
Heh I'd say Quake Wars because from what I've seen Crysis seems to have terrible SP game play and the MP will also just be tacked on also. Looks great though. QW on the other side is lots of fun with MP which is playable for quite a while.
Click to expand...

Apparently not. As far as the MP goes there's been a lot of noise about how people are impressed that the MP has been given a great deal of attention this time around.
 
Wally said:
Apparently not. As far as the MP goes there's been a lot of noise about how people are impressed that the MP has been given a great deal of attention this time around.
Click to expand...
Maybe so, but I haven't seen much of anything about MP. Maybe it'll be a good deathmatch type deal? Either way I still love ETQW much more so far..
 
If Crysis turns out to be anything like FarCry, it will just be a big fat, smelly pig with lipstick. My vote's for ET:QW. :D
 
Most likely getting both but i think Quake Wars will last the longest in terms of gameplay and stuff. Multiplayer makes people stay while single player is good at the time but won't keep your interest too long after that. :)
 
markt435 said:
why is there no "Both" option? this thread sucks. lol:p

crysis is prolly getting more votes cuz its getting hyped more. it would prolly be just as lopsided if QW was put against BioShock. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Uh, I don't think it's just because it's getting "hyped". The "hype" is because of what Crysis is offering as a game, of which there is much proof in every preview and vid currently available of the game.

Comparing Crysis against Quake Wars, generally speaking from all aspects of what a game offers, is like comparing copper to gold, no matter how you look at it, but that's just my own (and a plethora of other people's :D) personal opinion... heh.
 
TheDepths said:
Uh, I don't think it's just because it's getting "hyped". The "hype" is because of what Crysis is offering as a game, of which there is much proof in every preview and vid currently available of the game.

Comparing Crysis against Quake Wars, generally speaking from all aspects of what a game offers, is like comparing copper to gold, no matter how you look at it, but that's just my own (and a plethora of other people's :D) personal opinion... heh.
Click to expand...

No its hype. There are only videos, and nobody has played it. On the other hand, ETQW is being played and has been played for a while now, so many people have already formed their opinions on it. This vote is kinda unfair since we have a laggy, unfinished ETQW beta that people are already playing, or a game that looks fucking sweet in the videos and screenshots.... what sounds more appealing? I'm also betting the crysis MP won't be any more "revolutionary" than ETQW. I'm definately interested in Crysis, but how does anyone know what its going to be like so we can compare it fairly against quake wars? I reserve judgement when I've played both, and so far I'm having a blast bombing GDF in the tormentor in ETQW, but only watching video clips of Crysis.
 
Ive played Quakewars, and have not played Crysis. It would be dumb to vote for one, and not the other right now. Especially since one is more of a single player game, and the other is a multi-player game.
 
No question in my mind it'll be ETQW. I fully expect crysis to be a knock your socks off graphical experience, but if it's anything like far cry, it will be an overhyped game that I lose interest in after the novelty of the scenery wears off. As soon as the mutant gorillas (or aliens in Crysis' case) come out and you start having to unload your entire arsenal to kill one enemy, I'm done. Far cry did it and I have no illusions about crysis taking the exactly same approach. Quake wars has much more potential for long term playability and I just don't see Crysis competing with that.
 
The one without the rootkit? *ducks*

anyway, i voted crysis. Back in my BF2 days i was drooling over ETQW, since i though EA was heading the wrong way with 2142 (and i picked it up a few months ago, turns out i was right). But lately i havent had the time (and RSI problems) so no endless nights of MMOFPS games for me anymore.

What sucks though, is that crysis is published by EA, and i dont trust those people, i think the risk of the game basically being a paid beta untill the 1.2 patch is just to big to ignore. Add to that Cryteks own patch problems (i do admire them though, far cry was GREAT) with far cry (1.0 wasnt working, 1.1 didnt work for me, 1.2 was hugely flawed, it took 1.31 till everything was working OK on my machine)
 
DrFreeze said:
The one without the rootkit? *ducks*

anyway, i voted crysis. Back in my BF2 days i was drooling over ETQW, since i though EA was heading the wrong way with 2142 (and i picked it up a few months ago, turns out i was right). But lately i havent had the time (and RSI problems) so no endless nights of MMOFPS games for me anymore.

What sucks though, is that crysis is published by EA, and i dont trust those people, i think the risk of the game basically being a paid beta untill the 1.2 patch is just to big to ignore. Add to that Cryteks own patch problems (i do admire them though, far cry was GREAT) with far cry (1.0 wasnt working, 1.1 didnt work for me, 1.2 was hugely flawed, it took 1.31 till everything was working OK on my machine)
Click to expand...
I'm not debating your choice, you're entitled to it, but etqw doesn't have persistant unlocks like the BF series does/did. Everything you unlock happens during the course of a campaign (3 maps) and once those are finished, everyone resets and starts from zero again. At most, you'll be hindered by a couple map's worth of xp, but once it resets you won't be at a disadvantage any longer.

I believe there will be a server side cvar to allow persistant xp, but just play on ranked servers and you won't run into that problem at all.
 
Obi_Kwiet said:
How can you say that when you don't even know what Crysis MP will be like? Crytek have pretty much admitted that their last attempt at MP in Far Cry was tacked on as an after thought. This time they are actually putting effort into it. It's idiotic the way people keep acting like they know exactly how Crysis will play just because they've played Far Cry. If you want to act like an expert at least read developer interviews.
Click to expand...

Relax. I'm only saying that Wolfenstein: ET was by far my favorite multiplayer game type.
So I'm hoping Quake Wars carries on with that.

I never played Far Cry multiplayer. Actually only played very little of the single player since the save system blew (I think they fixed that in a patch though...and I have the game sitting on my shelf, but my computer is fucked up, so I can't play ANY games right now :().

I don't see Crysis having that objective/team based multiplayer gameplay like W:ET had (since no other games really have...unless I'm missing some).

And I'm not trying to "act like an expert". My original post was about my love for W:ET and my hope that QW:ET still had that type of gameplay I loved. I wasn't trying to predict ANYTHING about Crysis or it's multiplayer.
 
QW feels like a mod that was made for BF2142, I dislike it a lot, hopefully Crysis does not disappoint.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top