On April 08 2011 10:35 a176 wrote: the good: graphics - UNBELIEVABLE.
are you kidding me! It does not support DX11 as we all kind of anticipated, blur motion, ground/wall texture looks flat, no parallax oclusion mapping like its previous...
Dont get me wrong the graphics are still "good" but they did neglect the graphics probably due to console sections.
It was basically a broken game in the first 2 weeks and crucial bugs still persist for some people.
What I miss is the moments where you stop and throw away your guns for a moment and just enjoy the amazing landscape.
yes sir, I also miss that too. I guess with this game as well as others similiar to it the only way it'll keep me interested like that again, is after smoking a big fat blunt. It's just, for lack of a better word, boring... but who knows, if I ever get bored with some of the other games I have in my possession, I might try it again. Does the story get much better as it goes on?
The game kind of picks up once you stop confronting C.E.L.L. and start confronting the Ceph. Gets more difficult too since the Ceph don't die as easily as the CELL operatives.
Bah, since Crytek decided not to include lower graphics options than "High" it seems I wont be able to play this anytime soon -.- Unless I get it for my Xbox that is...
On April 12 2011 18:44 Excessive wrote: Bah, since Crytek decided not to include lower graphics options than "High" it seems I wont be able to play this anytime soon -.- Unless I get it for my Xbox that is...
the name of the settings doesn't matter. It would be called low in any other game with the exact same settings. Actually it was first called casual.
On April 12 2011 18:44 Excessive wrote: Bah, since Crytek decided not to include lower graphics options than "High" it seems I wont be able to play this anytime soon -.- Unless I get it for my Xbox that is...
Xbox looks practically the same as the "high" spec on PC...
On April 12 2011 18:44 Excessive wrote: Bah, since Crytek decided not to include lower graphics options than "High" it seems I wont be able to play this anytime soon -.- Unless I get it for my Xbox that is...
the name of the settings doesn't matter. It would be called low in any other game with the exact same settings. Actually it was first called casual.
yea crytek thought they were fooling people by calling it high in crysis warhead because so many people complained that they couldnt run crysis 1 on high lol
I actually thought Crysis 2 was very entertaining. Granted, the lack of weapon variety & very narrow customization did make it a bit repetitive, but there's a certain extent to which I call graphics "good" and I don't bother trying to differentiate between, Amazing and Colossal. Playing Call of Duty 2 was revolutionary enough for me.
Gameplay was fine, and the voice actor for Hargreave was absolutely amazing. I do wish that they would add a bit more customization and build-up, and a simplified version of collecting the nano-shards instead of running up to every freaking guy you kill in stealth.
I beat it in the hardest difficulty, but it wasn't anything monstrous. Overall fun-game. I can't imagine it being a great // mainstream multiplayer though.
Like many, I was at first hyped about the game a few weeks before it came out, but had a slightly bad feeling about it after hearing all of the console tailoring.
Now, I've never been one to hate on a game just because it is also on console as well as PC, and generally disagreed with most of the immature comments from the anti-Call of Duty crowd, but after playing the demo and seeing the "press start to continue", "auto-aim" option, and lack of graphic option tailoring, I was hesitant about getting it.
Nevertheless, I bit the bullet and bought it on day 2, and was really wowed by it for the first hour or two, even having a Half-Life 2 -like moment when you first step into a chaotic outdoor world. I have to agree with many of the previous posters about a couple pretty serious issues with it:
The story is not engaging in the least, and is just a barely-visible link between action setpieces. I never cared about anyone or anything in the narrative. Most of the voice acting, with the exception of Hargreave and Prophet, is outright amateur.
The enemy AI is definitely some of the worst, and I don't say this lightly, that I have played in any modern FPS. It is worse than other console shooters (CoD, Killzone 3) and far worse than Half-Life 2 or even 1. You can literally beat levels running, without stealth, through enemy patrols. If you are far enough away from an enemy, human soldier or alien, and shoot them, they do not respond in any way and instead just stand there to die. The setpieces, where soldiers rappel down into a greenhouse or ambush you in total darkness, have them enter and then just stand still waiting for you in the open. This was absolutely gamebreaking for me, and made the entire game not fun at all (I played it on post-human warrior, the hardest difficulty on my first and only playthrough).
I would actually suggest to play it on easiest or normal, as the increased difficulty doesn't translate into any more fun or any smarter AI, but instead just more bullets to kill the same dumb enemies.
Multiplayer is alright and I have had fun with it, although there is still rampant cheating going on. Also, there are still many issues with the game saving and updating your profile and unlocks online, and if a server disconnects you before you manually "save and exit" from a server, no matter how long you've been playing, you will lose all of your progress.
Overall, it's a good game, definitely a standout for the graphics and suit innovations, but has several issues that would cause me not to recommend it to anyone, at least til they fix some issues.
This game was amazing in 3D. I usually play games on 360 but picked this one up for PS3 just because that console works with TVs much better for 3D mode. Playing this 3D game really changed my console gaming experience. I just hope the 3D quality doesnt turn out to be like the movies, where avatar demonstrated amazing quality and all the rest to follow have been complete garbage.
On April 12 2011 12:40 Coolguy wrote: the thought the game was waaaay too easy, and often you can just stealth by the encounters. You're not even forced to fight most of the times, though that big robot thing really took some time to learn, but that's about it. I would have liked it if it was more like the call of duty single player series. You die so freakin fast if you dont watch your back all the time.
ever thought about changing the game difficulty level to higher if you find it too easy instead of complaining? harder settings are what you are looking for.
sorry for the misunderstanding, but i played it on the hardest difficulty without doing it on lower ones first.
I think the biggest mistake design-wise that crytek made was how easy they made it for people to be able to just cloak through all the levels if they want. they made you have to try too hard to make the game challenging lol. Especially all the dumb suite upgrades that just make the game exponentially easier. Once you get the super nano-suite recharge the game becomes insanely easy.
On April 13 2011 03:28 eAZy1 wrote: Like many, I was at first hyped about the game a few weeks before it came out, but had a slightly bad feeling about it after hearing all of the console tailoring.
Now, I've never been one to hate on a game just because it is also on console as well as PC, and generally disagreed with most of the immature comments from the anti-Call of Duty crowd, but after playing the demo and seeing the "press start to continue", "auto-aim" option, and lack of graphic option tailoring, I was hesitant about getting it.
Nevertheless, I bit the bullet and bought it on day 2, and was really wowed by it for the first hour or two, even having a Half-Life 2 -like moment when you first step into a chaotic outdoor world. I have to agree with many of the previous posters about a couple pretty serious issues with it:
The story is not engaging in the least, and is just a barely-visible link between action setpieces. I never cared about anyone or anything in the narrative. Most of the voice acting, with the exception of Hargreave and Prophet, is outright amateur.
The enemy AI is definitely some of the worst, and I don't say this lightly, that I have played in any modern FPS. It is worse than other console shooters (CoD, Killzone 3) and far worse than Half-Life 2 or even 1. You can literally beat levels running, without stealth, through enemy patrols. If you are far enough away from an enemy, human soldier or alien, and shoot them, they do not respond in any way and instead just stand there to die. The setpieces, where soldiers rappel down into a greenhouse or ambush you in total darkness, have them enter and then just stand still waiting for you in the open. This was absolutely gamebreaking for me, and made the entire game not fun at all (I played it on post-human warrior, the hardest difficulty on my first and only playthrough).
I would actually suggest to play it on easiest or normal, as the increased difficulty doesn't translate into any more fun or any smarter AI, but instead just more bullets to kill the same dumb enemies.
Multiplayer is alright and I have had fun with it, although there is still rampant cheating going on. Also, there are still many issues with the game saving and updating your profile and unlocks online, and if a server disconnects you before you manually "save and exit" from a server, no matter how long you've been playing, you will lose all of your progress.
Overall, it's a good game, definitely a standout for the graphics and suit innovations, but has several issues that would cause me not to recommend it to anyone, at least til they fix some issues.
In regards to the multiplayer disconnect issue, it just down-levels you once, you don't lose all your progress.
EDIT: I would agree with you though that this is not a game anyone should buy at the moment. It simply isn't worth the money with all the bugs and issues. If the game had launched without so many blatant errors I wouldn't regret my purchase as much. It just feels unprofessional and has made me lose respect for Crytek as a company.
On April 13 2011 09:23 HardCorey wrote: In regards to the multiplayer disconnect issue, it just down-levels you once, you don't lose all your progress.
EDIT: I would agree with you though that this is not a game anyone should buy at the moment. It simply isn't worth the money with all the bugs and issues. If the game had launched without so many blatant errors I wouldn't regret my purchase as much. It just feels unprofessional and has made me lose respect for Crytek as a company.
Yeah, I'm definitely going to be wary of Crytek from now on, as well as other PC-to-console shooters. They seem to sacrifice too much while pretending that they aren't.
Let's hope Rage doesn't turn out the same as Crysis 2.
I'm wondering if I should buy this game, for multi-player purposes only, since I've pretty much concluded that the story sucks from your posts and other reviews.
I had a lot of fun playing Halo multi-player, as well as counterstrike and COD series. Obviously those games have quite good multi-player dynamics, but I watched some Crysis matches and I was baffled by the temporary semi-cloak ability, which I thought was OP.
How is the mulit-player scene? is it fun or stupid?
Also I'm expecting DX11 Metro 2033-like graphics to harness my gtx560ti, will I get that? thanks!
played the demo, didn't like it. now a lot of people i used to play other games with ( tactical ops, ut99, ut2k4 ) play it and rave about it. did they change a lot of shit since the demo?
On April 13 2011 13:21 zyglrox wrote: played the demo, didn't like it. now a lot of people i used to play other games with ( tactical ops, ut99, ut2k4 ) play it and rave about it. did they change a lot of shit since the demo?
there are a lot more weapons/maps in the final game so that is nice, but other than that, not really anything has changed.
On April 13 2011 12:14 HotSoup470 wrote: I'm wondering if I should buy this game, for multi-player purposes only, since I've pretty much concluded that the story sucks from your posts and other reviews.
I had a lot of fun playing Halo multi-player, as well as counterstrike and COD series. Obviously those games have quite good multi-player dynamics, but I watched some Crysis matches and I was baffled by the temporary semi-cloak ability, which I thought was OP.
How is the mulit-player scene? is it fun or stupid?
Also I'm expecting DX11 Metro 2033-like graphics to harness my gtx560ti, will I get that? thanks!
Might take awhile to get use to the cloak mechanics, but its not as OP or fucked up as one might think, on the PC i've been playing an average of 4-5 hours per day for 2 weeks and i'm already ranked top1% in terms of exp score, never mind that the top 0.5% cheated their way up there, the game has very few weapon selection but what makes it different from other FPS is the way u manage ur nanosuit energy, thats the key feature of this game, at first ur will rely alot on cloaking to get some sense of security, but after u played long enough, u can actually detect cloaked ppl running around with ur naked eye once u know whats the sign to look for, and its generally a bad practise to run around with cloak since it leaves ur energy too low most of the time when a encounters happens, ie: not enough energy for armor.
hit register is fine, not like the weirdly delayed on Battlefield games, most weapon shots hit instantly except for one weapon. the graphic is absolutely sublime if u can squeeze the best out of it with ur systems. overall i'm having alot of fun with the multiplayer experience, albeit the occasional game spoiling cheaters..
EPT
