This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Whats happening with Crytek is a perfect example of what happens...

#131JKatarnPosted 7/14/2014 8:20:48 AM
50inchDLP posted...
TheFeshPince posted...
50inchDLP posted...
fanbase that put you famous.


I like English.


I apologize I was educated in American public schools so English is not my best.


"You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink"
---
Asus P8Z68-V LE | Core i7 2600K | 8GB G.Skill Ripjaws DDR3 | Gigabyte GeForce GTX 660 Windforce OC
PS3 | PS2 | PSP| Wii | 3DS | DS | X-Box 360 | X-Box | NES
#132leon_trunksPosted 7/14/2014 12:14:17 PM
Kerr Avon posted...
50inchDLP posted...
When you abandon your fanbase that put you famous. Crysis was THE PC game when it came out and held the graphics crown for more years than just about any game ever. Crysis what a real testament to us PC gamers as it was clearly made with only the PC in mind and did not have any limits in scope because of that. Us Crysis fans were salivating for a new crysis to see another AMAZING cutting edge PC game that had the open world gameplay that made Crysis so great to play. The they announced Crysis 2 would be on consoles as well.................... that's where they screwed up. because of the switch from PC exclusive to multiplatform limited the scope of the game. Result was Crysis 2 which was the biggest disappointment of the decade. It may take the top spot for a game that degraded soooooo badly going from first game to second game. It became a COD clone instead of the amazing open world and varied gameplay.


I think Crysis 2 is the best of the three. I certainly had more fun playing it than 1 or 3. And calling it the biggest disappointment of the decade makes you seem totally disconnected with the gaming world. What about Duke Nukem Forever, Alien: Colonial Marines, Deus Ex: Invisible War, Resident Evil 5 and 6, Deadspace 3, Watchdogs, etc.


RE5 wasn't as much a dissapointment as the rest you mention. Graphically and gameplay wise it was still a quality game.
#133VoxwikPosted 7/14/2014 1:23:31 PM
AsucaHayashi posted...
Design at a base, and then scale the graphics up from there for those with more powerful machines.

pretty sure that's how crysis was designed since i could run it on my P4 3.0... can't remember gpu but it was definitely nowhere near higher end.

This is one of those things where I'm starting to doubt myself. I could swear when Crysis was in development the developer bragged no current computer hardware could run it. Did that ever even happen?
#134paramite12Posted 7/14/2014 2:35:45 PM
I'm one of those weird people that likes Crysis 2 the best. I thought it was way more exciting and intense, although I wish it wasn't as linear. Crysis 1 was kinda boring and the energy depleted way too fast. I think I've beaten it like 8 times though haha. Crysis 3 looked incredible but it was too short and the story was pretty much awful. I can't remember what all happened in warhead, it's been a long time since I've played it.
Far-cry is one of my favorite games, I have many fond memories of it.
It's sad to see that Crytek is having trouble, but if your games don't live up to expectations, that's what happens.
---
trolls, trolls everywhere
#135harcoreblazerPosted 7/14/2014 2:45:25 PM
Stutz0 posted...

Console gamers didn't buy them because they already had Call of Duty and Halo, why would they want a clone of them? And PC gamers didn't buy it because they were basically told to f*** off with how poor the release was and it being an FPS that was designed for consoles.


That's weird because i don't like Call of Duty and i haven't even played Halo enough to get a taste of what it's like, and yet i bought Crysis 3 when it was on sale for 5$ and i enjoyed the Single-player campaign (Multiplayer sucked though, too many hackers, bugs and broken maps/mechanics, some even probably ripped off Crysis 2).
---
PSN/Steam = retrohunter95.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QS4HQWWuqP8&feature=youtu.be
#136JKatarnPosted 7/14/2014 2:46:04 PM
Voxwik posted...
AsucaHayashi posted...
Design at a base, and then scale the graphics up from there for those with more powerful machines.

pretty sure that's how crysis was designed since i could run it on my P4 3.0... can't remember gpu but it was definitely nowhere near higher end.

This is one of those things where I'm starting to doubt myself. I could swear when Crysis was in development the developer bragged no current computer hardware could run it. Did that ever even happen?


Something to that effect, and also, a P4 would have seriously struggled with Crysis, even at lower settings. It was one of the first games (at least first FPS) to really take advantage of more advanced CPUs with more cores due to the physics. And of course at low settings the game lost most of its appeal at the time.
---
Asus P8Z68-V LE | Core i7 2600K | 8GB G.Skill Ripjaws DDR3 | Gigabyte GeForce GTX 660 Windforce OC
PS3 | PS2 | PSP| Wii | 3DS | DS | X-Box 360 | X-Box | NES
#137SilentHawk29Posted 7/14/2014 3:27:55 PM
paramite12 posted...
I'm one of those weird people that likes Crysis 2 the best. I thought it was way more exciting and intense, although I wish it wasn't as linea


The problem with Crysis 2 (and maybe 3? Never played it) was the lack of physics objects in the environment. It was mostly all static. They went from a world where nearly everything could have been moved, blown up, thrown across the map, or whatever else, to basic linear maps.

The story and pacing was a lot better in Crysis 2, and the energy use was way better although the powers seemed to be better in the first. Plus, I liked the city environment more than the tropical island one (although I thought when you first get to the aliens and everything was turned to ice was awesome in the first game, plus the final level was very atmospheric).
---
PSN - Srikar || Steam - SilentHawk29
My car: http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/8583/86coupe.jpg
#138MELENTIAPosted 7/14/2014 3:34:55 PM
I gotta say I found the first game excellent for it's time. They shot themselves in the foot when they released a demo which was easily tweaked to unlock all guns and more, and afterwards people didn't support it because they already played it and didn't care as much afterwards. On top of that DX10 MP servers sucked for release and it was a ghost land.

Crysis 2 limited itself by attaching itself onto consoles, and it did well despite some big changes and flaws. The multiplayer didn't completely suck for example. However it never caught on because the gameplay was missing the element that keeps players playing longer. I can't quite explain it, but the replay value just wasn't there.

Crysis 3 was a pass knowing it was going to be more like Crysis 2, just like every COD has been a pass since MW2.

Less focus on graphics, more focus on gameplay, and story telling. If that wasn't obvious enough they made a dumb decision to make Warface for free, and it was/is a pretty bad game, so money down the drain. To succeed with gaming you have to either give gamers something they truly want, or create something new people are eager to try. You don't win with mediocre. Graphics are nice, but substance is nicer.
#139BringitPosted 7/14/2014 5:55:29 PM
XtremeWRATH360 posted...
They own the Timesplitters IP but refused to utilize it, bunch of idiots.


Yup. This is the thing that confuses me the most. Even if they crapped out a lazy port of 2/3 with basic online functionality, it still would have sold a ton.

Sure, there would be plenty of moaning but it hasn't stopped FFVII and VIII appearing on the best seller list at both launch and every subsequent sale.
---
"She was like a candle in the wind... unreliable." - Dean Learner
#140Kerr AvonPosted 7/15/2014 7:19:41 AM
Bringit posted...
XtremeWRATH360 posted...
They own the Timesplitters IP but refused to utilize it, bunch of idiots.


Yup. This is the thing that confuses me the most. Even if they crapped out a lazy port of 2/3 with basic online functionality, it still would have sold a ton.

Sure, there would be plenty of moaning but it hasn't stopped FFVII and VIII appearing on the best seller list at both launch and every subsequent sale.


Yep. The Timesplitters games should have been available to PC gamers, as the PC basically started the FPS genre, and PC gamers love good FPSs. Plus the mods that fans could have made for the games would have been fantastic.

Note: If anyone who's never tried the Timesplitters games wants to try them, don't play TS1 (which is PS2 only), as it's very simplistic. TS2 (PS2, Gamecube, and original XBox) was a *huge* improvement, maybe the best improvement of a sequel over it's prequel ever, and TS3 (Otherwise known as Timesplitter Future Perfect, it's on the PS2, Gamecube, and original XBox) is to me the best of the three, though most seem to prefer TS2. You don't need to play any game to play any other, as the stories don't really continue from game to game, all you need to know is that there is an evil race of aliens, called the Timesplitters, who want to destroy the human race, and you have to stop them by going through different periods of time to different locations, and steal their time crystals. Shallow story, but very, very good gameplay.
---
I'm a PC and console gamer - I love good games, regardless of their host system.
For all things N64: http://z9.invisionfree.com/Nintendo_64_Forever/