Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Mac and PC Games' started by charlieegan3, Apr 24, 2012.
Looking really nice, Any thoughts?
Looks nice, gameplay seems to be more like Crysis 2.
I have not installed Crysis 2 yet despite having it since Xmas. I find myself playing Crysis 1 and Warhead when I want to kill things for some reason, I just like the idea of roaming around jungles and forests.
All hail bootcamp.
Yeah it is being quoted as Crysis 2.5, shame because it it's like a nice new environment to me.
I'm addicted to the whole jungle+forest theme of the crysis games.
If it wasn't for an average story it would most likely be my favourite series.
bootcamp is wonderful.
I think BF3 came very close on the graphics front but crysis wins on everything else.
I just love futuristic shooters I guess.
Crytek have always struggled with a good story, but Gameplay wise the very first FarCry (part from last bit of it, and before it was sold on to Ubisoft)) was Crytek's best IMHO.
Not sure about Crysis 3, I wasnt bowled over by Crysis, Crysis WarHead or Crysis 2. Yes it looks fab graphically, but story and gameplay wise (crysis 2) it's almost verging on the extraordinarily mundane and generic.
It no longer offers the innovation other than aesthetics that actually impressed me when the first FarCry came out, which was both spectacular to look at, pushed boundaries both in graphics and gameplay - with features that have since become staples in all FPS's, but they haven't driven the innovative part gameplay wise for a long time.
It is interesting that, sometimes, the creators of game engines can struggle finding the story that can match the vision of how it's all supposed to look.
Id has the problem. All their engines for as long as I can remember stood better as tech demos than compelling games (they could get away with it more back when there weren't any FPS games to compete against - Doom, Doom II, Quake, Quake II). We forget sometimes how much they almost owned that FPS market back in the day. But, of course, they didn't make the best games using their own engines (American Mcgee's Alice, if I recall, was a strong story with great use of the idtech 3 engine. Of course, all the MoH games and Call of Duty games used the idtech 3 engines, until they updated to idtech 4).
Epic had the problem with pretty much every iteration of the Unreal Engine. Although the story on the original Unreal was weak, it was freaking loooooong and that length made it tough to finish! Others have made better games using their engines (Deus Ex, Clive Barker's Undying, Bioshock, anyone?)
Add Crytek to the list of developers who don't make the best games using their engines.
Who is doing it right? I can think of Valve right now, but certainly I'm missing someone.
I think Valve and 2K (Bioshock) make worthy stories and make good use of dialogue in FPS games. I am looking forward to Bioshock Infinity. I agree with the above posts regarding the quality of the story in Crysis. The objectives were pretty mundane in Crysis 1 - something like "destroy that radar jammer" but IMO the combat was fun.
I will continue the rant by adding the fact that Blizzard have completely destroyed what was great about the Starcraft Universe. The dialogue was pathetic in Starcraft 2 compared to Starcraft 1.
you never know they may manage to spice up this story at little for crysis 3.
I did hear that bioshock was really good, but I didn't take to I'm afraid.
Starcraft2 has still managed to do very well though.
I want it nooowwwwww
I wonder how my watercooled GTX 480 will handle this.
chances are you won't get it maxed, lots seem to be planning a new rig for this one.