Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Crysis 3 TBA April 16th?
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
Twilightning wrote: »There's way too many variables to take into account. Just some of those are the fact that it was released in 2007, high-spec games were very expensive to run essentially making it a niche title itself because of this and that it wasn't a multiplatform release dumbed down to cater to consoles.
As the owner of a medium spec PC back in 2007 when Bioshock and the rest of the Unreal Engine 3 powered games were released, I can't help but disagree. It was, relatively speaking, no more expensive than it is now to build a PC which was capable of playing them at details levels that left the consoles in the dust. Crysis was an exception of course in that it could not be played a high detail levels on a medium spec PC. It could, however, be played at medium/low detail levels (which still blew the consoles out of the water) on a medium spec PC.
The fact that it wasn't a multi-platform release dumbed down to cater for consoles is exactly the point. This was the same year we got Bioshock and Unreal Tournament 3, two games which had varying levels of consolisation applied to them, after all. In the face of this we had Crysis which, as a result should have been wildly popular with PC gamers, regardless of whether they could run it at low, medium or high settings. The simple fact is though, it wasn't. Crytek had invested a large amount of money into the development of the engine and game and made it quite clear that they couldn't afford to do it again given the sales. Hence we got Crysis 2. Which, despite the flaws you've listed, sold far better, more so than can be explained by the time difference involved.
If you really want to talk about variables we could discuss the large amount of abuse the original game got for its gameplay which was criticised as being shallow and uninspired, with the game itself being written off as nothing but a fancy tech demo by many around here. Is it any wonder that Crytek chose a different, more linear path, for the sequel which has been proven to sell?
Crysis was released in Nov '07. It took them three years to match Crysis 2 sales which would bring that up to Nov '10. That's four months before Crysis 2 was released. Note, we're talking about raw sales here, so that's not even including the massive price drop the first game would have experienced in that time. In the meantime we have a technologically advanced game, which is still way ahead of what is capable on consoles when played at medium to high detail levels and which can now be played and purchased by a far larger percentage of gamers, as you yourself have pointed out, but which is still not selling a decent number of copies. You do the math.ShadowHearth wrote: »i really start do diss like when people compare sales of 5-10 years old games with current ones. In 5 years there were a lot of changes: more/better online places to buy from, big hardware changes and pricing, more digital distributors, more Gaming PCs and more Consoles now, then there were 5 years a go.
Any game will sell more now, then back in the day. I wonder would have crysis done so well, if it did not had expectations and legacy of first one? Its not as easy sale comperasing as: oh jesus crysis 2 sold more now nom nom nom.
On a related note, while a smaller number of higher profile titles will be selling more, the average sales figures for games hasn't increased in this period. A bit of time flicking through sales figures will provide ample evidence of this.0 -
Advertisement
-
As the owner of a medium spec PC back in 2007 when Bioshock and the rest of the Unreal Engine 3 powered games were released, I can't help but disagree. It was, relatively speaking, no more expensive than it is now to build a PC which was capable of playing them at details levels that left the consoles in the dust. Crysis was an exception of course in that it could not be played a high detail levels on a medium spec PC. It could, however, be played at medium/low detail levels (which still blew the consoles out of the water) on a medium spec PC.
The fact that it wasn't a multi-platform release dumbed down to cater for consoles is exactly the point. This was the same year we got Bioshock and Unreal Tournament 3, two games which had varying levels of consolisation applied to them, after all. In the face of this we had Crysis which, as a result should have been wildly popular with PC gamers, regardless of whether they could run it at low, medium or high settings. The simple fact is though, it wasn't. Crytek had invested a large amount of money into the development of the engine and game and made it quite clear that they couldn't afford to do it again given the sales. Hence we got Crysis 2. Which, despite the flaws you've listed, sold far better, more so than can be explained by the time difference involved.
If you really want to talk about variables we could discuss the large amount of abuse the original game got for its gameplay which was criticised as being shallow and uninspired, with the game itself being written off as nothing but a fancy tech demo by many around here. Is it any wonder that Crytek chose a different, more linear path, for the sequel which has been proven to sell?
Crysis was released in Nov '07. It took them three years to match Crysis 2 sales which would bring that up to Nov '10. That's four months before Crysis 2 was released. Note, we're talking about raw sales here, so that's not even including the massive price drop the first game would have experienced in that time. In the meantime we have a technologically advanced game, which is still way ahead of what is capable on consoles when played at medium to high detail levels and which can now be played and purchased by a far larger percentage of gamers, as you yourself have pointed out, but which is still not selling a decent number of copies. You do the math.
On a related note, while a smaller number of higher profile titles will be selling more, the average sales figures for games hasn't increased in this period. A bit of time flicking through sales figures will provide ample evidence of this.
sales 5 years ago =/= sales now. just the fact that there are more consoles and more PCs out there now, then there were 5 years ago, make it wrong comperison. the amount of customers is way bigger now, then it was back then.
release crysis 2 back then and crysis 1 now and sales figures of crysis 1, will be bigger now, 2012, not because its better or worse game, but because there were one muppet with xbox in 2007, and now there are 5 muppets with xbox'es ( just example i dont have anything against xbox gamers, if you want, insert PC in there. )0 -
Did you even read my reply to you?ShadowHearth wrote: »sales 5 years ago =/= sales now. just the fact that there are more consoles and more PCs out there now, then there were 5 years ago, make it wrong comperison. the amount of customers is way bigger now, then it was back then.
release crysis 2 back then and crysis 1 now and sales figures of crysis 1, will be bigger now, 2012, not because its better or worse game, but because there were one muppet with xbox in 2007, and now there are 5 muppets with xbox'es ( just example i dont have anything against xbox gamers, if you want, insert PC in there. )
I am not comparing sales from 5 years ago. I'm comparing sales over a period of three years from Nov '07 to Nov '10, to a period beginning only four months later (when Crysis 2 was released) for another three months. You yourself said in that time peoples machines got better, prices came down and digital distribution took off. So why then didn't the sales for Crysis, a title which still looks fantastic on the PC even by today's standards, not continue to sell more?0 -
As the owner of a medium spec PC back in 2007 when Bioshock and the rest of the Unreal Engine 3 powered games were released, I can't help but disagree. It was, relatively speaking, no more expensive than it is now to build a PC which was capable of playing them at details levels that left the consoles in the dust. Crysis was an exception of course in that it could not be played a high detail levels on a medium spec PC. It could, however, be played at medium/low detail levels (which still blew the consoles out of the water) on a medium spec PC.
You're speaking as if every consumer back in 2007 was as knowledgeable as you were about how graphically impressive PC games were at even medium settings. That being said, with the wider availability of PC games on easy to use digital distribution platforms like Steam and GOG and (arguably) easier to access information on how simple building a PC actually is, it's not really a longshot to assume that compared to 2007, PC gaming is a lot more popular in 2012 than it was in 2007. It's also worth nothing that there's still a ton of ignorance regarding the state of PC gaming as it is at the moment. I'd use this idiot's video as a prime example; do you really think the situation was better for PC gaming in 2007?The fact that it wasn't a multi-platform release dumbed down to cater for consoles is exactly the point. This was the same year we got Bioshock and Unreal Tournament 3, two games which had varying levels of consolisation applied to them, after all. In the face of this we had Crysis which, as a result should have been wildly popular with PC gamers, regardless of whether they could run it at low, medium or high settings. The simple fact is though, it wasn't. Crytek had invested a large amount of money into the development of the engine and game and made it quite clear that they couldn't afford to do it again given the sales. Hence we got Crysis 2. Which, despite the flaws you've listed, sold far better, more so than can be explained by the time difference involved.
PC gamers were definitely a niche market back in 2007 and while we're making some headway in 2012, it's still pretty niche compared to the 360, PS3 and Wii playerbase combined as of now. I wasn't arguing that the consolization of the game didn't make business sense, but the original game is still a hell of a lot better than the second release. Why make a great game and release it to a niche group of gamers and get half-decent sales when you can release a mediocre, linear, Call of Duty inspired alien shooter on consoles which pander to a demographic who clearly don't know any better when it comes to FPS games and make a killing?If you really want to talk about variables we could discuss the large amount of abuse the original game got for its gameplay which was criticised as being shallow and uninspired, with the game itself being written off as nothing but a fancy tech demo by many around here. Is it any wonder that Crytek chose a different, more linear path, for the sequel which has been proven to sell?
I'm not saying it's no wonder they went down the path that decided to sell more. I'm just trying to get the point across that it's not necessarily a good path for the consumer.Crysis was released in Nov '07. It took them three years to match Crysis 2 sales which would bring that up to Nov '10. That's four months before Crysis 2 was released. Note, we're talking about raw sales here, so that's not even including the massive price drop the first game would have experienced in that time. In the meantime we have a technologically advanced game, which is still way ahead of what is capable on consoles when played at medium to high detail levels and which can now be played and purchased by a far larger percentage of gamers, as you yourself have pointed out, but which is still not selling a decent number of copies. You do the math.
I still advocate that the gaming landscape was different to what it is now and it's not really wild speculation to think such a shift could happen over the space of 5 years. One prime example of this would be the rhythm gaming genre which was all the rage in 2007; just look at the state of it now thanks to Activision. Which leads me on to another variable; Call of Duty 4 was released at the end of 2007 and sparked a revolution and surge of popularity of FPS games marketed to consoles, which no doubt contributed to Crysis 2's success, something which the original didn't have going for it. I remember playing the Crysis 2 demo a few weeks before release and thinking "The multiplayer's just Call of Duty on steroids". I have no doubt a lot of people thought this way too.0 -
Did you even read my reply to you?
I am not comparing sales from 5 years ago. I'm comparing sales over a period of three years from Nov '07 to Nov '10. The latter date is fourth months before Crysis 2.
what you do: you say, that crysis 1 sold 3mil copies in 3 years, and crysis 2 sold 3 mils in 3 weeks ( or 3 month ), and that makes crysis 1 worse product ( finincially, not as a gamer ).
wheres what i am saying, that crysis 1 , had limited platforms ( only pc, no console ), did not had advantages, which games have now ( selles point, digital distribution, eshops), crysis 2 had a legacy of crysis 1 ( not new IP ), then again gaming is bigger now, then it was back then.
you said this too:
Yea, Crytek/EA really should know better by now. I mean last time they released a Crysis game which wasn't locked to a particular digital download service, had no intrusive DRM, no day one locked content, DLC or pre-order bonuses and which really gave gamers expensive rigs a run for their money, gamers flocked to buy it on day one, rewarding both developer and publisher for their investment and showing that gamers will support this type of pro-consumer behaviour!
Oh, wait...
these things are not the reason crysis 2 did good, those are the reasons why it was shiet.
you maybe miss understand me. I have no problem with crysis 2 being on consoles, in fact on launch i bought xbox and pc version so i could play with all of my friends on all platforms. If they needed to move to consoles to make more money, then grand job, i am happy they sold a lot of copies on all 3 platforms. the thing i dont like: when you compare sales of older game, to a newer one, which had so many advantages over first one.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
Back in 2007 the majority of gamers were as knowledgeable as I was about how graphically impressive PC gamers were though. It wasn't some sort of technological dark age or anything.Twilightning wrote: »You're speaking as if every consumer back in 2007 was as knowledgeable as you were about how graphically impressive PC games were at even medium settings. That being said, with the wider availability of PC games on easy to use digital distribution platforms like Steam and GOG and (arguably) easier to access information on how simple building a PC actually is, it's not really a longshot to assume that compared to 2007, PC gaming is a lot more popular in 2012 than it was in 2007. It's also worth nothing that there's still a ton of ignorance regarding the state of PC gaming as it is at the moment. I'd use this idiot's video as a prime example; do you really think the situation was better for PC gaming in 2007?
Okay, I'm in no way old or anything but I'm beginning to think there's some sort of weird generational gap forming here. On what planet was PC gaming a niche market in 2007?Twilightning wrote: »PC gamers were definitely a niche market back in 2007 and while we're making some headway in 2012, it's still pretty niche compared to the 360, PS3 and Wii playerbase combined as of now. I wasn't arguing that the consolization of the game didn't make business sense, but the original game is still a hell of a lot better than the second release. Why make a great game and release it to a niche group of gamers and get half-decent sales when you can release a mediocre, linear, Call of Duty inspired alien shooter on consoles which pander to a demographic who clearly don't know any better when it comes to FPS games and make a killing?
Yet the irony here is that they're going down that path because of consumers. :pac:Twilightning wrote: »I'm not saying it's no wonder they went down the path that decided to sell more. I'm just trying to get the point across that it's not necessarily a good path for the consumer.
That's not the reply I was talking about, I meant this bit I addressed to you in this post.ShadowHearth wrote: »what you do: you say, that crysis 1 sold 3mil copies in 3 years, and crysis 2 sold 3 mils in 3 weeks ( or 3 month ), and that makes crysis 1 worse product ( finincially, not as a gamer ).
wheres what i am saying, that crysis 1 , had limited platforms ( only pc, no console ), did not had advantages, which games have now ( selles point, digital distribution, eshops), crysis 2 had a legacy of crysis 1 ( not new IP ), then again gaming is bigger now, then it was back then.
you said this too:
.... 0 -
Twilightning wrote: »The legitimate complaints have existed for a long time; the term 'gamer entitlement' has only recently started to crop up among gaming circles in general in response to the generally ****ty direction publishers like Activision, Capcom, THQ and EA are heading in and how people actually have the nerve to speak out against shoddy business practices and how people think they aren't getting value out of the money the spend on expensive video games. Here's some links, Captain; make sure you note the dates on each:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/03/13/mass-effect-3-and-the-pernicious-myth-of-gamer-entitlement/
http://uk.gamespot.com/features/the-dangers-of-gamer-entitlement-6350732/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gz8_j-ebfaI
Wow, so the concept of gamers acting spoiled little emperors with a mind-boggling sense of entitlement is a new one because you've just noticed it recently.
Protip - gamers have been shitty people for years, just because you've finally noticed it doesn't make it a new phenomenon.
But please, tell me how you're a poor downtrodden and oppressed because these nasty publishers are doing things you don't like with your luxury entertainment products
0 -
Back in 2007 the majority of gamers were as knowledgeable as I was about how graphically impressive PC gamers were though. It wasn't some sort of technological dark age or anything.
Gamers were knowledgeable in so far as we knew the PC was capable of amazing graphics but not really at what cost compared to consoles, what general settings or specs the PC was running at or actual just how better it was than the likes of the PS3 only being just recently released.Okay, I'm in no way old or anything but I'm beginning to think there's some sort of weird generational gap forming here. On what planet was PC gaming a niche market in 2007?
I only use the term niche in comparison to the console gaming market. I'm well aware just how many PC gamers there are out there but if you asked any given 100 people on the street in 2007 what their platform of choice was, you can bet the majority would have given a console as their answer. I was in secondary school at 2007 and we all know teenagers are a target demographic for some of the biggest gaming titles around today. I think aside from me, in a year of about 50-60 lads, virtually all of them gamed primarily on a gaming console.Yet the irony here is that they're going down that path because of consumers. :pac:
I'd say that's a discussion for another time. I agree but only to an extent.0 -
hooradiation wrote: »Wow, so the concept of gamers acting spoiled little emperors with a mind-boggling sense of entitlement is a new one because you've just noticed it recently.
Protip - gamers have been shitty people for years, just because you've finally noticed it doesn't make it a new phenomenon.
But please, tell me how you're a poor downtrodden and oppressed because these nasty publishers are doing things you don't like with your luxury entertainment products
If gamers are ****ty people for years, then don't hang out here las, there is lots and lots of shiet on this part of the boards.ie....0 -
hooradiation wrote: »Wow, so the concept of gamers acting spoiled little emperors with a mind-boggling sense of entitlement is a new one because you've just noticed it recently.
Protip - gamers have been shitty people for years, just because you've finally noticed it doesn't make it a new phenomenon.
But please, tell me how you're a poor downtrodden and oppressed because these nasty publishers are doing things you don't like with your luxury entertainment products
I think I literally have to spell it out for you; here's my original quote.The legitimate complaints have existed for a long time; the term 'gamer entitlement' has only recently started to crop up among gaming circles
Now just for you, I'll highlight different parts of the quote for you. The part in italics refers to how I openly stated any of what I just mentioned isn't a 'new phenomenon' as you put it, and the part in bold refers to the part where I said the term only recently came into use among gaming circles:The legitimate complaints have existed for a long time; the term 'gamer entitlement' has only recently started to crop up among gaming circles
Also, if you've got such a problem with people speaking out about the business practices of publishers who distribute luxury entertainment products, then what the hell are you doing on the main forum of boards.ie dedicated to discussing it? It's as pretentious as me heading over to the football forum and telling everyone there to shut up whinging about the final score of a match because there's people in Ireland losing their homes because of the recession.0 -
-
Disagree for the same reason as above and in fairness, if you were in secondary school in 2007, it's no wonder you'd think most gamers weren't as technologically literate as they are now. The thing is we've had the exact same thing happen when each of the previous console generations began to show their age as PCs took that extra step forward.Twilightning wrote: »Gamers were knowledgeable in so far as we knew the PC was capable of amazing graphics but not really at what cost compared to consoles, what general settings or specs the PC was running at or actual just how better it was than the likes of the PS3 only being just recently released.
That's because all of the PC gamers were at home in front of their computers doing their shopping on the internet.Twilightning wrote: »I only use the term niche in comparison to the console gaming market. I'm well aware just how many PC gamers there are out there but if you asked any given 100 people on the street in 2007 what their platform of choice was, you can bet the majority would have given a console as their answer. I was in secondary school at 2007 and we all know teenagers are a target demographic for some of the biggest gaming titles around today. I think aside from me, in a year of about 50-60 lads, virtually all of them gamed primarily on a gaming console.
I do get your point though but for me it was the opposite experience, sure plenty of people had consoles but there was also a decent chunk of people who had PCs. The same could be said for these forums around 2007, there's always been a thriving community of PC gamers all over the net. To relate all of this to my original point anyway, in the time between its release and the release of the sequel, there's no reason Crysis 1 couldn't have sold as many copies as Crysis 2. I'm not saying we compare their sales within the same window, I'm specifically pointing to the period of time between their release dates when the original was, and indeed still is, seen as a technologically advanced game. This community just didn't support the game so it's no surprise that Crytek went in a different direction because of it.
What has clearly irked people in your post is that despite the actual game sounding like it's moving back in the direction of the original with a more sandbox type environment, you've said you'll pirate it anyway and might buy it down the line. Surely you can see that this behaviour, even in the face of potential efforts to deliver a game more to your liking, is detrimental in the long run?0 -
Advertisement
-
Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 29,542 CMod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 28253
OK let's dismiss the silly word 'consolised' for a minute and let's actually try to get to the root of what, if anything, went wrong with Crysis 2.
1. Linearity vs Open World: I personally don't buy that a more linear game is by itself a negative thing. After all, the almost undisputed granddaddy of the FPS - Half Life (2) - is 'closed', or only open within very tight parameters. Indeed, 'closing' the world allows for a developer to tightly control the situations the player finds themselves in, with the potential for greater understanding of the mechanics and gameplay. There's a lot of room for improvisation and tactics in Crysis 2 (I stealthed through the vast majority of the closing sections): possibilities often not afforded in less closed-off arenas. Also: Open worlds, by their very nature, can often be chock full of filler. Anyway, being linear is not in itself a bad thing, so I'm genuinely interested to hear a counter-argument to this
2. Accessibility: I haven't played Crysis 1, but I do understand that Crysis 2 makes it a bit easier to get the most out of your suit. This is potentially a good and bad thing. It both discourages and encourages player discovery and experimentation in different ways. However, 'streamlining' is not necessarily equal to 'dumbing down'. Indeed, if a developer can explain, show or execute in ten seconds what otherwise would take twenty seconds then there is no harm. If you can use one button to achieve an action that previously took three, why the heck not? After all, isn't attracting a wider audience to your game a good thing as long as you don't significantly compromise the overall vision? Again, would like to hear if this is a concern amongst Crysis 1 > 2 players.
3. The graphics: Here's the funny thing about Crysis (2). I don't think it looks all that great. That's a slight hyperbole: technically, it's a triumph, but as for the art design and all that jazz I find it unconvincing. It's kind of like a beautifully composed arthouse film vs an expensive Hollywood blockbuster: they both look nice, but only one is truly worth encouraging. So yes, I've seen better looking games than Crysis: Rayman Origins, Okami, El Shaddai... Should we not be encouraging that rather than bland art design with excessively high pixel counts that only a very small minority of wealthy gamers are ever going to play? It's not a particularly commercially viable enterprise making games that only run 'properly' on the most maxed out of rigs: so why would a developer / publisher waste all their time and money on it?
I also think some gamers overestimate the appeal of power hungry behemoths these days: in fact, I'd say there's been a seismic shift towards games that don't overindulge in the technology. After all, look at some of the bestsellers these days: Angry Birds, Minecraft etc...: do gamers care about the low-fi aesthetics? Not in the least.
4. City vs Jungle: this I sort of agree with. A jungle to me is more lush and potentially exciting a premise than another game set in NYC (a great location, albeit an overused one at times). However, colour me curious about how Crytek are going to meld these two disparate environments.
Just playing Devil's Advocate here: I don't necessarily agree with all of the above. But to me these are far deeper issues than a 'consoles vs PC' debate: a debate which IMO is a simplification of other concepts. Concepts that are not, often, to be wholly discouraged.0 -
Ok, Ill see if I can give my point of view to some of these. I'm going to stay away from the obvious, mass market Vs not a niche market but what is financially a smaller market argument. Cause all you actually have to do is look at the € income when it comes to Console gaming Vs Elite Super Rig PC gaming. There are though some points where you can't ignore the Consolve Vs PC even if you can ignore the financial parts.
No I perfectly understand where you are coming from here, but when you compare one against the other especially when you played 1 first its hard to compromise. As a PC gamer playing Crysis 1 I felt like I had option to roam, taking a Korean camp via the North South, East or West. 99% of the time I followed the same linear line you would have been brought along if it had been a closed game, but it never left like that. I had options.johnny_ultimate wrote: »OK let's dismiss the silly word 'consolised' for a minute and let's actually try to get to the root of what, if anything, went wrong with Crysis 2.
1. Linearity vs Open World: I personally don't buy that a more linear game is by itself a negative thing. After all, the almost undisputed granddaddy of the FPS - Half Life (2) - is 'closed', or only open within very tight parameters. Indeed, 'closing' the world allows for a developer to tightly control the situations the player finds themselves in, with the potential for greater understanding of the mechanics and gameplay. There's a lot of room for improvisation and tactics in Crysis 2 (I stealthed through the vast majority of the closing sections): possibilities often not afforded in less closed-off arenas. Also: Open worlds, by their very nature, can often be chock full of filler. Anyway, being linear is not in itself a bad thing, so I'm genuinely interested to hear a counter-argument to this
Simply having the ability to move down 5th Ave instead of 6th Ave and flank around in C2 would have been nice, yes there are some spots where you could go into a room/shop or subway for all of 50 frames and pop back out, but then it was limited to just that. Slightly blurring between your point 1 (this one) and point 3 (further down) you talk of filler. Thats the thing with Crysis 1, there wasnt much if any filler. You would walk off the beaten track away from the action and you would find a random beautifully rendered waterfall, that you would would have missed if you had stuck to a path, the part had no point in the game.... it was just there.
Another point was in C2 you sometimes came to a row of seats or a wall that a 5 year old could get over and it blocked your way funnelling you down your logical linear path, it felt forced and not natural, christ you fall off one of the building to the ground, surely you can hop a wall. In C1 there was again little to none of that and even when there was, you had to go off the beaten track to find it, it wasnt staring you right in the face. One other thing and this is personal hate and I just want to throw it in against the 2 games, loading screens. Being at Battery Park and then all of a sudden the Empire state or Grand Central. It losses the fluidity of the game, again making it feel I am being restricted and that I am playing a game and not fully emersed in it. Dammit I want to be Alcatraz, Prophet or in new one Phycho.
Can't argue with this to be honest. I didn't care to much for the difference between the suit UI.2. Accessibility: I haven't played Crysis 1, but I do understand that Crysis 2 makes it a bit easier to get the most out of your suit. This is potentially a good and bad thing. It both discourages and encourages player discovery and experimentation in different ways. However, 'streamlining' is not necessarily equal to 'dumbing down'. Indeed, if a developer can explain, show or execute in ten seconds what otherwise would take twenty seconds then there is no harm. If you can use one button to achieve an action that previously took three, why the heck not? After all, isn't attracting a wider audience to your game a good thing as long as you don't significantly compromise the overall vision? Again, would like to hear if this is a concern amongst Crysis 1 > 2 players.
So well yeah, so there
As I said in my 1st point I kinda blurred a little between. To me the big F.U to PC gamers was we had to wait for a DX11 patch, it wasn't even a day 0 release patch you could add. C1 to me justified the money I had spent on my machine, I wanted to see the beauty of what gaming can be, I paid the price and I got it. C2, felt as if they had designed the game and limited it, then as an after thought brought in the DX11 features. I was so happy with Crytek originally as they were the James Cameron of gaming. They wanted to show what was possible (when he did avatar) wanted to push the boundaries and that was one of the best things. We were part of ground breaking technology and we were enjoying it.3. The graphics: Here's the funny thing about Crysis (2). I don't think it looks all that great. That's a slight hyperbole: technically, it's a triumph, but as for the art design and all that jazz I find it unconvincing. It's kind of like a beautifully composed arthouse film vs an expensive Hollywood blockbuster: they both look nice, but only one is truly worth encouraging. So yes, I've seen better looking games than Crysis: Rayman Origins, Okami, El Shaddai... Should we not be encouraging that rather than bland art design with excessively high pixel counts that only a very small minority of wealthy gamers are ever going to play? It's not a particularly commercially viable enterprise making games that only run 'properly' on the most maxed out of rigs: so why would a developer / publisher waste all their time and money on it?
I also think some gamers overestimate the appeal of power hungry behemoths these days: in fact, I'd say there's been a seismic shift towards games that don't overindulge in the technology. After all, look at some of the bestsellers these days: Angry Birds, Minecraft etc...: do gamers care about the low-fi aesthetics? Not in the least.
The CryEngine (CrytekEng) is at its source one of the most powerful engines there is in gaming. I've a mate works closely with the Unreal one and we would even "wow" at what CryEngine can do. Why not push it and show off. Another things that some people argue and I don't design games so I cant say if this is true or not, but a lot of people say that you can sacrifice gfx for other intensive processes, like more open gaming, physics or AI.This was a limitation that was imposed not only by the gfx unit in the consoles, but the memory and CPU limitations.
I have to admit, the one thing I thought was very poor was the C2 AI. I frequently found solders or aliens, randomly running up against walls or crouching and jumping against walls again a 5 year old could climb or points where you could see "flanking" attempts were being attempted but for one reason or another it fell miserably. Again this ruined my intigration in the game and my feel as if Im the protagonist and not just a game player. I still think for its time Hal-Life's 1 AI was amazing.
I'm not arguing with you, hope you know that, Im just trying to give my perspective of what I felt was one of the best games of my generation of gaming Vs its successor that was very enjoyable but felt as if there were some points that of course could have been improved on but some were just scrappy. Also don't get me wrong, its not a sense of entitlement to something I have or should have, its just a disappointing when something you've been looking forward to doesn't work out, but hey these things happen. I'll still buy C3 and love it0 -
-
hooradiation wrote: »Protip - gamers have been shitty people for years, just because you've finally noticed it doesn't make it a new phenomenon.
But please, tell me how you're a poor downtrodden and oppressed because these nasty publishers are doing things you don't like with your luxury entertainment products
Sigh... it's because of people like you that these companies get away with this sh*t.
You are part of the problem.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DUer2X2dv8
Advertisement