Crysis demo – opinions

[Gerard]

I fail to see how people can say its a remake of Farcry as a bad thing :/
Farcry was an awesome game, It was better than HL2....

Matter of opinion, i found farcry to be all graphics and nothing else, crap dialogue from the enemies totally ruined the immersion "im gonna lay the smackdown on you, im gonna shoot you in the head" etc. half of the time sneaking past enemies was imposible, you're laying prone in deep grass moving slowly and theyre 50 yards away and somehow spot you. Then when the difficulty was increased they became snipers with smg's from stupid ranges.

Without the graphics of farcry it wouldn't have had anywhere near as big an impact as it did.

 

[helmutcheese]

I drove my Humvee into the water, swam out and then shot the petrol tank and it was nice big underwater explosion and parts floated to surface.

 

[vapor matt]

farcry 2 would have been a better name for crysis, unless they meant a crysis in the GFX department!

Its basicly farcry with add on's.

Good points = looks good if you can get the frame rate

Bad points = vistaX64 plus you need a good spec machine to get anywhere near the games potential in looks or GFX at playable frame rates.

perhaps Nvidia will now anounce the next gen specs to tease eveyone into buying so they can play this game anywhere near full res, full detail.

Iam pleased i played the demo cause even useing a GTX i would still like to play it as it was meant to be played! high detail full res, and untill i can play it at that i will enjoy COD4 so i can enjoy the GFX i have in my GTX.

I hate the idea of playing a game first time which is suposed to be one high detail game experince at half res not full detail on what is suposed to be high end GFX card 8800gtx

untill i can play it as its meant to be played, (hint hint Nvidia) iam gona leave it and enjoy it at a later date for half the price and twice the speed!

 

[PinkFloyd]

I found it quite crap really, its just like farcry which was gonna be pretty obvious from the start, but it takes like half a clip of bullets to kill one guy.....whats that all about...i hope they fix that in the full game.

Try shooting the guy in the head, alternatively from not so far away. I've had no problem taking people down with a few bullets.

try taking the silencer off, single shot to the head usually kills, its streets ahead of the UT3 engine imo,

Didn't realise the silencer affects accuracy, will try that out.

Matter of opinion, i found farcry to be all graphics and nothing else, crap dialogue from the enemies totally ruined the immersion "im gonna lay the smackdown on you, im gonna shoot you in the head" etc. half of the time sneaking past enemies was imposible, you're laying prone in deep grass moving slowly and theyre 50 yards away and somehow spot you. Then when the difficulty was increased they became snipers with smg's from stupid ranges.

Crysis doesn't have any of those problems though

 

[andyuk1]

i will be intrested to see how the multiplayer will be like.i am not really a single player lover but i have played the demo and from what i have seen it looks good.but like i say i hope the multiplayer dont let it down.

 

[VelvetAcid]

I've played through the demo 4 or 5 times now, graphically i thought it was stunning running in vista 64 / dx10 / most settings on high and a few on medium.

I have the same opinion on the physics and general level of detail put into it. I spent ages just messing around with the boats / trucks etc.

The only thing i thought was a let down in places is the AI, the other downside i can see is i really hope the full game keeps you hooked and isn't just a graphical master piece which gets repetitive quick.

The demo made me pre-order the game

 

[beermonster]

some of the AI is quite good when you get to the bit with 2 baddies and the logs on the slope, i head shotted one of them and the other guy promptly ran off and hid behind a barricade quaking hehe

 

[izzy eckerslike]

ATM I'm replaying the game via the editor, I have 6 tornado's moving around LOL
one of the twisters lifted me & my tank & dropped me further down the road
if you can spot near where the game normally begins & then give yourself extra guns etc you can then drop yourself into the map & you can replay the whole demo albeit in the smaller editor screen, go into editor mode at any time & add more things as you go along & then resume the game,

 

[mark43]

Thanks for all the replies, wasn't sure whether to start this thread but looks like it wasnt a bad idea.

Thanks to the person who linked to the big Crysis thread, but as somebody else pointed out, gotta rummage through a lot there to find comments about the game.

Well, think I'll be getting it based on all the comments here. Its a shame to hear it wont run with all the top setting on my shiny new rig but I should still be able to get it fairly high, and as long as its a decent game thats the main thing!

 

[username]

I like it even on an older rig if i set stuff to medium it plays at 30 - 35fps and seems quite smooth (seems smoother when i play it in vista 64 instead of xp32)

I however only really like multiplayer games as i find any singleplayer to linear even though the AI doesnt seem too bad. If the multiplayer can work then i'm in but i have a fear that all the destructables in multiplayer will clog the net traffic and lead to huge lag. I hope to be proved wrong and havign had a roam around the Mulitplayer map int he editor it looks good

 

[Gregster6]

The jury is still out on Crysis for me.

The demo is good fun and looks very nice...however, I think it is too early to make an overall assessment.

I never demo'd Far Cry but if I had I'd have been saying "Wow...this is great". 10 days later and I was saying "Jesus when is this frustratingly difficult repeat-a-thon going to end?"

Here's hoping Crytek match great graphics with plot and gameplay this time. I've got a suspicion that its going to be more of the same (unfortunately).

 

[HummuH1]

Good demo. Bodes well for the full game.

Multiplayer will make or break this game in terms of longevity IMO.

 

[Amnesia]

im not 100% sure of this but i dont think they were allowed to name it farcry2 as that was released by ubisoft so they probably own the franchise kinda thing...like i said im not 100% sure.

 

[PinkFloyd]

im not 100% sure of this but i dont think they were allowed to name it farcry2 as that was released by ubisoft so they probably own the franchise kinda thing...like i said im not 100% sure.

The farcry name is owned by another company, farcry 2 is being worked on and is looking good on paper at the moment. Think its due early next year.

Crysis was never meant to be a farcry sequel. It just happens to have a jungle theme to it again, which is no bad thing in my opinion, its something the Crytek Engines have both done well, and also something no other game that I can remember did a good job of.

 

[KNiVES]

Crysis was actually supposed to be called Farcry 2 but Ubisoft owns the rights to the name. Crysis is the sequel to Farcry. It's just not got the same name. Crytek fully intended on this being a followup, and as such should be considered one.

 

[PinkFloyd]

Its a completely different story and has nothing to do with the original Farcry. Its a new game in its own right.


If all the trailers didn't show the jungle levels nobody would be going *OMG ITS FARCRY*

 

[KNiVES]

There are plenty of followups and sequels that had completely different settings and characters. What those are... I can't remember

 

[Dano]

Suit stealth = god mode.

Just completed the demo on Delta without firing a shot or harming anybody.

 

[rippling]

I think the problem with Crysis is this , there have been a lot of people complaining about the performance of the game , (mostly from high end systems) and i can sort of understand why.....

There was a hell of a lot of hype regarding the use of quad core etc etc , and so far it doesnt seem to be included , now since this is a beta demo then ok it might be , BUT this is very very close to the games release , and i cant see them including something as major as quad core support in a few weeks , i mean why release a demo , that has crap performance and put a lot of people off the game ?

Next we have people saying that even reducing the settings to medeum the game looks worse than say COD4 a lot worse , but the performance is no where near COD4 so .... do we have a very poor engine that doesnt scale well ? maybe maybe not .....

A game that has been as far and highly hyped as Crysis , was nearly always not going to live up to the expectations , the game looks great on very high but even with a quad and gtx , 30fps is hard to hit! , now ut3 and COD4 are using the unreal engine , and i get well over 100fps , on very high setting s, and with crysis 25 to 30 thats a major hit in anyones book , and thats with no AA considering the game using mothion blur , and a lot the the screen is out of focus , even when zoomed in using sights etc , the devs could have used that to increase performance? i dont know i aint a programmer i just hope the the devs have not shot there selves in the foot , by setting the goals ans specs to high...... the interviews said that it would run on high with a 8800 gts ....... it will but at 15 fps!
gmaeplay is fine , but nothing new AVP from activison years ag used the perdator clock etc , and was IMO just as much fun , if not more so in MP
so good game , but maybe to much to soon? ok guys will say but the game will look great in 2 years time etc ec but will it? in 2 years we will have unreal 4 engine etc , nothing stands still ......

 

[KNiVES]

I think the problem with Crysis is this , there have been a lot of people complaining about the performance of the game , (mostly from high end systems) and i can sort of understand why.....

There was a hell of a lot of hype regarding the use of quad core etc etc , and so far it doesnt seem to be included , now since this is a beta demo then ok it might be , BUT this is very very close to the games release , and i cant see them including something as major as quad core support in a few weeks , i mean why release a demo , that has crap performance and put a lot of people off the game ?

Next we have people saying that even reducing the settings to medeum the game looks worse than say COD4 a lot worse , but the performance is no where near COD4 so .... do we have a very poor engine that doesnt scale well ? maybe maybe not .....

A game that has been as far and highly hyped as Crysis , was nearly always not going to live up to the expectations , the game looks great on very high but even with a quad and gtx , 30fps is hard to hit! , now ut3 and COD4 are using the unreal engine , and i get well over 100fps , on very high setting s, and with crysis 25 to 30 thats a major hit in anyones book , and thats with no AA considering the game using mothion blur , and a lot the the screen is out of focus , even when zoomed in using sights etc , the devs could have used that to increase performance? i dont know i aint a programmer i just hope the the devs have not shot there selves in the foot , by setting the goals ans specs to high...... the interviews said that it would run on high with a 8800 gts ....... it will but at 15 fps!
gmaeplay is fine , but nothing new AVP from activison years ag used the perdator clock etc , and was IMO just as much fun , if not more so in MP
so good game , but maybe to much to soon? ok guys will say but the game will look great in 2 years time etc ec but will it? in 2 years we will have unreal 4 engine etc , nothing stands still ......

Wrong thread kiddo.