Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Review: Crysis Warhead

Soulskill posted more than 5 years ago | from the bringing-home-the-bacon dept.

First Person Shooters (Games) 154

When Crysis was released last year, it immediately became known for two things; excellent gameplay and ridiculously high hardware requirements. With the recent release of Crysis Warhead, a standalone expansion to the original game, Crytek's plans were to maintain or improve the quality of gameplay while simultaneously streamlining it so a broader audience would have a chance to enjoy it. As it happens, they succeeded. Fans of the original game will feel right at home in Warhead, and it provides a good chance for new players who were curious but wary of Crysis's graphical requirements to give it a shot. Read on for my thoughts.

  • Title: Crysis Warhead
  • Developer: Crytek Budapest
  • Publisher: Electronic Arts
  • System: Windows
  • Reviewer: Soulskill
  • Score: 4/5

In the original Crysis, a team of American soldiers was dropped into combat on an island controlled by the North Korean Army. The game followed one of the soldiers, call sign "Nomad," as he made his way across the island to complete his objectives. In Warhead you control another member of the team, Michael "Psycho" Sykes, as he attempts to retrieve some cargo thought to be a nuclear warhead. While Psycho assisted Nomad throughout the first game, there is very little interaction with Nomad in this offering.

What differentiates Warhead from typical first-person shooters is the "Nano Muscle Suit," which provides limited protection and a number of enhanced abilities. You can only use one at a time, and you toggle the suit between the various enhancements through a very simple interface. It's similar to the interface used in Crysis, but slightly improved. The suit has an energy tank which runs dry quickly, but regenerates quickly as well. As a result, it's not feasible to just turn on all the goodies and annihilate everything in your path; each mode has an energy budget, which forces you to be creative, picking the right tool for the job. Armor mode will allow you to take extra hits, the damage coming out of your energy bar rather than your health bar. It drains quickly, though. It'll give you extra seconds to get to cover, but it won't let you take on a dozen guys. Strength mode will let you jump really high, throw things extra far, and land punches that would drop a buffalo. Speed mode makes you run a bit faster and gives you the ability to sprint incredibly fast for very short periods of time. Between Speed and Strength modes, you can get to a lot of interesting places. Dash up behind a building, jump to the roof, and smash your way through the ceiling to surprise the enemies inside. You also get Stealth mode, which is reminiscent of the Predator. You're camouflaged well, but not perfectly, so enemies who get close enough will still see you. Don't get caught running out of energy in the middle of sneaking through a battlefield. Through the same interface, you can add attachments to your weapon, such as a flashlight, a silencer, or different sights.

The different suit modes add a great deal of replayability to Warhead. If you want, you can literally sneak through the majority of the game, dropping out only to recharge your energy and fire your weapon. You can also just blitz your way though on Speed mode, dodging enemies and beelining from one obstacle to another for cover. Sometimes you do have to stop and shoot the roses, though. The modes combine in interesting ways. You can stealth from vantage point to vantage point, then use your Strength mode to steady your aim for sniping. You can dash past a group of enemy soldiers and get them to follow you to a group of aliens, then disappear. The two forces will lose you, see each other, and start shooting.

The AI in Warhead is definitely a step up. When you're spotted, enemy soldiers will converge on your position, calling over their friends to help. They'll flank you and use cover quite well to avoid your fire. They'll even duck behind a corner to reload. You can use stealth mode to get out of a lot of sticky situations, but even then, they'll continue to shoot at and around where you were last seen, knowing that if you're low on energy, you can't move very far without being revealed. I felt that the overall difficulty of the game was often hit-or-miss. Warhead was done in the (fairly common) style that strives for realistic aiming. In other words, holding down the trigger increases the spray radius, and headshots do more damage than shots to the center mass. It leads to fairly inconsistent encounters; sometimes you'll drop a group of three or four enemies without getting hit, and sometimes they'll absolutely demolish you. You'll also run into vehicles carrying more powerful guns that can pick you off from far away after a couple of lucky hits, and you may not have any recourse. It doesn't happen often enough that it's a major problem, but you'll almost certainly die a few frustrating deaths where you just didn't have time to cloak yourself or dive for cover. Occasionally, you'll run into opponents wearing their own version of your suit, and it can be annoying to (seemingly) pump 20 rounds into somebody and have them still kill you.

Vehicle use is a bit better, too. You get a couple new toys to ride around in, and they're easier to handle than in the original game. It's not perfect, but it's awfully entertaining once you have the hang of blazing down a road while taking out everything along the sides. The rides vary in maneuverability and firepower, but they're all useful for something. You can zoom around in an unarmed hovercraft, or putter along in a large truck. As with the normal combat, your durability usually depends on how lucky you are. Sometimes you'll feel invincible running over enemy soldiers while taking potshots at passing helicopters, and other times it seems like you have to find a new ride every hundred yards. There's nothing stopping you from taking out the gunner and driver of another vehicle and stealing it. I was a bit disappointed that you can't drop inside enemy-controlled tanks, though. It was hard enough to get on top of one. Make sure to keep an eye on your vehicle's damage meter; if they explode while you're inside, you die.

The story itself is simultaneously an upside and a downside of the game. Depending on your playstyle, you'll make it through Warhead in 5-7 hours. That said, the game is an expansion, and it's priced as such, so with the replayability and multiplayer options, the length isn't a gripe. Part of the reason the game clocks in where it does is that the pacing is excellent. The missions objectives are thrown at you quickly, and your military contacts are constantly checking in with new problems or to provide motivation. The game is designed to make you want to see what's over the next metaphorical hill, reward you for getting there with a battle or a visual "holy crap" moment, and then pointing you towards the next hill. The music contributes greatly to this with a driving, energetic, and dramatic score. In fact, it's some of the most appropriate music I've ever heard in a game. Another factor that mitigates the game's brevity is the options for replayability mentioned earlier. There's a great driving mission partway through that has you following a comrade through a hostile zone, taking a ton of heat from roadside stations and patrols. You can follow him and shoot your way to the objective on your first time through the game, and then ditch the vehicle and sneak safely through the next time. Or take the time to clear out all the enemy stations on your way. Crytek does a good job of offering you options without requiring that you take them, and pushing you toward your objectives without insisting on particular tactics.

Warhead, much like Crysis, is a very visually impressive game. The artwork is stunning, but not obtrusive; it only served to deepen the immersion for me. I found myself rubbernecking when I made an enemy vehicle crash or knocked an alien out of the sky. When I had spare moments to collect my thoughts, I was torn between watching the scenery and keeping an eye out for the next Big Thing so I wouldn't miss it. Fortunately, Crytek has us covered; they consistently give you some warning or do something to draw your eye to the big, impressive sights. The graphic settings for Warhead are either intuitive or stupid, depending on whom you ask. The minor settings (for textures, shadows, etc.) have four options: Minimum, Mainstream, Gamer, and Enthusiast. The default is Mainstream, and that's what I used my first time through the game. On a middle-of-the-road PC, it was completely smooth. I bumped it up to Gamer and noticed a performance hit, but it was still playable. At Enthusiast, the game got very choppy in graphically intense sequences. It was borderline playable — I wouldn't use it for anything but exploring or showing somebody else the game. Sure looked good, though. TechSpot did a more in-depth analysis on the relation between hardware and framerate.

Warhead's multiplayer system, Crysis Wars, is basically a refined version of what was offered in the original Crysis. There are three different types of games: Instant Action (a basic free-for-all deathmatch), Team Instant Action (team deathmatch), and Power Struggle. The latter divides players between two teams and gives them a variety of buildings to capture and vehicles to unlock on their way to destroying the enemy's headquarters. The use of vehicles adds to the gameplay without dominating it. Given the option, I was happy to hop into a truck, but it was always to get somewhere so I could hop out again. I had trouble finding servers with enough people to make Power Struggle interesting, but if you get a lot of people involved, it could be quite fun. The other, more traditional game types are well-done, but a matter of personal preference. I tend to prefer Quake-style games rather than the ones more dedicated to realism. In Crysis Wars, encounters with enemies players are often over in seconds, with very little ability to break off an encounter that's not going well, or to overcome bad odds. I enjoyed the team version more, because having teammates is synonymous with having some target dummies scouting ahead to draw enemy fire. That said, having access to your suit puts a nice spin on an old concept. Players who make full use of them are incredibly dangerous. If that style of combat is your preference, you'll enjoy it. The maps are well crafted and provide many opportunities for unique interactions, and they make good use of all three dimensions.

Crytek is a great example of a developer who produced something good and then turned around and produced something better. That's the kind of progression I like to see in a company, but so rarely do. Warhead is an improvement on Crysis in almost every way. Fans of the original will be fans of the expansion, and the price tag is appropriate for the amount of content the game provides (even more so if the multiplayer community takes off). This time around, the hardware situation is much less of an issue. The streamlining of the graphics engine is evident, and technology has had some time to catch up as well. Be aware that Warhead ships with the same DRM as Spore, which we've discussed at length recently, so if that's a deal-breaker for you, give it a pass. The game itself, however, plays quite well, and its flaws are minor. I'm definitely looking forward to the next parts of the proposed Crysis trilogy.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Huh? (3, Insightful)

Xelios (822510) | more than 5 years ago | (#25168169)

Crysis was known for excellent gameplay? When did that happen?

Re:Huh? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25168227)

yes, it was [wikipedia.org]

What? (4, Funny)

martinw89 (1229324) | more than 5 years ago | (#25168235)

Crysis was a game? I thought it was a rendering engine.

Re:What? (5, Funny)

arth1 (260657) | more than 5 years ago | (#25168441)

I thought it was a slideshow.
Then again, my graphics card is an antique at more than three years old.

However, the important snippet for me when reading the 12 k article was this piece:
"Be aware that Warhead ships with the same DRM as Spore"

So, why do we give the game free advertising on Slashdot, then?

Re:What? (1)

Yeorwned (1233604) | more than 5 years ago | (#25169409)

I've love to buy the game at any price but I refuse to do so with the game laced in DRM. As much as I rebuild my system, I refuse to spend 30 minutes each time with customer service techs for each piece of software.

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25169469)

Just buy it on Steam and you don't have worry about the ridiculous DRM...I think.

Re:What? (2, Informative)

hr.wien (986516) | more than 5 years ago | (#25169787)

Nope. Still has Securom, for reasons unclear to anyone but EA.

Re:What? (1)

HungSoLow (809760) | more than 5 years ago | (#25169723)

Perhaps bad publicity? We need to emphasize the DRM.

Re:What? (2, Interesting)

Cornflake917 (515940) | more than 5 years ago | (#25169745)

Mentioning that the game has Spore-like DRM on Slashdot is really the exact opposite of advertising.

Re:What? (2, Insightful)

arth1 (260657) | more than 5 years ago | (#25171165)

Mentioning that the game has Spore-like DRM on Slashdot is really the exact opposite of advertising.

When you hide it deep inside 12 kilobytes of text, you can be pretty certain that very few will see it. People here can't be arsed to read five lines of text, so several hundred is more than just pushing it.

Re:What? (1)

floatingrunner (621481) | more than 5 years ago | (#25168913)

i think the engine is called cryotek or something. or maybe just share the same name with the game. (like unreal engine?) how i see it, they just forget about hardware limits, crank the polycount to the nth degree and let the consumers worry about making it look good.

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25169587)

The engine is called CryEngine 2.

Re:Huh? (2, Interesting)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 5 years ago | (#25168453)

My thoughts exactly. It was very generic and arcadish. But you know what, I played it with a GeForce 6200 at the lowest settings, and I tend to think that the shiny graphics hypnotise people into believing it's a great game, when really it's just a shiny game.

Re:Huh? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25168547)

I have shiny graphics, most settings are either highest or seccond highest, I thought they were really disappointing, I wondered what everyone was so in love about.

A solid art style beats polygons any day of the week.

Re:Huh? (1)

stg (43177) | more than 5 years ago | (#25168779)

I've recently played Crysis and just started playing Crysis Warhead (they just became available on Steam). I'm playing on Medium (low for Warhead) and I really liked both - obviously not so much for the graphics. I wish they had more physics-based opportunities to kill enemies though... I think even Far Cry had more of those!

Re:Huh? (2, Interesting)

Firehed (942385) | more than 5 years ago | (#25171201)

Collapsing a shack full of enemies with a grenade or a melee attack in strength mode is always satisfying, and I think it qualifies as a physics-based opportunity to kill enemies.

And while it wasn't unique to Crysis, I found lobbing a grenade under a moving vehicle awesomely satisfying. I must have it it just right, because it went off right as the truck was coming around a bend, prompting said truck to perform about three barrel rolls fifteen feet in the air sending it off the edge of the cliff. You can take out vehicles with grenades in any game, but that explosion was, pardon my french, fucking awesome.

Shooting down trees on enemies works OK too, but it's better as a demo of the engine than a practical tactic.

Re:Huh? (1)

hr.wien (986516) | more than 5 years ago | (#25169903)

How about you let people have their opinions without trying to belittle them? Just like you most people have good reasons for liking/disliking something.

I loved Crysis and I've played it more than any other single player game I can remember in recent history. The multitude of ways you can approach any "mission" can keep me entertained for hours and hours.

The gameplay may not appeal to everyone, but it sure as hell isn't the graphics that has me coming back to it again and again.

Re:Huh? (1)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 5 years ago | (#25170095)

How about you let people express their opinions without trying to moralise them?

Re:Huh? (2, Informative)

arth1 (260657) | more than 5 years ago | (#25171245)

How about you let people have their opinions without trying to belittle them? Just like you most people have good reasons for liking/disliking something.

From what I can tell, the objection wasn't to people liking the game, but the claim that it was "known for excellent gameplay". If it's known for anything, it's wowing people with graphics. Whether you and others like the game or not is non sequitur.

Re:Huh? (1)

WhatAmIDoingHere (742870) | more than 5 years ago | (#25168715)

That's what I said. I played the game up until just after that floating around level, and turned it off because the game was just awful.

Re:Huh? (1)

Donniedarkness (895066) | more than 5 years ago | (#25168795)

I hated the floating level, as well... but it's not too long, and the game is great afterwards.

Re:Huh? (1)

WhatAmIDoingHere (742870) | more than 5 years ago | (#25169017)

Yeah.. I went into it not expecting aliens to show up out of nowhere. It'd be like (but nowhere near as awesome) if Darth Vader showed up in the middle of We Were Soldiers. It would just make you go "WTF?"

Re:Huh? (1)

Goldberg's Pants (139800) | more than 5 years ago | (#25171477)

I would SO pay to see that! Vader pop up in Mel Jewhaters movie? AWESOME!

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25169309)

That bit is crap, at near the end of that level you have to kill all the aliens in one group and only then the door opens for you to get out - like uh why?

Heh I even used speed to get past some bits, but no you have to demolish the alien stuff...

But after that it's not so bad.

Re:Huh? (4, Interesting)

billcopc (196330) | more than 5 years ago | (#25169057)

Whoever modded this insightful needs to go back to 4chan.

Crysis, for those of us who actually have "Enthusiast" systems, was actually entertaining. The suit-power gimmick works really well to give you diverse playing styles. I remember playing it several different ways, the first time like a normal FPS, shooting and taking cover. The second time I played a stealth game, using strength-boosted jumps to reach high sniping spots. The third time, I just left it on speed mode and dashed past everyone at ludicrous speed.

Most importantly, it was entertaining every time. Not only did I have to adapt my strategies to each event, but that freedom was available to me, not forced down my throat with fixed paths. Doom, Half-Life, Fear - they all suck at the freedom aspect. They have a detailed storyline that forces you to do follow their exact plan, kill specific bad guys, solve stupid switch puzzles... Crysis has none of that. You're a super-soldier, you do super-soldier missions like recovering intel and disabling enemy forces.

It had its flaws, but overall, for a game company that's only made two games so far, both have been pretty freakin' awesome. Could they benefit from the genius designers at Valve ? Sure. But then again so could Sierra, and id, and even Bungie.

Re:Huh? (4, Insightful)

Pulzar (81031) | more than 5 years ago | (#25169533)

I found it very entertaining until I entered the alien spaceship, and then it turned into Quake -- dark, closed quarters, just shoot at anything that moves, and shoot a lot. There was very little strategy at all in that part of the game, and the way it finished with a "boss" battle where you have to hit certain parts of the ship to destroy it was just totally boring -- that was basically the original Doom with better graphics.

For me, it was two games in one, with the first one being awesome, and second being totally bad.

Re:Huh? (1)

jaguth (1067484) | more than 5 years ago | (#25169081)

About 10 minutes after the programmers gave the EA execs falacio and returned the favor with a multi-million dollar marketing campaign. Quid-Pro-Quo.

I played the demo. I have a gForce 9600 GT /w 512MB GDR3, and I could get a steady 60 fps with all settings bumped to the max. I thought the graphics were pretty good, and the engine has some cool effects, but the fun factor just wasn't there.

Bioshock, however, is insanely fun. I think it might be due to my preference of tight, claustrophobic environments rather than an open field. Well, then again, Bioshock also had a much better story line, much more creative world, and the best voice acting since System Shock 2.

YAFPS (-1, Troll)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 5 years ago | (#25168171)

Yet another first person shooter

It doesn't seem like there is much more innovation left in this genre.

Re:YAFPS (2, Funny)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 5 years ago | (#25168479)

Well of course there is! Back in the day you had crosshairs. Now you don't have crosshairs anymore, for the sake of realism! That's pretty innovative!!

Re:YAFPS (1)

just_a_monkey (1004343) | more than 5 years ago | (#25168565)

Dude! Enemies that take cover. Groundbreaking.

FPS AI generally isn't too hot. That they have cleverer AI here than is the norm is news.

Re:YAFPS (1)

WhatAmIDoingHere (742870) | more than 5 years ago | (#25168755)

The Crysis AI was awful. There would be guys shooting you from half way across the freaking island and ran straight at you. That was probably my favorite part, when the guys just charged at me until they were all dead.

frosty piss! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25168183)

i like crysis a lot.

Stand-alone expansion vs different game? (1)

O('_')O_Bush (1162487) | more than 5 years ago | (#25168203)

So is this like what they did with Half life 2: Episode 1/2?

Steam is selling Crysis and Crysis Warhead for the same price, so I'm a bit confused.

Re:Stand-alone expansion vs different game? (1)

Chaos Incarnate (772793) | more than 5 years ago | (#25168341)

Crysis is an older game, and thus is being priced like a full game that's been out for a year or so. Crysis Warhead is a standalone expansion, and thus is being priced as an expansion. The two just happen to work out to the same value.

DRM (1, Interesting)

The Moof (859402) | more than 5 years ago | (#25168255)

Actually, the DRM is becoming more of an issue with me.

My friend lent me his copy of Crysis right after I upgraded my PC, but I never installed it specifically because of the packaged DRM. I'm finding that I research DRM as part of the purchasing decision these days. That and educating others about it (and if they ask, teaching them about torrents).

Too bad companies don't realize that unreasonable DRM on games actually costs them sales while not really affecting piracy.

Re:DRM (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25168373)

Aah, yes. The good ol' Slashdot way!

"I disagree with your business model, but rather than just do without your product and deprive you of a sale, I'd rather stea... err, share your product at no cost to myself and therefore give you more justification to continue using that exact same business model with no incentive to change."

Slashdot - where if it's digital, it's FREE!

Re:DRM (1)

The Moof (859402) | more than 5 years ago | (#25168561)

Hey, Unreal Tournament never had a problem.

Their DRM used to be 'require the CD' until they felt they had enough returns on the game. Then they release a patch to remove the CD requirement. Not this "You must have one online account per CD we release, and you can only install it 3 times without having to call tech support, where we will relucatantly permit you to install more. I suppose we'll loosen the restrictions in the event thousands of very public complaints are noticed enough for us to be in the news.... until the next game."

I have no problems purchasing a game. I also have no problem with a company putting some reasonable protections. However, installing stealth services you cannot remove to monitor me, disable software, and call home without my consent is not reasonable. It's borderline malicious.

Re:DRM (1)

level4 (1002199) | more than 5 years ago | (#25169885)

"I disagree with your business model, but rather than just do without your product and deprive you of a sale, I'd rather stea... err, share your product at no cost to myself"

Same result. The producer doesn't get the money. If the end user ends up satisfying himself via other means, what does it matter?

And it's not just a slight disagreement with some abstract business model, it's a matter of principle and practicality.

I have bought plenty of games, I like few things in life better than shooting up stuff in a good looking game. I took the day off work when half-life 2 was released, for example, in order to spend a wonderful, WONDERFUL long weekend playing it through. That cost me $129, by the way, I bought some super pack and I'm in Australia where everything is overpriced. I don't begrudge that money AT ALL. Seriously, is $50 or $100 or even $150 all that much these days?

By the way I bought a PS2 for the sole reason of playing MGS2. So that should give you some indication that I don't mind paying to have fun, and oh boy I had fun. My time is valuable, both to me and as a professional, and I don't mind spending money to enjoy myself. For fuck's sake I spent more than $100 last night just going out.

But when I buy a game, I have the expectation that I will be able to play that game, without hassle, indefinitely. I do not want other software installed, I do not want some intrusive crap screwing up an already temperamental Windows install (which I use solely for gaming). I do not want that and I will not pay money for it.

I have no problem whatsoever with anti-piracy techniques that I consider reasonable. Quake's system, of checking the key online but only for multiplayer, was probably my favourite but I didn't really mind Steam doing the same. That is reasonable. I understand they have to make money, hell I *want* them to make a lot of money so they can make more games for me to play!

But constantly running spyware? Interfering with Virtual Disk software? 3 installs maximum?

Fuck off with that fucking shit. In fact, as a generally good customer it makes me so angry I *want* to go torrent that crap.

But I don't even like downloading cracked software. It's always just some initial release, heaps of bugs, and never patched later. I don't want to spend my nights fighting some buggy cracked software. But no fucking way do I want to be ringing some god damn call centre one day begging to be allowed to install MY software that I BOUGHT.

I'm glad I mentioned Steam because in my mind that is the best balance yet between consumers and producer's rights. Sure some people don't like it, but I think it's great. And what's best about it is it offers some carrots, not just a stick.

The most wonderful thing about Steam is that it allows you to re-download your games without the CD/DVD! Once I was sitting in a rented apartment late at night in Tokyo with a Macbook Pro. I had jetlag, I was bored, had nothing to do. I thought, "I could really enjoy drinking some beer and playing HL2 about now!". I had a Windows disk (I always carry one, despite myself), installed Steam, told it to download all my games, went and bought the beer and 1 hour later I was playing. I think I became the biggest fan of Steam ever that night. Finally, a copy protection system that offers something back!!

This Securom shit is all stick and no carrot. And just installing it is being hit with the stick. Fuck that shit.

I don't really feel the need to go and download a cracked copy of Crysis Warhead, but if I did, I would have no moral qualms about it AT ALL.

Re:DRM (1)

p5 (102346) | more than 5 years ago | (#25169515)

I don't understand your argument? Your friend "lent" you a copy? I would imagine the solution would be to buy your own copy.

Re:DRM (1)

The Moof (859402) | more than 5 years ago | (#25169687)

He bought it and didn't have the system requirements to play it. So yea, he lent me the copy because I wanted to see how my new graphics card would perform.

Re:DRM (1)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | more than 5 years ago | (#25170483)

My friend lent me his copy of Crysis right after I upgraded my PC, but I never installed it specifically because of the packaged DRM.

That sounds like the DRM doing its job to me, so I can't say I'm sympathetic.

I, on the other hand, have literally just returned ten minutes ago from looking for a new game at my local store, having decided not to buy either this very game, nor another high profile title I'd been considering, after reading the small print. I won't rip them off instead, and I do have a legal copy of the original Crysis, but I have become increasingly irritated by companies treating me like a criminal, and I choose not to support them any more. There are enough enjoyable games that don't do this sort of thing to amuse me for several lifetimes, and I will buy some of those instead.

The same goes for things with abusive "anti-cheating" technologies, as well. I run various security software on my computer to stop anyone else's software doing things without my consent, and games don't get a free pass on that. I don't see the attraction of cheating using bots and the like myself, and for on-line gameplay I would rather just find servers where other people don't run bots all the time than put up with unknown software that is behaviourly indistinguishable from malware scanning unrelated parts of my computer and sending my data off to who-knows-who over the Internet to prove that I am not cheating.

For the record, I was just thinking at the store that it would be nice if game reviewers made a point of describing any DRM and on-line gameplay restrictions as part of the review, and I thank Soulskill for doing so in this case.

Crysis, the affirmative answer to the old question (5, Funny)

Digitus1337 (671442) | more than 5 years ago | (#25168269)

Could God create a game with such steep requirements that he, himself, could not run it?

Re:Crysis, the affirmative answer to the old quest (1)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 5 years ago | (#25168523)

Yes, but upon trying to run it, He would instantly become capable. Thus the paradox is resolved.

Re:Crysis, the affirmative answer to the old quest (1)

Kagura (843695) | more than 5 years ago | (#25169979)

So before trying to run it, he is incapable of running it? So much for omnipotence. Visit the wikipedia page... the paradox is not resolved. Unless there's no God, then it's resolved. ;)

Re:Crysis, the affirmative answer to the old quest (1)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 5 years ago | (#25170621)

I was actually using a really dumb argument to poke fun at it, not as a serious response. If there is a god, then he's so far out of our league that our logic can't explain or disprove him (or her). Omnipotent can mean they can literally do anything at all, or it could just as easily mean that they can do anything that we can think of.

Re:Crysis, the affirmative answer to the old quest (1)

thermian (1267986) | more than 5 years ago | (#25168895)

Could God create a game with such steep requirements that he, himself, could not run it?

I have a GTX 280, the Graphics card all modern gods prefer, and I bought Crysis last week.
It looks fabulous, but plays like crap, Seriously.

The fact that your health and armour regenerates ruins the game.
Stealthing with the knowledge that you have such a small amount of health that an unfriendly sneeze would kill you I could accept, but the very fact that all you have to do is back off a bit and wait for you health to reappear with no effort on your part is the single stupidest thing I've seen in an FPS.

I've given up on it.

Re:Crysis, the affirmative answer to the old quest (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25169247)

Yeah, it's not Rainbow 6

Re:Crysis, the affirmative answer to the old quest (1)

Kagura (843695) | more than 5 years ago | (#25170017)

I've got your same card, and I just bought a 22" widescreen monitor to accompany it. I'm not impressed with Crysis, but I will eventually get through the game and the sequel as well. It's like eating straight caramel... good at first, but you can only eat so much at once.

Now I have caramel crysis cravings.

Re:Crysis, the affirmative answer to the old quest (1)

iNaya (1049686) | more than 5 years ago | (#25168937)

The current Universe may be an example of that. Pending proof.

Re:Crysis, the affirmative answer to the old quest (1)

MarkGriz (520778) | more than 5 years ago | (#25168993)

Could God create a game with such steep requirements that he, himself, could not run it?

Yes. In fact I hear he works over at 3D Realms.

Re:Crysis, the affirmative answer to the old quest (1)

kalirion (728907) | more than 5 years ago | (#25171019)

Right after he ports Crysis to an unmodified Commodore 64, optimized to be played at high resolutions, maximum graphic settings, 60fps.

Gameplay? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25168287)

When Crysis was released last year, it immediately became known for two things; excellent gameplay and ...

I stopped reading right there.

Re:Gameplay? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25168521)

Glad to hear it, Captain Superior. Too bad you're a fucking retard.

---------------

GameSpot awarded Crysis Best Shooter in its Best of 2007 awards, saying that "It was this open-ended, emergent gameplay--the ability to let us tackle our challenges in whatever way we wished." They also awarded it with Best Graphics: Technical and Best PC Game stating that "The firefights in the game are beautiful to look at, but extremely intense affairs that force you to think quickly--and reward you for doing so. It's a dynamic game, one that you can play several times to discover new things and to experiment with different approaches."

PC Gamer awarded Crysis Game Of The Year and Action Game Of The Year in its March 2008, Games of the Year Awards issue. PC Gamer also remarked that "Crysis has pushed PC gaming to a new plateau, marrying the most advanced graphics engine ever created with phenomenal gameplay. From the cinematic opening to credits to its cliffhanger ending, Crysis is mesmerizing."

Gamereactor â" who gave Crysis a perfect ten â" awarded Crysis Best Action Game of 2007, saying that "the action genre is forever changed."

IGN awarded Crysis its Editor's Choice Award, saying that "the Halo 2 type ending...wasnâ(TM)t enough to deter me from heartily recommending action fans pick this one up."

Sales

As of June 27, 2008, Crysis has beaten EA's expectations and sold 1.5 million copies worldwide, according to a gamesradar article.

Re:Gameplay? (1)

not already in use (972294) | more than 5 years ago | (#25169035)

Welcome to the internet, where like talk radio, most time is spent arguing over subjective topics as if they were fact.

GameSpot awarded Crysis Best Shooter in its Best of 2007 awards

Most of these sites also gave GTA4 a perfect score. I thought the game was rehashed crap. But then again, that is only my opinion.

Re:Gameplay? (1)

SunnyDaze (1120055) | more than 5 years ago | (#25170359)

I stopped reading at GameSpot.....

Re:Gameplay? (1)

arth1 (260657) | more than 5 years ago | (#25171347)

And EA has spent how many advertising dollars with the sites that gave out the rewards?

Graphics? Meh. (5, Insightful)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 5 years ago | (#25168383)

Honestly, I don't get what's so impressive about these graphics. Yeah, they're "improved", but they're still rough around the edges. Look at that first screenshot, for example. The spare tire rim on the back of the jeep has 10 sides. 10. You'd think they'd spend some time working on making round things *round*. There's got to be somebody at nVidia or ATI that can figure out how to accelerate more than just triangles... Hell, the math for curves is *easier* in some ways. Everything we see in these screens is still a flat surface with a picture slapped on it to give it "texture"... Sharp intersections, and the approximation of curves....

The particle effects, etc, are fantastic, but I wouldn't call them "graphical" improvements. And the lighting effects are nice, but every game seems to overuse them.

We need people to be pushing realistic graphics in the right direction, so I appreciate a game like this, but as things stand now I'd still rather play a game with stylized graphics than be constantly distracted by all the ways they got "realistic" wrong. I prefer PS2 graphics to these screens... I certainly won't be spending hundreds of dollars to get my hardware to run this.

Re:Graphics? Meh. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25168967)

You'd think they'd spend some time working on making round things *round*. There's got to be somebody at nVidia or ATI that can figure out how to accelerate more than just triangles... Hell, the math for curves is *easier* in some ways. Everything we see in these screens is still a flat surface with a picture slapped on it to give it "texture"... Sharp intersections, and the approximation of curves....

You're right that the math is easier, but the rendering is significantly slower with the easier math. Triangles are easier to optimize because they can be represented almost purely by integers, as opposed to curves (well, curves can, but the math then becomes significantly harder) plus there's been a lot more time to optimize triangles. In the future we will have true curves, since it looks like ray tracing will be the next big jump (within 10 years from what I've heard) which does realistic rendering instead of hack rendering (i.e. Raster Graphics)

Re:Graphics? Meh. (2, Informative)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 5 years ago | (#25169221)

You're right that the math is easier, but the rendering is significantly slower with the easier math. Triangles are easier to optimize because they can be represented almost purely by integers, as opposed to curves (well, curves can, but the math then becomes significantly harder) plus there's been a lot more time to optimize triangles. In the future we will have true curves, since it looks like ray tracing will be the next big jump (within 10 years from what I've heard) which does realistic rendering instead of hack rendering (i.e. Raster Graphics)

Hmm.. Where to start...

Yes. Triangles can be represented by integers. Except they're not. Modern GPUs use double precision floating point.

Sure there has been a lot of time spent optimizing triangles, but the industry could have spent that time optimizing curved surfaces.

Unfortunately, since 3dfx was purchased by nVidia, the industry has been stuck in neutral in terms of innovation. It's not that they don't have good ideas now and then... It's that the bean counters are afraid to pursue any technologies that might make their existing technologies obsolete. You wouldn't want to destroy the proven value of your current product line by obsoleting it with new technology that hasn't been proven in the marketplace, after all. Which is why you'll see nVidia fighting the ray tracing push every chance they get.

Re:Graphics? Meh. (1)

ardor (673957) | more than 5 years ago | (#25169977)

Curved Surfaces are harder to control, require more logic in the chip (the triangle can be rasterized just by using 3 half spaces), are a royal pain for collision detection, look awful for anything that does not fit nicely as a curved surface, and can be approximated nicely using many triangles anyway. This tire is just badly modeled, thats all. Oh, and putting multiple types of primitives in the hardware is insane, nobody will do it. Even wireframe edges are simulated using thin triangles in typical GPUs.

If anything, I'd pursue research into cheap HW acceleration of voxel graphics. I guess the main obstacle here is memory, since voxels can get big pretty quickly...

Your "afraid to pursue any technologies that might make their existing technologies obsolete" statement is rubbish. You know this thing called "R&D"? This is where companies come up with new technologies that haven't been proven in the marketplace. Expect nvidia R&D for a hybrid renderer there.

And, AGAIN: raytracing is NOT a shiny new hammer for rendering. It CANNOT beat rasterization for surfaces that do not exhibit secondary-ray features (like any opaque, non-reflective surface, which usually make up ~60-70% of game scenes). This is why a hybrid renderer is more logical: ray tracing only pays off for secondary-ray effects like refraction or shadows. In fact, most papers that try to accelerate ray tracing include a special path for such surfaces, where standard rasterization is used. Its only Intel who's blabbering about pure raytracing.

Re:Graphics? Meh. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25171315)

Well, he did mention he played through on Mainstream rather than Enthusiast. Mainstream is 1 natch from having the graphics settings set all the way down.

Im guessing those screenshots were taken at that setting.

Re:Graphics? Meh. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25171351)

Too many facets also bother me. I'm glad I'm not alone. :]

In order to make the spare tire round as an example, more triangles are exactly what is needed.

My 3D apps offer Sub-Division and Nurb modeling, which can produce rounded shapes with just a few curved lines, but in the end, they always have to be converted to triangles for rendering.

Normal mapping is meant to smooth out and add more detail to low-poly models, but it has its limitations, especially in games.

Anyways, to state the obvious, the newer GPUs are really impressive, but as they increase in power, developers are making larger environments with more post processing effects, so the extra triangles and power gets spread out and in some cases too thin.

Stylized graphics are the way to go, because no matter how real something appears, we can always discern that it's not real. I personally loved the look of games like Zelda Wind Waker, which in some parts looked liked something straight out of a John Bluth cartoon.

How can it still be Crysis? (2, Insightful)

Duradin (1261418) | more than 5 years ago | (#25168399)

It's not really crysis unless you can use the mere fact your system can run it at 1+ fps on full "all the way to 11" settings to put down someone else's rig. Wasn't that the point of the game?

It doesn't matter (4, Insightful)

JustNiz (692889) | more than 5 years ago | (#25168551)

It doesn't matter how good the game is, with the insultingly restrictive DRM and Securom malware it has, I won't be buying it.

I hope enough people comment loudly in every forum and vote with their $$$ so much that EA will HAVE to notice how much they are losing in sales because of DRM.

Re:It doesn't matter (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25169039)

It's my understanding that the Steam version doesn't have SecuROM. You may want to verify that, though.

Re:It doesn't matter (1)

Attackinghobo (1212112) | more than 5 years ago | (#25169999)

It does have SecuROM. Go to the Crysis Warhead steam page, and on the right side, it says 3rd Party DRM: SecuROM 5 install limit.

Re:It doesn't matter (1)

neoform (551705) | more than 5 years ago | (#25171135)

Execs will simply shrug and say "meh, the PC market is clearly dying.. lets make all future games for consoles, we can control the shit out of the games distribution that way."

Re:It doesn't matter (1)

Muledeer007 (1127983) | more than 5 years ago | (#25171323)

Install the game -- install NODVD crack, remove Securom from registry and rootkit - game plays fine. Its a shame we have to buy games for their online keys, then install a NODVD and remove Securom to fully enjoy the game. Did the same for Spore - My big gain is I have full resale value with all the activations.

Too short and nothing new (seriously)... (5, Insightful)

neostorm (462848) | more than 5 years ago | (#25168569)

I'm sorry, but I cleared this game within 3 hours the first night I turned it on. Length is not my only criticism though.
Not only was the game shorter over all, but the level design was much poorer than the original; not nearly as much attention to detail. The cutscenes were overly long (one being almost 45 seconds of watching a character half-off camera fiddle with something also off camera, no dialogue, uninteresting shot, completely unnecessary cutscene entirely). The cutscenes in particular screamed the desire to superficially lengthen the game, and in some sequences were so absurd, or took themselves so seriously that they just felt more like dark comedy.
What hit me the hardest was the complete lack of new content. Same bosses, same enemies, a few new environment models and situations, but overall this game felt like a massive cop-out, or a sub-par addition to an ongoing episodic series, both which make it completely not worth the price of purchase.
As usual the imagery was beautiful, even at its lowest settings, which ran fluidly on my machine. Very nice that they seem to have streamlined some of the engine, but overall the most disappointing game I've played this year. I felt the first Crysis was "pretty okay", and not once did this sequel match the first in ANY category, with the sole exception of performance.
It may have had it kept going and introduced new ideas, content and gameplay, but just as the game was wrapping up what I felt was a great ramp up intro-sequence, the credits rolled. Seriously, wtf?

So yeah, just pass on this very disappointing pseudo-sequel. If Crytek wants to make sales, they need to do better than this, instead of just blaming things on piracy this time around.

Re:Too short and nothing new (seriously)... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25169783)

I'm sorry, but I cleared this game within 3 hours the first night I turned it on.

you played the game on easy? even 10 year old kids don't play these kind of games on easy.

Re:Too short and nothing new (seriously)... (1)

Fri13 (963421) | more than 5 years ago | (#25170635)

I played it in 4 hours with Delta, in the First time.

I have 8800GT, 5600+ processor with 4Gb RAM and first time when the ice and snow came to map. I needed to turn everything to lowest possible settings. Still I got only a very nice slideshow (about 1-2 FPS) what made me very mad when I was using the hovercraft and trying to drive (fly?) it over ice.

The game is just too boring, brings nothing "special" than new textures for NK weapons, few new guns and vehicles and thats it.

Crysis was fun to that point, until you needed to go inside that tank and pretend you are controlling a MBT (actually a car with cannon).
So after the Harbor map... Crysis turned to be stupid. Even the original Far Cry was better by these guys.

Warhead was nice... but again, when the aliens game... it was just "shoot that and this and go there".

I have great hope that Far Cry 2 would blow away Crysis and all other Far Cry sisters... (Far Cry > Cry sis).

And yes, I have played both games from start to end with only a Delta (Crysis with ultra-AI mod) level by two times and I must say... There is lots of better games, but not with so nice graphics...

Re:Too short and nothing new (seriously)... (1)

sttlmark (737942) | more than 5 years ago | (#25170471)

Did the writing improve, or were the cutscenes really that bad? I like a good story, but Penny Arcade led me to believe that the first one was seriously lacking in that department: http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2008/1/30/ [penny-arcade.com]

Re:Too short and nothing new (seriously)... (1)

illumin8 (148082) | more than 5 years ago | (#25171481)

So yeah, just pass on this very disappointing pseudo-sequel. If Crytek wants to make sales, they need to do better than this, instead of just blaming things on piracy this time around.

Did anybody else notice that both this review and the recent one of Spore were given 4/5 ratings by the same reviewer, Soulskill? Both games are from EA and have draconian DRM from SecuROM?

These two game reviews of totally boring, uninspired EA games give me the feeling that any game publisher can buy a 4/5 review on Slashdot for a few $$.

This is a great example of why PC gaming is dead (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25168607)

Looking at that screencap makes me think "PS2, circa 2003" not "zOMG wow let me upgrade my video card!"

Seriously, can anyone justify building a $2K rig to play that thing?

I didn't think so.

Re:This is a great example of why PC gaming is dea (0)

Colonel Korn (1258968) | more than 5 years ago | (#25168891)

Looking at that screencap makes me think "PS2, circa 2003" not "zOMG wow let me upgrade my video card!"

Seriously, can anyone justify building a $2K rig to play that thing?

I didn't think so.

I'm not interested in the game, but this "$2k rig" meme forced me to respond. If you want to play a game like Crysis and you have a desktop PC, as most people with an interest in PC gaming do, then you can probably add a $230 graphics card and play all the newest things very smoothly with graphics about ~4x more complex than a PS3 or 360 can handle. Even if you have to do a major overhaul, a great new CPU, MB, video card, and 2-4 gigs of RAM can all be had for $500. Let's say you've never had high end components before and you need a new PSU. Still only $550. The only people who spend $2k on a gaming rig are people who have the explicit goal of spending $2k on a gaming rig.

Re:This is a great example of why PC gaming is dea (1)

not already in use (972294) | more than 5 years ago | (#25169223)

then you can probably add a $230 graphics card and play all the newest things very smoothly with graphics about ~4x more complex than a PS3 or 360 can handle.

They call this diarrhea of the mouth.

Re:This is a great example of why PC gaming is dea (1)

shadowrat (1069614) | more than 5 years ago | (#25169973)

play all the newest things very smoothly with graphics about ~4x more complex than a PS3 or 360 can handle

To bad you will be playing a game that's only .25x as fun as castle crashers

Re:This is a great example of why PC gaming is dea (1)

DirtyHarry (162125) | more than 5 years ago | (#25170013)

That is absolutely wrong. From my personal opinion, you once had the chance to refresh your system by adding a new graphics card in its lifecycle. However, that still meant that you'd have to play the newer games on medium rather than on high quality. So I'd say for a real gamer PC you have to spend your 2k US$ budget initially (we're talking about Eurpoean prices here) - you can do a video card update after approx. 2 years but then it's not long until you have to build your next machine all over again.

Personally I think that the fun/cost ratio in high end PC gaming is terribly low nowadys...

Re:This is a great example of why PC gaming is dea (1)

Repossessed (1117929) | more than 5 years ago | (#25170049)

For custom rigs maybe. For prebuilt rigs from an OEM, you'll pay 2-3 times the component cost (and get crappier components in the bargain).

"standalone expansion"? (1)

slapout (93640) | more than 5 years ago | (#25168615)

Wouldn't that be considered a sequel?

Looking forward to it... (1)

neorush (1103917) | more than 5 years ago | (#25168651)

I personally really enjoyed the first crysis game and felt it had high re-playability, and will definitely be playing this. While the performance requirements were high, they were not insurmountable, a 8000+ nvidia card and 2GB+ ram would do the trick just fine. While this is in the upper end of hardware, especially for its original release date, I was really glad everything looked as good as it did, and the environment was as immersive as it was. I'm sorry you all couldn't play the game at 50FPS, but some of us really enjoyed it, and felt the effort by crytek was actually impressive, not foolhardy.

meh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25168661)

Crysis was ok, but not great. I thought it was pretty good until all of a sudden I found myself floating inside the alien chambers. That whole sequence kind of ruined it for me.

I so want to buy this game.. (4, Insightful)

log0n (18224) | more than 5 years ago | (#25168673)

but the activation requirement is a deal breaker for me. DRM doesn't bother me - along the lines of the original Crysis - but having a limited number of activations is just WRONG.

In the 'pirating spore' topic I brought up how I bought Spore and also downloaded in order to play it properly. In that post I also stated that in the future, I'm just going to do without the game, and EA can do without my money.

Install/activation limitations are ultimately going to kill PC gaming. The few PC games that I'm interested in playing - Stalker CS, Crysis redux.. (I'm sure there will be a few others) I just don't trust buying now. From now on, my only real gaming consideration will be for the console.

Apparently the Steam version also carries the same install activation/limitation, and apparently a lot of recently released Steam games are doing the same thing. I own no less than 5 copies of Half Life 2 (original PC, original Ep1, orange box, original xbox and now 360 orange box - kinda love the game - also the HL1: Source). But I'll be damned if I spend another dime on a boxed PC game or a Steam game. I bought all of those out of 1) my choice, and 2) the upgrades or additional playability provided. I will never buy another game simply because I ran out of installs and need to 'refresh'.

RANT: Why don't activation schemes use MAC addresses, or CPU serial #s, or any of the completely unique identifiers (a la dongles)? Those I could live with. I've had too many failures/reformats/upgrades over the years, hell - over the months, to risk these crap activations.

(just a little pissed at the state of things :) )

Re:I so want to buy this game.. (1)

Zarhan (415465) | more than 5 years ago | (#25169069)

Just get the crack from gamefix or gamecopyworld. If EA wants to shell out cash to Securom, that's their problem. As long as there is crack AVAILABLE I'm ok for buying the game, since it also makes it future-proof (eg. even if activation server vanishes at some point, I can still play).

Getting crack is standard procedure for me. Heck, with Civilization III getting rid of the CD-check also game me a new feature: Higher resolutions! Without the crack, even though I set 1280x960 in the .ini-file, it didn't work - always reverted to 800x600 (or whatever the default was). Once I got tired of having the CD in drive and installed the crack - boom, higher resolutions started to work.

Not to mention that bunch of newer games refused to work on my older Win'98 gaming PC (GTA: SA, KOTOR 2 as examples) - the copy protection required Win2k or newer for some API calls, the game itself worked just fine...

Re:I so want to buy this game.. (1)

Lokatana (530146) | more than 5 years ago | (#25169467)

I bought through steam. fun game. question is, if you buy through steam, does that replace the DRM? Can I now use Steams technology to install it wherever I want, however many times I want, as long as I only use it from wherever I'm logged into steam?

Re:I so want to buy this game.. (2, Insightful)

spire3661 (1038968) | more than 5 years ago | (#25169609)

Answer to rant: They are all spoofable, hence security theater. Second answer: We should not be encouraging tying software to hardware.

Are the hardware requirements really that high? (2, Informative)

Entropius (188861) | more than 5 years ago | (#25169137)

After not having a desktop for a long time, I built one in August. The video card's a Geforce 8800 GS -- $75 USD. ... and yet it runs Crysis fine, at mid-high settings, 1440x900 (down from my panel's native 1680x1050).

Re:Are the hardware requirements really that high? (4, Funny)

nameendingwith (1272536) | more than 5 years ago | (#25171067)

My laptop couldn't even run the screenshots.

My Review: (2, Funny)

Sinbios (852437) | more than 5 years ago | (#25169191)

Too damned short. I finish the game in about 7 hours. $30's worth of crack would probably have lasted me longer.

Re:My Review: (1)

atarione (601740) | more than 5 years ago | (#25170877)

See this is what you get for being "good" at video games

=p

I keep getting stuck on various levels and as such, it is taking me forever to finish, so I'm totally getting my $23 (sale @ frys) worth.

Excellent gameplay....riiight. (1)

DisKurzion (662299) | more than 5 years ago | (#25169913)

Re:Excellent gameplay....riiight. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25170305)

So did you actually playing the game, or are you relying on a regurgitated Yahtzee review to do the thinking for you? I personally think the gameplay is a step above many current FPS games, many people agree, and even Yahtzee himself said it was more innovative and creative than most FPS games on the market. His only real complaint was that the engine is suited for a different genre of game where you have more time to admire the scenery (and the taxing requirements too, I guess). So I don't know what point you're trying to prove, and I don't think your supposed evidence backs up your point.

Re:Excellent gameplay....riiight. (1)

Tenek (738297) | more than 5 years ago | (#25170835)

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/4-BioShock [escapistmagazine.com]

Remember that part where he talks about how nobody likes it when he's being nice to a game? The whole point of the ZP is to make fun of the bad stuff. If you use it for a serious evaluation of the game you're insane. 91 on Metacritic ( http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/pc/crysis?q=crysis [metacritic.com] ) implies it was a pretty good game. If you didn't like it personally then you're welcome to say so, preferably with an explanation, but a pointless link to someone else's intentionally skewed review does not make for useful discussion.

I liked it (1)

Gogogoch (663730) | more than 5 years ago | (#25170047)

I thought the first Crysis was pretty good. I played it through several times trying different strategies via the supersuit. I couldnt tell you what my low-end graphics card is, but I just turned down the graphics options until I got a good frame rate, and enjoyed the game. But then I remember playing the original Doom in 1994 and thinking that was super brilliant.

Warning: bad pun. (1)

mweather (1089505) | more than 5 years ago | (#25170343)

Warhead has really soured me toward the Crysis franchise.

FPS (1)

Taibhsear (1286214) | more than 5 years ago | (#25170941)

I keep seeing people listing their FPS on what games they play on their respective systems. What exactly are people using to show the FPS on screen while they play games? I cannot find any settings in the games that will show this on screen (or at all).

PNG caps of WMV publicity videos (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25171095)

Nice screenshots.

DX10 (1)

Wilson_6500 (896824) | more than 5 years ago | (#25171185)

The only way that Crysis ever registered on my gaming radar was that it was a DX10-only game, and therefore required Vista, and therefore I would probably not play it in the foreseeable future.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?