Ok...
Almost identical! Look!
Looks like you really have something against this game?
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Crysis, the best FPS to date
- Thread starter heatlesssun
- Start date
Ok...
Almost identical! Look!
Looks like you really have something against this game?
ObscureTerror
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2007
- Messages
- 145
What!? Man, you have some seriously skewed ways of thinking.
Going to Singapore is the same thing as going to the store: you're going to a destination. But by your description, going to a destination directly, like Singapore - as opposed to a varied way of going to another destination, the store - is less linear than having a variety of ways to reach a given destination? In concept, does that even sound rational? It's not even coherent.
That just literally made me laugh my ass off, especially because you're probably right.
So, here it is: my "dissertation" on linearity and non-linearity (not a "defense" of Crysis)... there are a lot of accurate, solid and mind-opening points here, so why don't you take the time to read it and friggin' learn something of intelligence.
In terms of linear, it seems some of the perceptions posted here about "linear" are in themselves linear.
Firstly, everything has an objective of some sort, which means there is always a "point A to point B" approach, no matter how you look at the situation. If there is something to do/to be done, then there are methods in which it can be done, but there are only so many ways you can go about doing anything in life.
Secondly, there are a few different ways of understanding the definition of "linear", or adversely, the definition of "open-ended".
There is always a beginning and an end, hence a "point A to point B", so unless you're standing/wandering around doing absolutely nothing, which is hardly the point of any game, there's going to be something to do and only a certain number of ways in which it can be done.
Going by some of the remarks made here, it would seem that some think going from "point/objective A to point/objective B" is linear. With such a broadly relative view, that would mean that everything in and about life itself is linear, including life and death itself. I suppose you could look at things that way if you wanted to generalize to an insane degree, but that's just not a rational way of perceiving things.
In games, and taking the word "linear" from a more realistic perspective, linear would be something such as corridor shooters, where you're forced to take one path only to get to/complete point/objective "B" from the originating point of "A", having absolutely no choice in how you go about getting from one point to another or completing an objective and there being no variation in the outcome, regardless of your actions.
To a degree, this is true with everything, in terms of every game needing to have an end of some sort, whether there are multiple endings or not, which in and of itself does not necessarily make a game "open-ended" either.
However, in something like Crysis, there is a great number of ways in which to complete your objectives. Since it's an FPS, shooting people/things is obviously a key feature, so you cant complain that it's "just run/shoot, run/shoot", because that's the basis of every FPS. But Crysis is far more open-ended in terms of gameplay than how some are perceiving it to be.
The variety of skills that can be used with the nanosuit is the first of two big examples. Stealth, speed and strength to manipulate your enemies and your surroundings already give you three more variables that are separate from projectile weapons (i.e. guns) that can be used in a variety of ways and combinations there-of.
As for the environment itself, it is indeed open-ended, as there are numerous ways in which you can navigate the environment. There are always barriers since, as has been mentioned, the only way there could be none would be to map the entire universe itself without end. But the barriers are definitely extremely wide compared to any other FPS, with much in-between: jungles, water, beaches, rocks and mountains... and many parts of many mountains/hillsides are indeed scalable, so I'm not sure why people keep focusing on that. I've used the Strength mode of the nanosuit to sneak-up on/pass by enemies by jumping up the sides of huge rocks on the sides of mountains all over the outdoor maps. The environment is absolutely huge.
So, between the nanosuit's abilities and the environment, you can circumvent your enemies completely, on land or in the water, in a various number of ways. You can engage them strictly with firearms, use the nanosuit on it's own in various ways or in conjunction with firearms, and use the environment in numerous ways that can vastly change the gameplay every time. Jump to higher ground and use firearms or circumvent the enemy. Swim, hide in the jungle, use vehicles, take down trees (which kill if they fall on you or the AI), destroy structures to kill, confuse and/or flush-out enemies, physically grab objects or enemies and hurl them, use speed to flank, and countless other combinations offered by both the nanosuit combined with the extremely open environment.
Run down the beach or through the jungle using speed to flank/pass some of your enemies, take out a few enemies in a group, then use invisibility to run out of the jungle to the waterfront and swim around to another side, then scale the side of a cliff using strength that empties atop a hill upon which enemies are standing; toss grenades, use invisibility to get over the crest, grab a guy and toss him, use strength again to hop on top of a small structure and fire down on your enemies, then use speed again to flank them and kill the rest in a variety of ways, including tossing heavy objects or destroying structures. Run back through the jungle, grab a jeep, head to a boat, go back the way you came and deal with the enemies you originally passed by, again, in a numerous combination of nanosuit abilities, firearms and the environment.
Does a scenario like that sound "linear"?
How many hills can you scale in HL2? How many structures can you destroy in Doom3? How many other FPS titles (or any other genre) allow you to have several different methods of disposing of your enemies, while navigating through a large, open and interactive environment?
I think some people need to get a little more perspective here.
So, if you take a true corridor shooter such as Doom3, where you're limited to walking down narrow hallways and your only method of engagement is your firearms, that would be the definition of linear.
If you take the multitude of ways you can take-out the enemies and navigate the huge environment in Crysis, that would be open-ended.
Multiple options of dealing with a situation = non-linear.
Just because a game doesn't have multiple endings, doesn't make it linear. Just because you cant swim for three-hundred miles, doesn't make a game linear. There's quite the distance you can swim in Crysis, if you so choose. Just because not every mountain isn't scalable, doesn't make a game linear. Just because you cant, indeed, leave the planet and have access to an endless universe or have every power and weapon in the world, doesn't make a game linear. According to some remarks made here, that's the perspective they're taking on why they think Crysis is as "linear" as any other game.
True "sandbox" games such as GTA are extremely open-ended, but there are still missions that have to be completed in order to open new parts of the cities in every GTA title. By the definition of some here, that would be considered linear as well, which is ridiculous. By the definition of some, it seems that having to do anything that involves getting from "A" to "B", is linear, which is simply insane.
No, I don't think Crysis is the best FPS to-date, though it's one of the best, between the graphics, physics and most certainly an open-ended gameplay style. The story and how it was delivered could have been better, however. The atmosphere could have been a bit better in places, certainly.
It's definitely no HL2 in terms of atmosphere, but then again, how many different ways can you deal with your enemies or effect the environment in HL2?
So, that would be considered far more linear than Crysis.
I'm not "defending" Crysis, as I see no need to "defend" something I enjoy just because someone else does not.
However, the definition of "linear" and how "open-ended" something is needs to be seen in a far more non-linear way here, because: variation = more open-ended, and there is a ton of variation in a game like Crysis in terms of the gameplay itself.
Sure, if there were multiple objectives that altered what would happen next in every single "chapter" of a/the game, that would be even less "linear". But just because that's not the case with Crysis (hell, I haven't seen that in many games, period) doesn't mean you can ignore other aspects of the game that are certainly open-ended.
The reason for this lengthy post is, again, not in "defense" of Crysis. I could care less about who likes "this" or hates "that". The reason for his "novel" of a post is because this issue of "linear gameplay" has been a key point for arguments amongst too many gamers for far too long, and there have been some ridiculous remarks made about linearity due to some definitively "skewed" perspectives on what "linear" actually is, and how far it can be taken or applied to certain things.
On a last note: might I suggest that perhaps the reason some are seeing something like Crysis being "as linear" as any other FPS is due to a lack of their own creativity, and not using all of the things offered and their many variations/combinations.
P.S.
Here's a "novel" concept: if you're going to respond to my post, how about not taking things out of context by just copy/pasting certain comments I made that, on their own, might sound "bad" or "linear", which I see happening constantly, and actually taking-in the entirety of the concepts of what I've said like an open-minded being.
Going to Singapore is the same thing as going to the store: you're going to a destination. But by your description, going to a destination directly, like Singapore - as opposed to a varied way of going to another destination, the store - is less linear than having a variety of ways to reach a given destination? In concept, does that even sound rational? It's not even coherent.
Even if they did, the linear advocates would no doubt complain that not being able to leave the planet is yet another barrier.
That just literally made me laugh my ass off, especially because you're probably right.
So, here it is: my "dissertation" on linearity and non-linearity (not a "defense" of Crysis)... there are a lot of accurate, solid and mind-opening points here, so why don't you take the time to read it and friggin' learn something of intelligence.
In terms of linear, it seems some of the perceptions posted here about "linear" are in themselves linear.
Firstly, everything has an objective of some sort, which means there is always a "point A to point B" approach, no matter how you look at the situation. If there is something to do/to be done, then there are methods in which it can be done, but there are only so many ways you can go about doing anything in life.
Secondly, there are a few different ways of understanding the definition of "linear", or adversely, the definition of "open-ended".
There is always a beginning and an end, hence a "point A to point B", so unless you're standing/wandering around doing absolutely nothing, which is hardly the point of any game, there's going to be something to do and only a certain number of ways in which it can be done.
Going by some of the remarks made here, it would seem that some think going from "point/objective A to point/objective B" is linear. With such a broadly relative view, that would mean that everything in and about life itself is linear, including life and death itself. I suppose you could look at things that way if you wanted to generalize to an insane degree, but that's just not a rational way of perceiving things.
In games, and taking the word "linear" from a more realistic perspective, linear would be something such as corridor shooters, where you're forced to take one path only to get to/complete point/objective "B" from the originating point of "A", having absolutely no choice in how you go about getting from one point to another or completing an objective and there being no variation in the outcome, regardless of your actions.
To a degree, this is true with everything, in terms of every game needing to have an end of some sort, whether there are multiple endings or not, which in and of itself does not necessarily make a game "open-ended" either.
However, in something like Crysis, there is a great number of ways in which to complete your objectives. Since it's an FPS, shooting people/things is obviously a key feature, so you cant complain that it's "just run/shoot, run/shoot", because that's the basis of every FPS. But Crysis is far more open-ended in terms of gameplay than how some are perceiving it to be.
The variety of skills that can be used with the nanosuit is the first of two big examples. Stealth, speed and strength to manipulate your enemies and your surroundings already give you three more variables that are separate from projectile weapons (i.e. guns) that can be used in a variety of ways and combinations there-of.
As for the environment itself, it is indeed open-ended, as there are numerous ways in which you can navigate the environment. There are always barriers since, as has been mentioned, the only way there could be none would be to map the entire universe itself without end. But the barriers are definitely extremely wide compared to any other FPS, with much in-between: jungles, water, beaches, rocks and mountains... and many parts of many mountains/hillsides are indeed scalable, so I'm not sure why people keep focusing on that. I've used the Strength mode of the nanosuit to sneak-up on/pass by enemies by jumping up the sides of huge rocks on the sides of mountains all over the outdoor maps. The environment is absolutely huge.
So, between the nanosuit's abilities and the environment, you can circumvent your enemies completely, on land or in the water, in a various number of ways. You can engage them strictly with firearms, use the nanosuit on it's own in various ways or in conjunction with firearms, and use the environment in numerous ways that can vastly change the gameplay every time. Jump to higher ground and use firearms or circumvent the enemy. Swim, hide in the jungle, use vehicles, take down trees (which kill if they fall on you or the AI), destroy structures to kill, confuse and/or flush-out enemies, physically grab objects or enemies and hurl them, use speed to flank, and countless other combinations offered by both the nanosuit combined with the extremely open environment.
Run down the beach or through the jungle using speed to flank/pass some of your enemies, take out a few enemies in a group, then use invisibility to run out of the jungle to the waterfront and swim around to another side, then scale the side of a cliff using strength that empties atop a hill upon which enemies are standing; toss grenades, use invisibility to get over the crest, grab a guy and toss him, use strength again to hop on top of a small structure and fire down on your enemies, then use speed again to flank them and kill the rest in a variety of ways, including tossing heavy objects or destroying structures. Run back through the jungle, grab a jeep, head to a boat, go back the way you came and deal with the enemies you originally passed by, again, in a numerous combination of nanosuit abilities, firearms and the environment.
Does a scenario like that sound "linear"?
How many hills can you scale in HL2? How many structures can you destroy in Doom3? How many other FPS titles (or any other genre) allow you to have several different methods of disposing of your enemies, while navigating through a large, open and interactive environment?
I think some people need to get a little more perspective here.
So, if you take a true corridor shooter such as Doom3, where you're limited to walking down narrow hallways and your only method of engagement is your firearms, that would be the definition of linear.
If you take the multitude of ways you can take-out the enemies and navigate the huge environment in Crysis, that would be open-ended.
Multiple options of dealing with a situation = non-linear.
Just because a game doesn't have multiple endings, doesn't make it linear. Just because you cant swim for three-hundred miles, doesn't make a game linear. There's quite the distance you can swim in Crysis, if you so choose. Just because not every mountain isn't scalable, doesn't make a game linear. Just because you cant, indeed, leave the planet and have access to an endless universe or have every power and weapon in the world, doesn't make a game linear. According to some remarks made here, that's the perspective they're taking on why they think Crysis is as "linear" as any other game.
True "sandbox" games such as GTA are extremely open-ended, but there are still missions that have to be completed in order to open new parts of the cities in every GTA title. By the definition of some here, that would be considered linear as well, which is ridiculous. By the definition of some, it seems that having to do anything that involves getting from "A" to "B", is linear, which is simply insane.
No, I don't think Crysis is the best FPS to-date, though it's one of the best, between the graphics, physics and most certainly an open-ended gameplay style. The story and how it was delivered could have been better, however. The atmosphere could have been a bit better in places, certainly.
It's definitely no HL2 in terms of atmosphere, but then again, how many different ways can you deal with your enemies or effect the environment in HL2?
So, that would be considered far more linear than Crysis.
I'm not "defending" Crysis, as I see no need to "defend" something I enjoy just because someone else does not.
However, the definition of "linear" and how "open-ended" something is needs to be seen in a far more non-linear way here, because: variation = more open-ended, and there is a ton of variation in a game like Crysis in terms of the gameplay itself.
Sure, if there were multiple objectives that altered what would happen next in every single "chapter" of a/the game, that would be even less "linear". But just because that's not the case with Crysis (hell, I haven't seen that in many games, period) doesn't mean you can ignore other aspects of the game that are certainly open-ended.
The reason for this lengthy post is, again, not in "defense" of Crysis. I could care less about who likes "this" or hates "that". The reason for his "novel" of a post is because this issue of "linear gameplay" has been a key point for arguments amongst too many gamers for far too long, and there have been some ridiculous remarks made about linearity due to some definitively "skewed" perspectives on what "linear" actually is, and how far it can be taken or applied to certain things.
On a last note: might I suggest that perhaps the reason some are seeing something like Crysis being "as linear" as any other FPS is due to a lack of their own creativity, and not using all of the things offered and their many variations/combinations.
P.S.
Here's a "novel" concept: if you're going to respond to my post, how about not taking things out of context by just copy/pasting certain comments I made that, on their own, might sound "bad" or "linear", which I see happening constantly, and actually taking-in the entirety of the concepts of what I've said like an open-minded being.
Not even remotely close, and I was perhaps one of the biggest Far Cry advocates/fans out there.
Crysis is on a graphical/technical level that makes Far Cry look super dated by comparison -- not even in the same ballpark, not even in the parking lot outside of the ballpark.
There is no comparison aside from the fact that they both feature islands/forests.
The only people who seem to say otherwise are those who can't play it on the High settings (let alone Very High).
Sorry for being so caustic and candid, but that is a really silly and stupid argument.
Crysis is not linear in the same sense that a game such as CoD4 is linear.
Like another poster has noted, every game of this nature requires you the user to reach some sort of objective.
In Crysis, unlike most games, you have a cornucopia of paths you can take, virtually infinite, so long as they do not extend beyond the borders of the virtual world themselves.
Hell, you can even arguably beat most of the levels whilst sneaking by the enemy undetected. The point being, you can reach your objectives in so many possible ways, that you never feel confined to the limitations of being guided down one specific corridor, or one specific street, or one method of reaching your objective(s).
You can go by water, on the ground, over the mountains, by car, by foot, by cloak, hell, even by air if you are so inclined. Point is, you are never confined to just one approach.
You can't say that about most games.
Furthermore, it is a rather silly presumption to fault Crysis on the basis of it not allowing you literally infinite paths.
A game like that is impossible to create because it would require infinite man-hours.
Or, you could just walk outside.
Sorry for being so caustic and candid, but that is a really silly and stupid argument.
Crysis is not linear in the same sense that a game such as CoD4 is linear.
Like another poster has noted, every game of this nature requires you the user to reach some sort of objective.
In Crysis, unlike most games, you have a cornucopia of paths you can take, virtually infinite, so long as they do not extend beyond the borders of the virtual world themselves.
Hell, you can even arguably beat most of the levels whilst sneaking by the enemy undetected. The point being, you can reach your objectives in so many possible ways, that you never feel confined to the limitations of being guided down one specific corridor, or one specific street, or one method of reaching your objective(s).
You can go by water, on the ground, over the mountains, by car, by foot, by cloak, hell, even by air if you are so inclined. Point is, you are never confined to just one approach.
You can't say that about most games.
Furthermore, it is a rather silly presumption to fault Crysis on the basis of it not allowing you literally infinite paths.
A game like that is impossible to create because it would require infinite man-hours.
Or, you could just walk outside.
You're all missing the point. Yes, I know you can choose to circumvent 'x' and blow the fuck out of 'y', and then next time around vice-versa, but you can only do so within these pre-defined corridors.
So, yes, Crysis gives you far more variety in your approach, i'm not disputing that, but it's not open-ended, like people keep arguing. You can't swim from one island to the next without a massive ship landing a rocket on your head, or any other number or variations on the "invisible wall". It's disguised, but it's there.
nigerian_businessman
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2004
- Messages
- 1,535
I'm going to have to agree with you. One of the lamest parts of the game was when I attempted to swim to the boat and got killed by a shark. Why put the boat out there with this big open path in front of you if you can't swim to it, even if you get blown to smithereens once you get there? It just reeked of a quick band-aid fix.
I really did like the game. I just see a lot of wasted potential that could have been seized upon. Not so much the game or the developers fault as it is the fault of the mega-hype marketing machine.
Name me one game that doesn't have an "invisible wall".
Just one game.
Every single game on the planet is restricted by some square (in the case of 2D) or cubic (in the case of 3D) set of dimensions.
combustion
Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2003
- Messages
- 832
Fail.
It too is bound by limited dimensions.
Hell, even real life is bound by limited dimensions -- the universe as we know it is not really infinite, but it is ever-approaching infinity (due to its expanding nature), but it too can never be categorized as unlimited.
I never fucking said HL2 MP was amazing, but it was insanely more successful than Farcry's MP... Do people keep forgetting that Farcry was nothing but a great single player game? I'm looking at the total package, and if you add in reviewer scores, MODS, server totals and primetime player counts, HL2 f u c k i n g owns Farcry... its the truth. Just because this a Crytek penis sucking thread, doesn't negate the fact that Farcry was never as successful as HL2 no matter how much you wish it was.... Whats so funny now?
Oh, dear god. I don't know if you're being deliberately obtuse or if you're genuinely slow. I am not criticising Crysis for not being open-ended and infinite in game area. You can skip the trite comments about 'not being satisified until you can fly up off the planet into space' and such, because that's not what i'm talking about.
For fuck's sake. For the last time, as simplistically as I can possibly put it, since you're all evidently mentally sub-normal: Crysis is not open-ended or infinitely varied, the corridors are just a bit wider and have trees in them.
I am not saying it should be, and I am not complaining about this, I am simply pointing it out to all the mouth-breathers posting here, pissing themselves with glee at the fact that "OMFUCK GAME OF THE YEAR! !! ! " allows you to either throw a barrel at someone, drive a jeep into him or shoot him.
Seriously, it's not hard to grasp. Despite this, i'm still anticipating a lot of "pfft, well wat games are open-ended ? ? you thnk you should be able to go 2 Sinofpore ? LOL!" comments from the people who really are too dense to understand what i'm saying.
Ok, here's my take on things...
I'm only about 2 hours into Crysis, so bear with me.
Far Cry had a simply amazing single player game. Amongst the best I've played, including HL2 (which is a close second).
The Crysis single player game...so far...is quite good. The only down side is that I can't run it on high (see system spec below). Not even close to high. 2xAA kills the frame rate. HOWEVER...I'm not sure if you guys remember how it was playing Far Cry when it first came out. We were in a similar boat. Unless you had a Radeon 9700pro, you weren't enjoying the game...even at that, it wasn't enough horsepower to crank up the AA or AF. As time went by, better products came out, now, if you're NOT getting 100FPS in Far Cry with EVERYTHING cranked, it's time to think about an upgrade.
As for multiplayer, I judge those by how long a game is played at mini-lans my friends and I have (usually about 8 guys). The winners are ALWAYS COD2 and Star Wars Battlefront 2. UT is in there also. As for Far Cry, we play it for about 30 minutes and move on. It's good, but not great. The Call of Duty games are amazing for LAN games. If Crysis had an MP that was 50% as good as those of COD2 it would be a success in my books. The next LAN is in December, I'll let you guys know.
My only other observation so far about Crysis is that I'm a bit bummed, it's really not living up to the hype. It's more linear than Far Cry was, and the fact that I have (IMO) a top notch system, and I can't even run 2xAA is a bit disappointing. That's promising to be fixed with new patches and possibly Vista SP1. We'll see.
I hope that Crytek isn't deterred from making more games, but they need to not worry about eye candy so much and concentrate more effort on the game itself. Again, look at HL2...graphically, compared to COD4 or Crysis, it sucks, but the story is amazing (IMO) and I look forward to the last installment.
I'm only about 2 hours into Crysis, so bear with me.
Far Cry had a simply amazing single player game. Amongst the best I've played, including HL2 (which is a close second).
The Crysis single player game...so far...is quite good. The only down side is that I can't run it on high (see system spec below). Not even close to high. 2xAA kills the frame rate. HOWEVER...I'm not sure if you guys remember how it was playing Far Cry when it first came out. We were in a similar boat. Unless you had a Radeon 9700pro, you weren't enjoying the game...even at that, it wasn't enough horsepower to crank up the AA or AF. As time went by, better products came out, now, if you're NOT getting 100FPS in Far Cry with EVERYTHING cranked, it's time to think about an upgrade.
As for multiplayer, I judge those by how long a game is played at mini-lans my friends and I have (usually about 8 guys). The winners are ALWAYS COD2 and Star Wars Battlefront 2. UT is in there also. As for Far Cry, we play it for about 30 minutes and move on. It's good, but not great. The Call of Duty games are amazing for LAN games. If Crysis had an MP that was 50% as good as those of COD2 it would be a success in my books. The next LAN is in December, I'll let you guys know.
My only other observation so far about Crysis is that I'm a bit bummed, it's really not living up to the hype. It's more linear than Far Cry was, and the fact that I have (IMO) a top notch system, and I can't even run 2xAA is a bit disappointing. That's promising to be fixed with new patches and possibly Vista SP1. We'll see.
I hope that Crytek isn't deterred from making more games, but they need to not worry about eye candy so much and concentrate more effort on the game itself. Again, look at HL2...graphically, compared to COD4 or Crysis, it sucks, but the story is amazing (IMO) and I look forward to the last installment.
Before you impetuously shoot off at the mouth again, at least have a rudimentary understanding of what "open-ended" means.
You are constantly contradicting yourself, and thus further substantiating all of the reasons why we have given you flack.
On the one hand you argue that Crysis is not open-ended, but on the other hand, the very reasons you cite for it not being open-ended, are for all intents and purposes generally understood to be those very criteria intrinsic to an open-ended game.
Seems like your indignation for this game is clouding your judgment.
Before you impetuously shoot off at the mouth again, at least have a rudimentary understanding of what "open-ended" means.
You are constantly contradicting yourself, and thus further substantiating all of the reasons why we have given you flack.
On the one hand you argue that Crysis is not open-ended, but on the other hand, the very reasons you cite for it not being open-ended, are for all intents and purposes generally understood to be those very criteria intrinsic to an open-ended game.
Seems like your indignation for this game is clouding your judgment.
True.
Before you impetuously shoot off at the mouth again, at least have a rudimentary understanding of what "open-ended" means.
You are constantly contradicting yourself, and thus further substantiating all of the reasons why we have given you flack.
On the one hand you argue that Crysis is not open-ended, but on the other hand, the very reasons you cite for it not being open-ended, are for all intents and purposes generally understood to be those very criteria intrinsic to an open-ended game.
Seems like your indignation for this game is clouding your judgment.
I see. So the criteria to be met for a game to be considered "open-ended" - generally understood, as you put it - are that you can replay the same levels, each time choosing to attack the enemy/approach the objective in a different manner.
Therein lies the flaw, though, chum; if those are the criteria, then any game you ever choose could be described as "open-ended". Shoot the baddy with a pistol, rifle, or nuke him with a grenade, ultimately, it is generally understood, this choice you're afforded makes the game open-ended? You wouldn't agree with that unless you had the most liberal interpretation of the term, so nor can you agree with your previous comments.
Now, please, before you're affronted please understand i'm not trying to infer anything here, just perhaps equip myself better to communicate my point to you - I only ask because your reasoning skills, levels of intellect, linguistic ability etc. seem to be higher than your typical Hardforum poster, in contrast to your inability to comprehend my point fully reminds me a little of people i've known with Aspergers or similar. Is this the case?
Wally, I don't think you understand what open-ended means with respect to video games.
Open-endedness is an analog characteristic, and Crysis is on the the open side of this scale with respect to most other games.
The fact that the "corridors are just a bit wider and have trees" does in fact make the game more open ended. The additional geographical space gives the player significantly more strategical options when approaching an objective then you would have with much narrower corridors; this is certainly what people are referring to when they say Crysis is comparatively open-ended to other FPSes. Perhaps you mean something else?
Open-endedness is an analog characteristic, and Crysis is on the the open side of this scale with respect to most other games.
The fact that the "corridors are just a bit wider and have trees" does in fact make the game more open ended. The additional geographical space gives the player significantly more strategical options when approaching an objective then you would have with much narrower corridors; this is certainly what people are referring to when they say Crysis is comparatively open-ended to other FPSes. Perhaps you mean something else?
So, in summary, Crysis is not open-ended, but in fact, more comparatively open-ended, which means that painting it with a broad "open-ended stroke" is acceptable. This seems to be what I'm getting from many of the posts here. Bacon has comparatively more fat than chicken. Ergo, bacon is fat.
As far as "more strategical options" is concerned, I've been finding that, like Far Cry, not all options are viable from a this-can-be-achieved-this-way-without-dying perspective. Whether that's a flaw or a deliberate design decision is up for debate, but can one call these infeasible options as contributing to the open-ended design mechanic? Perhaps so, and perhaps not.
As far as "more strategical options" is concerned, I've been finding that, like Far Cry, not all options are viable from a this-can-be-achieved-this-way-without-dying perspective. Whether that's a flaw or a deliberate design decision is up for debate, but can one call these infeasible options as contributing to the open-ended design mechanic? Perhaps so, and perhaps not.
I think all it boils down to how you interpret 'open-ended'. I personally wouldn't call something open-ended because you can approach a hut from the left or the right, but it seems some would, and would laud a game over any other for allowing you to do so, however marginal the difference between the two is.
I might be trivialising things with this, but I can't help but get the impression people love Crysis unconditionally because it looks stunning, and are trying to appear less superficial by citing non-existent gameplay.
Some people may love Crysis just because of the graphics, but the majority, I think love it for what it does as a game. Oh and the differences between the 2 games are... well...rather big...
It certainly isn't going to be the ultimate improvement in open-ended gameplay we ever get, but it does offer substantial benefits over being able to approach the hut from just the left. I don't know how to classify this change other than saying it makes the game open strategically. I'm curious how you would classify it?
I personally find the Valve/COD "disney theme park ride strapped on rails" style gameplay to get pretty boring. I know I'm in a very small minority with that sentiment though. In terms of FPSes I really only enjoy the ones where I get to choose "left or right".
I should add that Crysis obviously isn't the only game to offer the "left or right" choice, but it does it quite well.
Open ended, linear, non linear, scripted, real time AI.
Take a game like Half life II, which is a linear and very scripted game your experience is going to be almost the same as mine from start (A) to finish (B). Oblivion is a non linear game how to get to the end of the game is open ended you can choose and your experience more then likely will be completely different then mine, this is what Crysis is all about. You have scripted AI which Half life II uses I don't think Crysis can or if it does very little, the AI is all done real time that is an amazing feat in such an open area.
Don't get me wrong Half-Life the series is my favorite FPS, however it isn't open ended and you will get the same ending I do, the same people will die for me as they do for you. In Crysis not everything is so planned out.
I have played the Cyrsis demo many times the whole way through each time doing something completely different, I cant wait to play it this weekend!!
Take a game like Half life II, which is a linear and very scripted game your experience is going to be almost the same as mine from start (A) to finish (B). Oblivion is a non linear game how to get to the end of the game is open ended you can choose and your experience more then likely will be completely different then mine, this is what Crysis is all about. You have scripted AI which Half life II uses I don't think Crysis can or if it does very little, the AI is all done real time that is an amazing feat in such an open area.
Don't get me wrong Half-Life the series is my favorite FPS, however it isn't open ended and you will get the same ending I do, the same people will die for me as they do for you. In Crysis not everything is so planned out.
I have played the Cyrsis demo many times the whole way through each time doing something completely different, I cant wait to play it this weekend!!
FrozenLiquidity
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2007
- Messages
- 1,588
This may be a bit OT, considering the turn the thread has taken; for example the different definitions and descriptions of linear and non-linear gameplay, whether or not Farcry and Crysis are in the same environments, and "zOMG!, HL2 is teh l33t!, crysis sux0rz!".
I would just like to say though the the replayability of a game for me has a lot to do with it's multiplayer. Having long ago worn out any CS itch I had, and not being a terribly huge fan of the deathmatch/tdm theme, I had my doubts. Especially with the mediocre multiplayer gameplay offered in Farcry. But I stand corrected and Crysis's "Power Struggle" gameplay mode is outstanding. It's what BF2 should have been. While there's still a small player base since it's only been out a week or so, I can easily see myself spending countless hours in this gameplay mode. The maps are pretty good, there's a good blend of larger and smaller maps for this mode, and they are fairly balanced. The real fun is getting to play around with a ton of the things you never got to see or even touch in the single player. It never becomes too one-sided if you're playing with a good team and it makes teamwork that much more important. I'd definitely recommend this to the Battlefield series player that feels that the series is imbalanced in one way or another.
After playing the HL2 mp modes + mods, as well as COD4 and previous COD multiplayer games, I think I can safely say that the Crysis MP is by far my favorite, so long as it isn't deathmatch. I can only imagine how it will improve with mods and additional maps released in the future.
If you own Crysis, try out the Power Struggle servers!
I would just like to say though the the replayability of a game for me has a lot to do with it's multiplayer. Having long ago worn out any CS itch I had, and not being a terribly huge fan of the deathmatch/tdm theme, I had my doubts. Especially with the mediocre multiplayer gameplay offered in Farcry. But I stand corrected and Crysis's "Power Struggle" gameplay mode is outstanding. It's what BF2 should have been. While there's still a small player base since it's only been out a week or so, I can easily see myself spending countless hours in this gameplay mode. The maps are pretty good, there's a good blend of larger and smaller maps for this mode, and they are fairly balanced. The real fun is getting to play around with a ton of the things you never got to see or even touch in the single player. It never becomes too one-sided if you're playing with a good team and it makes teamwork that much more important. I'd definitely recommend this to the Battlefield series player that feels that the series is imbalanced in one way or another.
After playing the HL2 mp modes + mods, as well as COD4 and previous COD multiplayer games, I think I can safely say that the Crysis MP is by far my favorite, so long as it isn't deathmatch. I can only imagine how it will improve with mods and additional maps released in the future.
If you own Crysis, try out the Power Struggle servers!
turbolude
Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2005
- Messages
- 790
all i can say BEST looking games to date!. it can be improved but its the best dx10 game there is if u ask me. HL2 is still my favorite for the storyline but they need to update some of the graphics with dx10 on the next episode. but hl2 has some of the best faces and mouth sync. and facial expression.
Dumbing down the argument to attacking a hut from the left or right is a bit silly really. There are lots of fairly different ways you can play it's just up to the player to find out what is more fun for them and to also vary their method of attacking or sneaking past points.
In such a sandbox environment the gameplay is what you make it, you can be a james bond spy type character, cloaking through levels with a silenced pistol, or at the other end of the scale a rambo who grabs the closes mounted machine gun and lets rip, and everything in between.
The maps are hardly non-linear, like far cry there is actually more appearance of freedom than actual freedom. Nevertheless compared to other games it's significantly higher to give it that classification, with anymore freedom to roam we'd probably just wander off and get lost, not especially helpful.
I fear the people who think the "gameplay" is bad or that it's too boring or whatever, are simply not imaginative enough to tackle the game in different ways possible, theres lots of neat stuff you can do when you start thinking about your options.
Someone else mentioned dumping C4 into a truck and rolling it into a building and bailin out before hand and then blowing it up, it's being able to do stuff like that, without it being scripted, which makes the game really cool.
turbolude
Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2005
- Messages
- 790
good point Frosteh I personally like shooting trees down and watch them fall on the enemy or ramming into another truck and bailing out lol kinda fun.
Agreed. If it was 100% open ended the same people here bitching about how its so linear would instead be bitching that they cant ever find where their going and the game sucks because they are lost all the damn time.
Cant please everyone. And some people you cant ever please.
Amen to that.
Capfarland
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2006
- Messages
- 363
The linear vs open ended argument is just a matter of taste & opinion. I say let it rest, Crysis & COD4 (And HL2) are all AAA+ titles
I've been having a great time getting into the meat of this game! Very fun and keeps you thinking about all your possible gameplay options as you venture on.
I am having even more fun calling all my office mates "Yankee Shankee's!" Only one or two of them know where the hell I'm getting it from. LoL
I am having even more fun calling all my office mates "Yankee Shankee's!" Only one or two of them know where the hell I'm getting it from. LoL
I've been having a great time getting into the meat of this game! Very fun and keeps you thinking about all your possible gameplay options as you venture on.
I am having even more fun calling all my office mates "Yankee Shankee's!" Only one or two of them know where the hell I'm getting it from. LoL
LOL!
I use that very same "Yankee Shankew" (at least that's how it sounds to me) line on my brother.
He was confused as all hell as to what it meant until he played it.
The first time he heard the enemy yell out that apparent expletive, he busted out in laughter.
Which two games? Sorry, I don't follow, since I didn't mention any other title in particular.
Me said:
wrathofgod
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2004
- Messages
- 145
Graphics wise, it's definitely top-o-the-line. But, gameplay wise, I'd say it's neck and neck with CoD4 IMO. Gonna be a tough call for GOTY between those 2.