Welcome to the Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis.
GFF is a community of gaming and music enthusiasts. We have a team of dedicated moderators, constant member-organized activities, and plenty of custom features, including our unique journal system. If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ or our GFWiki. You will have to register before you can post. Membership is completely free (and gets rid of the pesky advertisement unit underneath this message).
So I was able to play the beta recently courtesy of a friend's Fileplanet account. (spoiler'd for TLDR reasons)
Spoiler:
It's a multiplayer only beta, so I can't say anything for the campaign, but the multiplayer feels similar to UT2004's onslaught, but combined with Battlefield 2 in some ways. Instead of kits, though, you get buying menus and the supersuit.
They took most of their cue from Onslaught, as you go from point to point and capture flags in order to unlock new weapon buying options and new vehicles.
Really, it's closest to BF2 in the initial learning curve and the frustration that comes with it. You'll die a lot in this game, unless you play it religiously and become one of the elites on the server. The problem I have is that because each player can become a walking apocalypse, and because there's so much chaos on screen at any given moment, the outcome feels like it's random.
The gameplay is really trying to be too many things at once. It wants Counterstrike's arcade action, but expansive levels. It wants supersuit abilities, but it also wants vehicles that negate the use of the suit. And while everybody is shooting rockets, capturing flags, defending points, sniping each other, or just running to somewhere to try to do one of these things, the whole "team" environment just breaks down entirely.
See, if we compare it to Battlefield 2 again, that's where BF2 definitely got it right. There's a definite chain of command. There's squads, who are capable of doing different things or taking different objectives. And they have their own communication channels so that no one gets confused about the person speaking.
Not so with Crysis. There is simply too much shit happening at any given time for the average person to be able to absorb. For a guy like myself, who is definitely more interested in taking objectives or winning the rounds, it's just fanservice taken to the extreme.
But this is also only one mode of play. The final version will probably have a few more modes with more of a straightforward idea to satisfy me and the other three guys that care about what they're blowing up and why.
One thing to note is that even though I have a beefy system (8800 GTS, 2 gigs of DDR2 ram, Athlon X2 5200+) I'm having real trouble running this without chop unless I put the resolution on 1024x768, and all the settings on medium. It's possible the game hasn't been optimized very well so far, seeing as it is just in beta, but if I'm running near top of the line equipment and can't manage "high" settings, there's trouble brewing ahead when people figure out that it's this game that fried their motherboards.
For people who just love shooting things and having it look pretty, or more importantly, for people who love having a smorgasbord of options in front of them, you might want to check it out. Personally I'll probably be sticking to the deathmatch and the campaign once the game comes out.
So, anyone excited about this game for reasons beyond the graphics? (I can't wait to superpunch a few soldiers into the stratosphere.)
Am I feeling an overall negative vibe from this thread regarding Crysis as a game? While it doesn't hold a candle to some of the things BF2 got right, I think that as a game, it's great fun to play, and it's certainly a positive experience.
I would personally say no, at least for the mode of play that they're trying to promote. (I can never remember the name of it.) Like I said before, the bottom line is that it's just trying to do too many things at once and ends up doing none of them well.
85242
35212
Skexis