Why do people say Crysis 1 is a "generic shooter" ?
- Thread starter endtherapture
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Well a lot of that is simply because most of these shooters are exactly the same, coming out of the same exact toolboxes and physics kits, which is one of the reasons why a lot of the controls are so standardized between them. I was reading an article a few years back about this, and while the prices are high for those dev kits, it's cheaper than making shooters and engines from scratch. The point being that most of these shooters really are the same game with a differant coat of paint and some differant tweaks.GoaThief said:
The "modern military shooter" is starting to run into some problems as well, it was exempted for a bit because they were a bit differant than the other shooters, and doing some things you weren't seeing elsewhere. The original "Modern Warfare" was a fairly novel spin on the whole thing, but as these games all become the same and just recycle endlessly themselves the cracks are slowly starting to appear.
I don't think shooters will ever disappear, no more than fighting games will, but it's not something that is going to enjoy eternal primacy as it falls increasingly into it's rut.
That, and shooters are being seen as the casual games they are, farmville for a differant crowd so to speak. People who were intrigued by the graphics and quality seem to be getting kind of put off by games that are so shallow and easy to play that 8 and 9 year olds can figure them out and play with proficiency... not that they should be doing so given the material. Someone who wants to do gaming seriously, can bet put off by running into those racist 11 and 12 year olds people always go on about, not because of their attitude, but because of their age. Not to mention the whole "bro" crowd which is an increasingly negative stereotype... to be honest as more "bro" humor mocking that whole state of beign appears, the more people are gradually moving away from games inhabited by that demographic. It's slow, but a noticible trend, and I think it's hurting shooters.
Then there is the whole issue of the endless seas of chest high walls that Yahtzee is going on about constantly, which you'll notice a lot of people seem to empathetically agree with him on with increasing frequency. While it was novel at one time, simply popping in and out of cover to play gun based "whack a mole" with some AI opponent doing the same thing might have been novel for a while, but it does get old. I suspect this is why we've seen something of a return of intentionally retro "Run and gun" shooters like what they were doing with "Serious Sam 3", which is fresh simply because it's so old, and really that retro appeal can only go so far on a wide scale.
I know many will disagree, but from where I'm sitting I suspect we're going to see a slow demise of the military shooters, or reduction in interest to be more honest. Unless some entirely new spin on the shooter comes along, I imagine we'll see all of the same shooter types still come out... military, cover based, first person, third person, but they won't be the same level of blockbuster they have been in the past.
To be honest I'm not sure what the next big thing for games is going to be, and honestly I sort of suspect gaming might be slowly heading for another drought. I'm noticing some similarities to what happened with the video game crash in the 1980s. We're seeing lower quality, formulaistic games, increased industry greed, and developers insisting they just can't viably develop the games people want to play. Heck, some have even said that they couldn't recreate work a decade or so old with current technology (like a modern remake of Final Fantasy VII). With the new console generation coming up and people wondering how the heck they are going to develop for it, I'm wondering if we're in for a mini-crash or recession for a few years, where gaming will exist, but die down from what it is now to a substantial degree, while the industry is forced to re-organize and re-think how it does almost everything, and technology and development realities catch up with each other.
Long and rambling, but that's my thoughts.
To answer about Crysis directly, I think the big issue was simply that it was a very basic shooter with some gimmicks in it. While it did a lot of cool things with the nano suit, in a practical sense most of it was all stuff people had seen before, including the uses the physics engine was put to in many cases. Individually none of the effects were as impresssive as say the gravity gun and physics based puzzles of Half Life were *for their time*, as a result there were plenty of cool things but nothing that was cool enough to make people sit down and go *wow*.
I think a lot of Crysis fans were impressed simply by having so many toys in a shooter, but honestly shooters with toy boxes had been around for a long time, even going back to things like say "Cybermage: Darklight Awakening" or say "Deus Ex: Human Revolution" where you had decent numbers of attack options and such and could decide how to go about disposing of various enmies, either directly or indirectly. If you hadn't run into that before it was awesome, if you had it was simply an old idea with a fresh can of paint (very hard to run, highly advanced paint).
The story isn't even that bad. Sure it's a cookie cutter story, Aliens awaken and fuck shit up blah blah blah, but it was well done. I actually ended up liking some of the characters. The Admiral was a dick, I hated it, Psycho was a br0, Prophet was cool and mysterious, Helena wasn't even that bad, and Strickland was a legend. It had decent characterisation for an action game with hardly any narrative.poiumty said:
Because in a meaningless way, it IS.
It is definitely a shooter and the term "generic" is so vague an misused it's not different from saying "not abstract and weird". So it's a criticism that can't be dismissed as inaccurate but can be dismissed as irrelevant. You could say Half Life 2 is a generic shooter. Generic is a hollow criticism but hardly the worst you can say about Crysis.
I love Crysis 2 because it has sorted out the suit powers to be far more manageable:
I never finished crysis, compounded by how my PC's drive died and I lost my old saves and had to start again, now I wish I'd never picked up Crysis 2 as I don't think I'll be able to bear returning to Crysis 1. Unless mods or patches introduced Crysis 2 type control scheme to PC. Otherwise it's the PC version
It is definitely a shooter and the term "generic" is so vague an misused it's not different from saying "not abstract and weird". So it's a criticism that can't be dismissed as inaccurate but can be dismissed as irrelevant. You could say Half Life 2 is a generic shooter. Generic is a hollow criticism but hardly the worst you can say about Crysis.
Which one? The button you have to tap once for Max-Armour, three for speed, yet tap FOUR TIMES for invisibility?!?! Impractical.anthony87 said:
I love Crysis 2 because it has sorted out the suit powers to be far more manageable:
-Maximum Strength is gone as a mode. Instead each of the individual abilities of Max-Strength is done by charge attacks; hold-melee button for super punch, Hold jump for super-jump
-Maximum speed as an active mode is gone as well, instead the sprint of Max-speed is just a sprint key/button tapped for a moderate speed and held down for max speed.
-Only two active modes that are opposite of each other, the first being Stealth invisibility and the other being Max-Armour. Both use Energy at a fast rate and can be used with either of the other powers but obviously you can't be both armoured and invisible
This works perfectly. It is intuitive, ergonomic and actually possible (without macros) to sprint forward at over 25mph, leap 20 feet up in the air for the greatest jump distance, then dynamically activate stealth to avoid contact or Armour to fight the enemy head to head. And with these modes active, duck behind a dumpster and hold down melee button to deliver such a powerful kick propelling the dumpster like a wrecking ball through enemies scattering them like pinballs.
And with all this you actually get ENOUGH suit energy and it recharges quick enough that you don't constantly have to dive into cover and hide waiting painfully long for it to recharge. Urg. That was annoying in Crysis 1.
The cover mechanism in Crysis 2 is also far more intuitive, even with PC controls that has had the Q and E keys for lean for over a decade now, this new system is far more intuitive and dynamic leaning and aiming into cover head elevation can be changed by walking into the wall and as aim is moved around the head is elevated jsut enough to shoot over.
The weapons are great fun. I love the assault rifle in single-shot mode, I can tap fire fast enough to be always ACR accurate yet kill them quick. Or set to full auto and try to guide the recoil. Weapons are much more satisfying to use than in Crysis 1 with not too much sway nor recoil and best of all, hitmarkers in the single-player. Hitmarkers make weapons so much more satisfying to use and after playing so many online games you become dependant on feedback telling you if you have hit your opponent.
And then the RPG-like upgrades of the suit that increase inherent armour protection and give special sensory abilities like always see bullet-paths in the air to tell were enemies are shooting from.
I also appreciate the premise more than Crysis 1. Crysis 1 had that awkward conceit of you apparently playing a highly trained spec-ops soldier though the actual player's knowledge was non-existent. They were having to learn on the job even though the character they are playing is supposed to know already and there is no tutorial or training mode. Crysis 2 sets you as a Force Recon Marine, a soldier renown for their fierce dedication and boldness but rarely using the latest technology (as of 2012 they still use the century-old M1911 pistol) who has the nano-suit and mission forced upon them with the suit's self-training mode active it's plausible for the player to have the operation of the suit explained to them.
Also, it's a lot more compelling setting it in a major cultural hub like New York City rather than a sparsely inhabited island.
-Maximum speed as an active mode is gone as well, instead the sprint of Max-speed is just a sprint key/button tapped for a moderate speed and held down for max speed.
-Only two active modes that are opposite of each other, the first being Stealth invisibility and the other being Max-Armour. Both use Energy at a fast rate and can be used with either of the other powers but obviously you can't be both armoured and invisible
This works perfectly. It is intuitive, ergonomic and actually possible (without macros) to sprint forward at over 25mph, leap 20 feet up in the air for the greatest jump distance, then dynamically activate stealth to avoid contact or Armour to fight the enemy head to head. And with these modes active, duck behind a dumpster and hold down melee button to deliver such a powerful kick propelling the dumpster like a wrecking ball through enemies scattering them like pinballs.
And with all this you actually get ENOUGH suit energy and it recharges quick enough that you don't constantly have to dive into cover and hide waiting painfully long for it to recharge. Urg. That was annoying in Crysis 1.
The cover mechanism in Crysis 2 is also far more intuitive, even with PC controls that has had the Q and E keys for lean for over a decade now, this new system is far more intuitive and dynamic leaning and aiming into cover head elevation can be changed by walking into the wall and as aim is moved around the head is elevated jsut enough to shoot over.
The weapons are great fun. I love the assault rifle in single-shot mode, I can tap fire fast enough to be always ACR accurate yet kill them quick. Or set to full auto and try to guide the recoil. Weapons are much more satisfying to use than in Crysis 1 with not too much sway nor recoil and best of all, hitmarkers in the single-player. Hitmarkers make weapons so much more satisfying to use and after playing so many online games you become dependant on feedback telling you if you have hit your opponent.
And then the RPG-like upgrades of the suit that increase inherent armour protection and give special sensory abilities like always see bullet-paths in the air to tell were enemies are shooting from.
I also appreciate the premise more than Crysis 1. Crysis 1 had that awkward conceit of you apparently playing a highly trained spec-ops soldier though the actual player's knowledge was non-existent. They were having to learn on the job even though the character they are playing is supposed to know already and there is no tutorial or training mode. Crysis 2 sets you as a Force Recon Marine, a soldier renown for their fierce dedication and boldness but rarely using the latest technology (as of 2012 they still use the century-old M1911 pistol) who has the nano-suit and mission forced upon them with the suit's self-training mode active it's plausible for the player to have the operation of the suit explained to them.
Also, it's a lot more compelling setting it in a major cultural hub like New York City rather than a sparsely inhabited island.
I never finished crysis, compounded by how my PC's drive died and I lost my old saves and had to start again, now I wish I'd never picked up Crysis 2 as I don't think I'll be able to bear returning to Crysis 1. Unless mods or patches introduced Crysis 2 type control scheme to PC. Otherwise it's the PC version
Well, what can anyone expect for $20 game on a system you can buy for $200?Hammeroj said:I don't know why people say it. My hunch is that they, frankly, haven't played it, and go with the assumption that the only reason people ever liked it is the graphics. The graphics were fine as hell, that's true, but seriously, the nanosuit? One of the best and most unique FPS mechanics I've ever seen. To overlook it is simply disingenuous.
You could say that. Although toned down is really too light an expression to use.Dandark said:
I haven't seen the actual gameplay of it, but if Crysis 2 is any indication at all, I wouldn't expect much.
I have no problem with this AS LONG AS EVERYONE KNOWS THE DEAL! If console gamers think they are getting the same deal as Crysis 1 on PC then that is a con, but I think console gamers can accept the forest being cut down for an opportunity to play the game At-All. Too many are not in a position to game on PC even if price is not the issue, they may just be committed to gaming on one system like Xbox 360.
Though I think a fairer deal would be to offer a "basic mode" on PC which strips out the lush forest of Crysis 1 to have it run on lower-spec PCs as it's not really fair to have the situation of "Can't play on my PC, yet can play on my 360" as if 360 is more powerful. Though I'm not sure about the economics of bringing this update to PC where it'll have to be a free patch, can it boost sales to people with low-spec PCs?
I enjoyed Crysis (1) because it was well put together; had a solid if unremarkable story; some satisfying weapons; decent enemies; and looked very pretty.
I feel the truth of the matter is that any FPS that is not made by Valve is assumed (sadly, consistently correctly) to be generic and mindless - typically featuring copy/paste Modern Warfare gameplay and usually one gimmick.
I feel the truth of the matter is that any FPS that is not made by Valve is assumed (sadly, consistently correctly) to be generic and mindless - typically featuring copy/paste Modern Warfare gameplay and usually one gimmick.
At first I was going to call bullshit on you as playign Crysis 2 on both console and PC I didn't think that could possibly be true but to my utter surprise I found it is:Waaghpowa said:
http://www.vgchartz.com/gamedb/?name=crysis&publisher=&platform=&genre=&minSales=0&results=200
only 2 million on PS3 and 360 with further 0.5 million on PC (likely underestimate)
against 3 million sales overall of Crysis 1:
http://www.zuse.hessen.de/mm/Konrad_Zuse_Kongress_Yerli_Final.pdf
My response:
I couldn't believe it, it defies every expectation. Crysis 2 was SOOO much better than it's prequel (overall, though the loss of jungle lushness) and the whole gang was invited from PlayStation to Xbox and with little compromise on PC and plenty of extras (albeit delayed features).
You know what I think screwed this game: the ill will of PC gamers. I think PC gamers are much more plugged in and interconnected in this industry, when you piss them off they can crush a game's reputation. And Crytech did a lot to attract the ill will of PC gamers with it's careless comments.
I think if they had advertised Crysis 2 as very much a "PC Game" then it would have been hyped and anticipated then late in the the hype cycle it would be announced "Consoles will later be getting a port" that will please console gamers as finally getting what PC gamers brag about but PC gamers are happy they are getting the best as they certainly put in the time and money expecting the best.
As it is, Crysis 2 on PC seems to have the reputation as a compromised games, like COD before it, a sell out to consoles with PC version just getting a port. And console gamers, well it's a sequel to a game they gave up caring about playing.
A failure of marketing and fanbase interaction. But the game, it's absolutely wonderful, I jsut hope they made enough money for further entries.
PS: interestingly, while Crysis had a talking protagonist, Crysis 2 goes for the Half Life 2 style implausibly-mute protagonist.
I'm a half-fan of the Crytec guys and that's pretty much what's wrong with all of their games from Far Cry to Crysis 2). Unimaginative story, characters, situations, and enemies... but underneath the meh is a very open and smart shooter that allows lots of different approaches and tactics.Zhukov said:
I was blown away by the graphics and gameplay of Far Cry, but have yet to be able to get more than about five levels into Crysis. You're in a beautiful jungle fighting soldiers... and you know halfway through the game aliens/mutants show up and it somehow manages to become less interesting than fighting humans.
The problem is the genre has been heavily mined since the early 90s. It's incredibly difficult to do anything particularly innovative in the genre because it's all been done before. The gravity gun from HL2 was probably the last time someone came up with a truly fun and innovative weapon type (not counting the Portal gun). HL Episode 1 & 2 certainly didn't bring anything new to the table, being pretty much a carbon-copy of HL2 with a couple of "new" enemy types.illas said:
For me, it's gotten down to presentation. Only games that have a narrative that truly suck me in stand out these days. Crysis 2 was cool on a lot of levels, but the story was just kind of there. The entire time I was playing it, I was wishing it had a story worthy of the levels.
I wouldn't say it was substandard, but it was VERY mediocre in at least half a dozen ways I can think of.
Let me get an off the top of head list of things that annoyed me about crysis 1:
1. The damage drop off for anything that wasn't a headshot.
2. The fact that everybody appeared to be made out of wood, on a game that touts itself on its graphics was frustrating.
3. The enemy AI being dumber than a sack of potatoes, at one point I hid outside a base and sniped two turrets with the basic rifle with a scope and killed 20-30 guys who all attempted to swarm into the turret seat to replace the previous gunner who lost his head.
4. The enemy also having ridiculous accuracy and x-ray vision through certain types of plant material to compensate for their moronic AI.
5. The occasional excessive amounts of travelling through nothingness.
6. The severe lack of weapon variety in general and for everything that wasn't a shotgun/korean rifle having no ammo until the last tiny fraction of the game.
7. The fact that stealth was obscenely overpowered and made outsmarting potato men even easier. I have a tactic in the crysis series known as "ninja shotgun", it involves walking up to a man and blowing his face off at point blank range for the split second you drop out of stealth. This tactic also works with other weapons.
8. The vehicle sections.
I really liked the game, and I wouldn't say it was generic in a lot of ways, but I would say it was flawed and that the storyline wasn't exactly innovative.
Let me get an off the top of head list of things that annoyed me about crysis 1:
1. The damage drop off for anything that wasn't a headshot.
2. The fact that everybody appeared to be made out of wood, on a game that touts itself on its graphics was frustrating.
3. The enemy AI being dumber than a sack of potatoes, at one point I hid outside a base and sniped two turrets with the basic rifle with a scope and killed 20-30 guys who all attempted to swarm into the turret seat to replace the previous gunner who lost his head.
4. The enemy also having ridiculous accuracy and x-ray vision through certain types of plant material to compensate for their moronic AI.
5. The occasional excessive amounts of travelling through nothingness.
6. The severe lack of weapon variety in general and for everything that wasn't a shotgun/korean rifle having no ammo until the last tiny fraction of the game.
7. The fact that stealth was obscenely overpowered and made outsmarting potato men even easier. I have a tactic in the crysis series known as "ninja shotgun", it involves walking up to a man and blowing his face off at point blank range for the split second you drop out of stealth. This tactic also works with other weapons.
8. The vehicle sections.
I really liked the game, and I wouldn't say it was generic in a lot of ways, but I would say it was flawed and that the storyline wasn't exactly innovative.
Crysis has the nanosuit.Netrigan said:
That's just as much of an innovation as the gravity gun.
In practice, they're pretty much the same as the Jedi Powers in Dark Forces 2... granted, the gravity gun isn't far off of Force Throw. Innovation in shooters is super tough. HL2 is probably better remembered for its narrative technique than anything else.endtherapture said:
I'd say it is because the game is simply generic. That isn't to say that generic is bad. That the game looks good is expected - the FPS genre on the PC is traditionally a technological marvel if nothing else. The game isn't open by any stretch - you just have a little more width in the corridors so they aren't quite so obviously corridors. The weapon modification system is something that has long existed before and since. There are no new ideas in Crysis. What there are is a bunch of old ideas well executed upon.
It is generic, certainly. But, then most games are largely generic. Only a relative few execute the tropes of their genre's with excellence and Crysis counts among those ranks.
It is generic, certainly. But, then most games are largely generic. Only a relative few execute the tropes of their genre's with excellence and Crysis counts among those ranks.
Lots of people complain about the stealth in CryTech games, but to me they're the closest to right I've seen. People are so used to fake stealth mechanics that they don't realize that moving through bushes is anything but stealthy. Snipers have to inch along to prevent exposing their position because moving grass/bushes is very easy to spot.Cavan said:
What I loved about Far Cry was it provided easy to follow roads to your objective and punished you if you were dumb enough to use it. Of course you're going to get sniped if you come at a base fully exposed... that's what snipers are there for.
CryTech games are stealthy right up to the moment they're not. Letting you pick that moment is the brillance of their combat system.
I've only played the first Crysis game (PC, I could run it on High settings, but not maximum) but I still found it to be worth the time I spent on it (well under 30 hours). The main draw for me was that I had a certain amount of freedom in tackling mission objectives that I didn't find with other FPS's at the time. And to be honest, I always had fun messing around with the Nanosuit abilities, too.
The thing I remember best from Crysis (aside from running out of tank ammo) is the night level. Making a daring escape over a waterfall in a speedboat, a running helicopter battle that ended with me seeking refuge under a bridge, taking the chopper out with a missile barrage, and having it crash down and skid to a halt literally inches from my face.
It felt like a staged action scene. I'm still not entirely sure it wasn't. But I'll give it the benefit of the doubt and say, this is why Crysis is good; because things like that happen in everyday play, not in cutscenes or quicktime events.
It felt like a staged action scene. I'm still not entirely sure it wasn't. But I'll give it the benefit of the doubt and say, this is why Crysis is good; because things like that happen in everyday play, not in cutscenes or quicktime events.
You know what was not fun? that GOD DAMN CHOPPER! And the annoying bullet sponge enemies. I frankly couldn't do half of that fun shit without constantly having to run away and hide, why were they so mealy with with suit energy?Waaghpowa said:
Maybe not chicken bowling, but substituted with:
-Car bowling
-grabbing heavy machine gun and going rambo
-stealth sneaking up to guard and super-punting them without having to break cloak
-having enough suit-energy and convenient controls to actually do all this fun shit