Crysis Trilogy Remastered: The Better Far Cry
- Thread starter BrawlMan
- Start date
Wasn't Crysis more of a linear shooter with slightly open levels that allowed a limited level of freedom in combat approaches?
I only vaguely remember playing Crysis 2 and I remember that none of the powers actually worked correctly and the difficulty was broken.
I only vaguely remember playing Crysis 2 and I remember that none of the powers actually worked correctly and the difficulty was broken.
Crysis makes Dishonored look like an open world
The approach to combat thing I felt was imbalanced in 2 and was much better in 1. It pushed you to engage with enemies rather than letting you go at your speed
The first game is a semi-open ended, but is linear overall. Crysis 1 is basically the spiritual successor to Far Cry 1 and FC: Instincts. Crysis 2 is more linear, but more open levels, and Crysis 3 is still linear, but has more open elements from the first game.
I never had the problem with the powers not working properly. Maybe you ran in to a game breaking bug? 2 and 3 are not perfect, but they're good games. They've aged better than a lot of cinematic shooters from 7th generation.
Last edited:
I distinctly remember the stealth power not working at all, and also remember that the bulletproof power would make you take more damage.
Though probably fix in the remasters.
I never played 1 or 3 so this might be worth a pick up if it's cheap enough.
I never that had that happen either. For reference, I played 360 version. I never got in too much research with the PS3 and PC versions, but last I remember, they worked fine.
I installed all of the Crysis games and started with numero uno. It's exciting playing this game for the first time. Just from playing, you can see what Crytek was going for, and making a game that's spiritual successor to the og Far Cry. You're on an island where everyone wants you and your mates dead. You are Nomad, and your Alpha team, are sent to rescue hostages on the Korean islands. Though it's obvious you're not there just for a rescue.
The controls in the game work, but driving can be wonky at times. You have 3 power sets for your power armor: Maximum Strength, Speed, and Cloak. You don't get any upgrades and are stuck with what you got for the rest of the game, unlike the sequels. You can carry two assault weapons (most you can attach silencers or various scopes), dual wield pistols, carry two grenade types, and one missile launcher. Enemies kill you in a couple of hits, if not careful, even on the standard difficulty. The AI is good most of the time, but they suffer from that era where they see you when they shouldn't and sometimes everyone knows where you are even though it was only the one guy. Some times the AI can be dumb or you can dupe them depending on the area or terrain.
I do love how secondary objectives can help you with primary objectives once you get the proper info from a laptop terminal. It gives the player a challenge and rewards them for risking an alternative objective. So far I've got about 3 and a half hours in and getting the hang of it. I know late game is hated by a lot of people, because the Seph are boring in this game. I'll let you know when I get to that point.
I still stand by what I said about these games, but more so the first, are the better FC games. The original Far Cry and its console spin-off, Instincts, are open ended linear games and not big open sandboxes. Crysis and Far Cry have their flaws, but they have game design that is valid or useful (though FC really has not aged well in certain areas). I will give credit for Far Cry 2 (its own undoing) and Far Cry 3 for mixing it up, but after they're literally the same games, but in just some other country. Or a different flavor of an eccentric and "charismatic" villain. That is all for now and good night.
The controls in the game work, but driving can be wonky at times. You have 3 power sets for your power armor: Maximum Strength, Speed, and Cloak. You don't get any upgrades and are stuck with what you got for the rest of the game, unlike the sequels. You can carry two assault weapons (most you can attach silencers or various scopes), dual wield pistols, carry two grenade types, and one missile launcher. Enemies kill you in a couple of hits, if not careful, even on the standard difficulty. The AI is good most of the time, but they suffer from that era where they see you when they shouldn't and sometimes everyone knows where you are even though it was only the one guy. Some times the AI can be dumb or you can dupe them depending on the area or terrain.
I do love how secondary objectives can help you with primary objectives once you get the proper info from a laptop terminal. It gives the player a challenge and rewards them for risking an alternative objective. So far I've got about 3 and a half hours in and getting the hang of it. I know late game is hated by a lot of people, because the Seph are boring in this game. I'll let you know when I get to that point.
I still stand by what I said about these games, but more so the first, are the better FC games. The original Far Cry and its console spin-off, Instincts, are open ended linear games and not big open sandboxes. Crysis and Far Cry have their flaws, but they have game design that is valid or useful (though FC really has not aged well in certain areas). I will give credit for Far Cry 2 (its own undoing) and Far Cry 3 for mixing it up, but after they're literally the same games, but in just some other country. Or a different flavor of an eccentric and "charismatic" villain. That is all for now and good night.
Last edited:
- Feb 7, 2011
- 8,661
- 3,230
- 118
- Country
- 'Merica
- Gender
- 3 children in a trench coat
"Can it run Crysis?" still being a legitimate question was not something I expected out of today.
- Feb 7, 2011
- 8,661
- 3,230
- 118
- Country
- 'Merica
- Gender
- 3 children in a trench coat
Crysis was made for a theoretical CPU that never came out. People thought that CPU clock speeds were going to get faster and faster and we'd be at 10ghz by now. Instead clock speeds mostly stayed the same and CPUs improved by having more cores and more threads. Unfortunately Crysis wasn't built for more cores and more threads, it was built for raw speed in a single core. Since there hasn't been a whole lot of improvement in that department and the remake doesn't fix that issue it's still a significant bottleneck to the framerate.
So these remasters did nothing to fix anything? Sounds like that make this an easy skip for me then.
You would have to rewrite the entirety of the game's code from the ground up to fix the problem. That's a... ahem... far cry from simply updating it to take advantage of modern bells and/or whistles.
All the games seem to be running fine as far as I've seen so far. Take a look at ACG'S review. Crysis 2 and 3 especially shouldn't be having any problems. I've been mainly playing one on base ps4, and it's been running good. I do know on base consoles all the games run at a rock solid 30 frames per second, if you have a PS4 pro, Xbox 1X, or new gen consoles, everything's runs right at a solid 60 frames per second.
This applies to the first game, but it did need a couple of patches for it to function properly on all consoles. The 1.03 patch makes everything run better.
Last edited:
Mainly just the original and Warhead were what I’d consider suitably comparable, as the sequels ended up being way more in line with the typical linear and scripted cinematic shooters of 7th gen.
An oldie but goodie-
…does a better job of demonstrating the open ended sandbox gameplay than this one -
Last edited:
I do like how someone in the comments corrected the guy in the 2nd video:
Other than that mistake, the man did a fine job. I can see and understand why he prefers FC3 over any of the other Crysis games. I'm the other way around, but everyone is different.
I played the first game(and Warhead) and none of the others. I liked it well enough at the time but never really played it again. It definitely loses something when it reaches the Alien Spaceship. I think I played the original Far Cry not long before.
On a side note, I was annoyed by the Interior of the Aircraft Carrier(and it's name) because of how poorly researched it all felt for that particular bit. Having been in the US Navy and spent Years on a Carrier made me realize how badly they kinda didn't care.
But overall it was entertaining.
On a side note, I was annoyed by the Interior of the Aircraft Carrier(and it's name) because of how poorly researched it all felt for that particular bit. Having been in the US Navy and spent Years on a Carrier made me realize how badly they kinda didn't care.
But overall it was entertaining.
Last edited:
How was it on a carrier? I can't help but think it must have been 90% boredom for most people since day to day probably doesn't involve much beside drill.