Tell me about it; even Extraction Point and Perseus Mandate got ported to XBox 360. Two games on the same disc.
Last edited:
Crysis Trilogy Remastered: The Better Far Cry
- Thread starter BrawlMan
- Start date
Maybe they plan to at a later date so they can focus on the trilogy instead? It’s pretty confusing for them to not do it though.
Oh trust me, Crytek would have done it already, had they planned that. If they do port, odds are Warhead will be its own digital download, or they repackage the Remastered Trilogy with Warhead as a bonus. It would be nice, but I highly doubt they're gonna bother.
I heard Crytek got in trouble for not paying their employees and had to reduce their teams due to financial issues. I’m amazed they were able to last long enough to remaster Crysis.
I did not know about that. Hopefully, they learned from that terrible situation. Before this remaster, the last thing I heard about them was their last game Ryse om XBONE. It did average, and the game was clearly not gonna get a sequel even though it ended on one.
I am happy they were able to get it done and publish it themselves.
Not anymore going by the labels on the front and back cover for the Remastered Trilogy. The EA credits still show up in Crysis 2 & 3. but that's a case of just giving proper credit where it's due. EA gave the full Shadows of the Damned IP back to Suda 51/Grasshopper Studios, so now he owns the game, characters, and its setting. EA saw no use for it, and probably thought the same for the Crysis franchise. This does not surprise me since they're all about always being online and "live-services". EA considers singe-player games dead, outside of one or two exceptions. Greedy bitches.
Last edited:
Credit where it's due: Warhead did an acceptable job of fleshing out Psycho beyond "completely reckless asshole who no actual member of the military would ever want to work with".
They figure BioWare and Respawn Entertainment to be good enough in the single player department.
The actual talent for Bioware left half a decade ago, and Respawn Entertainment are doing great, but I fear for them.
I’ve played the original the most by far, but like how they struck a good balance between the prior games in 3. I still think they could make a penultimate version of Crysis that combines the best of all the games: big sandbox areas with room for tons of approaches and different play styles, but also other locations peppered in that allow for tighter, more action oriented set pieces.
If it were to happen, I would not mind playing.
No kidding! BioWare is a shell of their former selves. Dragon Age Inquisition was a disaster.
I really liked Far Cry. It's linear, but much the world is so big that you have a great deal of options in how to approach many objectives and it doesn't feel so constrained. Crysis was similar but less successful at masking the underlying reality that it was just outdoor rooms linked by outdoor corridors.
Crysis 2 was a huge step down. I think the problem with Crysis 2 is that it was the era when no-one wanted to make PC-only shooters and limit their income anymore. So everything needed to be console compatible, and the consoles of the era couldn't handle the expansive play areas a PC could (see also Deus Ex 2, similarly compromised to inadequacy). So you've got a sniper rifle, but you'll never be engaging anyone at a far enough distance that makes a sniper rifle feel worthwhile. I also resented the "idiot proof" nature of scanning each little area - so you don't explore and have to think, you just whip up a scanner that tells you "solve it this, that way, or this other way". This game was a big, fat pile of mediocrity.
Crysis 3 is like a combination of 1 & 2, thus getting part-way back to the good stuff.
It seems to me CryTek got a great start, they made an engine good enough to keep the Euros rolling in, but just didn't have a really top notch game designer to keep the ball rolling for their own games.
Crysis 2 was a huge step down. I think the problem with Crysis 2 is that it was the era when no-one wanted to make PC-only shooters and limit their income anymore. So everything needed to be console compatible, and the consoles of the era couldn't handle the expansive play areas a PC could (see also Deus Ex 2, similarly compromised to inadequacy). So you've got a sniper rifle, but you'll never be engaging anyone at a far enough distance that makes a sniper rifle feel worthwhile. I also resented the "idiot proof" nature of scanning each little area - so you don't explore and have to think, you just whip up a scanner that tells you "solve it this, that way, or this other way". This game was a big, fat pile of mediocrity.
Crysis 3 is like a combination of 1 & 2, thus getting part-way back to the good stuff.
It seems to me CryTek got a great start, they made an engine good enough to keep the Euros rolling in, but just didn't have a really top notch game designer to keep the ball rolling for their own games.
If you're talking about the original game, linear ain't exactly being a bad thing. That's a problem with the industry today. Just because you have an open world doesn't make it good. If you're open world feels flat, empty, or not that realistic, then what's the point? I'd still play the original Far Cry or Instincts over most of the sequels.
For all the second game's problems, it's still a good game. You are still given options and it's just fun sneaking around and killing things. Or going in guns blazing when you have the right upgrades. The tactical options I usually ignore, and what's great is that you don't have to use them if you don't want to. They're just there to ease new players in or those that are not comfortable with the mechanics yet. It may not be as expansive as a first game, but 2 is way more consistent and has a better final half compared to the first game. Also, I found plenty of places to use the sniper rifle. Not every single encounter, but there were plenty where I used it or became helpful.
It's why I love the third game. It may be shorter than the first two games, but it's not by much. What we got are longer levels and more expansive ways to tackle them. Plus, they brought back secondary objectives.
Last edited:
I've no objection to linear at all. Linear is often better. What I more mean was the expanse. In Far Cry you can snipe people from... a very, very long way away. You can approach objectives from lots of different directions, etc. Crysis 2 is a series of small arenas with single entries and exits, all of which have no sense of scale or majesty. So far so average FPS, except they've got none of the wicked design chops that Valve or iD had. The big thing they did have going for them - the scale and expanse - is gone. So what's left? A mediocre FPS.
I played Far Cry 2 (Ubisoft in-house, obvs), and it was as dull as fucking ditchwater. I didn't even finish the first chapter before I was bored. Shoot through every checkpoint because they all respawn the minute you're through, the stupid vehicle AI, you storm a target and all the guards respawn in about two minutes, the weapons without much feel or character, etc. Junk. It's how I feel about most of the big franchise FPSes (Far Cry, Medal of Honor, Battlefield, etc.). No genius, no spark, no greatness... just a lot of money to produce very slick, boring, averageness. Gave up on all of them many years ago.
Understood.
Yes, it's not as big as Crysis 1's stage design, but there is scale. Even though it's smaller. I would not call mediocre in my opinion. Crysis 2 has done and accomplished more for me than all of the COD campaigns, those that tried copying them sssoooooo hard, and the many Gears clones that came out. Before you start, yes Crytek some things from COD being a more "cinematic shooter", but Crysis 2 still has plenty to stand on its own. Cryisis 2 I do not consider mediocre. As far as FPS trilogies/franchises from goes from the late 2000s to early 2010s, Crysis holds up way better compared to FEAR and many others. I don't need a reminder of what happened with the travesty that was F3AR.
Exactly why I hate FC2. My big bro liked the game at the time, but I don't think he would have the patience for it nowadays. FC2 was an entirely frustrating, tedious, boring experience I never wanted to experience ever again. Whatever flaws Crysis 2 has are nothing compared to FC2. At least with Crysis 2, I was kept engaged with the weapons, powers, pacing, and story. Far Cry 2 had none of it. The only worthwhile note of that game is that the Jackal is the same Jack from Far Cry 1. Otherwise, despite the detailed environments that put the later FC sequels to shame, that game is entirely pointless.
I'll say it again, positives and negatives, the entire Crysis franchise carries the spirit of Far Cry, better than all of the Far Cry sequels and weird spin-offs.
Last edited:
I’ve mentioned it before but I think Far Cry 2 would have faired a lot better if it had remained PC exclusive.
Either Clint knows how to talk a hell of a good game or he’s talking out of his ass, but I like the sound of a lot that was said there. I think more of that vision ould’ve been attained without needing to work within console memory restraints of the time.