84 replies to this topic 2 votes

[theyarecomingforyou]

Blackhearted, on 27 July 2012 - 16:49, said:

Ugh, it's this blind worshiping of the HL series as some kind of holy grail of gaming when it's not and doesn't deserve it that really bugs me. The series may not be terrible but to act as it's some kind of pillar of gaming is kinda laughable.

They were incredibly innovative games and had unmatched storytelling and gameplay for their time. They were highly praised by both critics and gamers alike and pushed the genre forwards. The same just isn't true of games like Call Of Duty, RAGE or Crysis, which have their merits but failed to go the extra mile needed to become classics. Far Cry did a great job technologically but had a pretty poor narrative. Battlefield 3 had exceptional graphics but the singleplayer game was on-rails and had a clichéd narrative. The only games that have truly competed with the Half-Life franchise over the years - narratively, technologically and gameplay wise - are Deus Ex: Human Revolution and Bioshock. That's just in terms of singleplayer games though. Multiplayer is an entirely different affair, with classics like Unreal Tournament, Quake 3, Borderlands, etc.

x-byte, on 28 July 2012 - 21:16, said:

When saying that I must ask what difficulty you played it on. The game should only be played on Delta (the hardest). That is where the game really shines.

Let's not go down this tired excuse of defending games. Most people are going to play on normal difficultly - hence why it's called "normal". More importantly, people should play a difficultly that reflects their gaming ability - if you think a novice gamer is going to enjoy Delta difficulty in Crysis then you're delusional.

x-byte, on 28 July 2012 - 14:52, said:

If you say the gameplay of Crysis 1 is poor, you have not played the game properly. The gameplay is what sets it apart from other fps games.

Gameplay is only one aspect of a singleplayer game. It has to be combined with enjoyability, storytelling, pacing, interactivity, etc. Some parts were well done but it certainly wasn't even close to the quality of Half-Life / Half-Life 2.

[FlintyV]

theyarecomingforyou, on 28 July 2012 - 21:41, said:

They were incredibly innovative games and had unmatched storytelling and gameplay for their time. They were highly praised by both critics and gamers alike and pushed the genre forwards. The same just isn't true of games like Call Of Duty, RAGE or Crysis, which have their merits but failed to go the extra mile needed to become classics. Far Cry did a great job technologically but had a pretty poor narrative. Battlefield 3 had exceptional graphics but the singleplayer game was on-rails and had a clichéd narrative. The only games that have truly competed with the Half-Life franchise over the years - narratively, technologically and gameplay wise - are Deus Ex: Human Revolution and Bioshock. That's just in terms of singleplayer games though. Multiplayer is an entirely different affair, with classics like Unreal Tournament, Quake 3, Borderlands, etc.



Let's not go down this tired excuse of defending games. Most people are going to play on normal difficultly - hence why it's called "normal". More importantly, people should play a difficultly that reflects their gaming ability - if you think a novice gamer is going to enjoy Delta difficulty in Crysis then you're delusional.



Gameplay is only one aspect of a singleplayer game. It has to be combined with enjoyability, storytelling, pacing, interactivity, etc. Some parts were well done but it certainly wasn't even close to the quality of Half-Life / Half-Life 2.

I really think that Call of Duty 1-4 should be on that classic list. Its take on telling multiple narratives from different points of view and a handful of different characters was truly unique.

[myxomatosis]

I've never seen water in real life that looked like the water on the 3rd picture

[sanctified]

Did I read right? Is there people who think that MW2 is better than the masterpiece known as Half-Life 2?

[trag3dy]

sanctified, on 29 July 2012 - 01:45, said:

Did I read right? Is there people who think that MW2 is better than the masterpiece known as Half-Life 2?

He said CoD 1-4, which wouldn't include MW2.

[sanctified]

trag3dy, on 29 July 2012 - 01:56, said:

He said CoD 1-4, which wouldn't include MW2.

I know it's an opinion, but even if he was talking about CoD 1-4... that's like saying Transformers is better than Space Oddisey.

[Colin McGregor]

Gonna have to replay Crysis 1 and 2 before this comes out. The story is so dull i forget what happened shortly after playing.

[Alladaskill17]

Lets be honest, they're probably shopped, this type of discussion arises as often as anticipated sequels are announced (remember halo threads specifically as example). Regardless, Crysis will look fantastic and have a boring story and basic shooter elements...imo same as crysis 2. Also, yes the continuity does mean PC users will get visually screwed; however 'HD texture packs' are always possible..wouldn't be the first time..

[FlintyV]

I've always seen the Crysis games as graphically phenomenal and I loved the apocalypse/pandemonium atmosphere of Crysis 2.

[HawkMan]

x-byte, on 28 July 2012 - 09:05, said:

please look into the HL series before making a comment like that.

HL is with no doubt what started the modern fps genre. it introduced story based fps like no one had before. Also the first game to use sceleton animation. In addition it established the WASD keys as a standard in fps games.

HL2 also have some brilliant tech, but is not as revolutionary as the original. Despite that they are brilliant in terms of story telling and game design.

Umm, no WASD was used as standard before HL. I also find no evidence that HL was first to use skeletal animation or rag dolls.