Recommended Posts

Yes that's true but too often these days I see comments like "That looks crap" or "That's not impressive at all" ... when it IS impressive. It isn't crap. It's actually amazingly well drawn. People are just so extreme with their comments. Perhaps a better way of saying something's not to your liking is "Well, it's really good quality but I've seen better". That'd be fair.

Or perhaps we just expect a certain level of quality to justify the high price we pay for games? Game studios aren't doing us a favour, they are selling games as commercial products. You wouldn't accept a shower with a faulty pipe weld or a car with a faulty fuel filter so why should a gamer accept a shoddily designed game?

Or perhaps we just expect a certain level of quality to justify the high price we pay for games? Game studios aren't doing us a favour, they are selling games as commercial products. You wouldn't accept a shower with a faulty pipe weld or a car with a faulty fuel filter so why should a gamer accept a shoddily designed game?

That's a ridiculous thing to say and seems to highlight exactly what Spirit Dave is talking about: Just because the graphics don't blow your mind does not mean the game is faulty.

That's a ridiculous thing to say and seems to highlight exactly what Spirit Dave is talking about: Just because the graphics don't blow your mind does not mean the game is faulty.

I don't think Javik is talking about graphics. You should go back a page to see him mention how the Crysis games have a poor story line and the game play can be frustrating.

That's a ridiculous thing to say and seems to highlight exactly what Spirit Dave is talking about: Just because the graphics don't blow your mind does not mean the game is faulty.

Well, if we're talking faulty graphics... Crysis 2 had some issues in that department. For starters and this one is fairly big and obvious *and* was never fixed during the entire lifetime of the games multiplayer was that the entire ground/dirt texture in every single multiplayer map was black. And then there was the incredibly poor texture models pre high res texture pack.

So yeah.. track record is actually established for faulty graphics. Now you might have a fair point in saying that Crysis 3 is a completely different game. But the counter to that is that it's still made by Crytek, which as I said have already established that they are not so great at QA.

As long as it's released on Steam I'll consider it. There was a load of fuss with Crysis 2 on Steam and EA has withdrawn most of its newer titles, so it's far from certain yet. I refuse to buy any EA game that isn't available on Steam because I won't support their boycott of a rival service (and I like to keep my games in one place).

Well Crysis for one. heck even the Modern Warfare games, which do tell the story in an excellent way with their cinematography. But personally I find Raven shield and it's earlier RB6 and the original Ghost recon to be best. Even though they may focus more on the gameplay than the story.

You hold Modern Warfare games at a higher stance than Half-Life 2? I respect peoples opinions, but did happen to indulge in a small amount of paint chips as a kid?

You hold Modern Warfare games at a higher stance than Half-Life 2?

There really is no accounting for taste. Crysis was a decent sandbox shooter but it was pretty poor as a game and had a very generic and poorly delivered narrative. Crysis 2 was a lot more focused - both in terms of narrative and gameplay - but it wasn't exceptional and felt a bit more constricted. The Modern Warfare games are simply terrible when talking about the single-player - the gameplay mechanics are shallow and break immersion, the graphics are terrible, the narratives are ludicrous and have no emotional depth and they're incredibly short. Neither franchise compares to the standards set by the Half-Life franchise, which defined the standards for narrative, pacing, gameplay, graphics and immersion. The best game recently in terms of narrative and gameplay was Deus Ex: Human Revolution.

I think that the Crysis and Far Cry franchises have come the closest to rivalling the Half-Life series and both upcoming games - Crysis 3 and Far Cry 3 - look promising, especially the latter as it seems to have a strong focus on narrative and characters. I just wish that Valve would hurry up and produce another innovative singleplayer title.

  • Like 1

There really is no accounting for taste. Crysis was a decent sandbox shooter but it was pretty poor as a game and had a very generic and poorly delivered narrative. Crysis 2 was a lot more focused - both in terms of narrative and gameplay - but it wasn't exceptional and felt a bit more constricted. The Modern Warfare games are simply terrible when talking about the single-player - the gameplay mechanics are shallow and break immersion, the graphics are terrible, the narratives are ludicrous and have no emotional depth and they're incredibly short. Neither franchise compares to the standards set by the Half-Life franchise, which defined the standards for narrative, pacing, gameplay, graphics and immersion. The best game recently in terms of narrative and gameplay was Deus Ex: Human Revolution.

I think that the Crysis and Far Cry franchises have come the closest to rivalling the Half-Life series and both upcoming games - Crysis 3 and Far Cry 3 - look promising, especially the latter as it seems to have a strong focus on narrative and characters. I just wish that Valve would hurry up and produce another innovative singleplayer title.

I wish Valve would back to quality titles and get off the DLC wagon, They promised a continuation in the Half-Life series then shafted us when L4D , Portal and TF2, became more popular. I fear if they do come out with something Half-Life related it will be on the same level of hype that Duke Nukem Forever brought to us when it finally came out, Disappointment.

That was off topic but I feel it needed to be said.

I wish Valve would back to quality titles and get off the DLC wagon, They promised a continuation in the Half-Life series then shafted us when L4D , Portal and TF2, became more popular. I fear if they do come out with something Half-Life related it will be on the same level of hype that Duke Nukem Forever brought to us when it finally came out, Disappointment.

I wouldn't say they "shafted us" - as L4D, Portal and TF2 are great games in their own right - but they have certainly done a very poor job of keeping the community informed and it is clear that their priorities are very different to those of their fans. For example, Dota 2 looks great but I'd rather have Half-Life 3 any day and I'd pay decent money for it.

  • Like 1

I wouldn't say they "shafted us" - as L4D, Portal and TF2 are great games in their own right - but they have certainly done a very poor job of keeping the community informed and it is clear that their priorities are very different to those of their fans. For example, Dota 2 looks great but I'd rather have Half-Life 3 any day and I'd pay decent money for it.

Agreed, I'm still holding out for Black Mesa Source.

If those shots are 100% true, you'd better start saving for dual sli 680gtx's, extra memory and the latest overclocked cpu's, otherwise it's gonna run like ass, or nothing remotely like those screens as a result of turning down graphic settings to get the damn thing to work.

No kidding! Then again, Crysis is a benchmark game so you never know...

There really is no accounting for taste. Crysis was a decent sandbox shooter but it was pretty poor as a game and had a very generic and poorly delivered narrative. Crysis 2 was a lot more focused - both in terms of narrative and gameplay - but it wasn't exceptional and felt a bit more constricted. The Modern Warfare games are simply terrible when talking about the single-player - the gameplay mechanics are shallow and break immersion, the graphics are terrible, the narratives are ludicrous and have no emotional depth and they're incredibly short. Neither franchise compares to the standards set by the Half-Life franchise, which defined the standards for narrative, pacing, gameplay, graphics and immersion. The best game recently in terms of narrative and gameplay was Deus Ex: Human Revolution.

I think that the Crysis and Far Cry franchises have come the closest to rivalling the Half-Life series and both upcoming games - Crysis 3 and Far Cry 3 - look promising, especially the latter as it seems to have a strong focus on narrative and characters. I just wish that Valve would hurry up and produce another innovative singleplayer title.

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.

Back on topic though, I still can't see how anyone can be imprssed by these shots. Unless of course, they're console-only gamers. Then maybe it starts to make sense.

People who think those pictures where enhanced also think to know so much about graphics programming that they know it it's impossible to do in real time. I know the basics and I know it can be easily done with today's tech. If you can apply some fancy photoshop work to enhance an image, why can't you do it in realtime? The thing is you can. Whether or not it's true for these screenshots remains open for debate but the tech is there. Also, some of the effects we see seem to be part of a reflection or dirt/water in the player's helmet.

And Half-Life is still one of the best shooters series of our time, anyone who disagrees with that is not a real gamer :p

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.

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.

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.

It's not blind worship at all. I wouldn't call HL2 the "holy grail of gaming", but it still does alot right that a majority of games still just don't do.

Back on topic though, I still can't see how anyone can be imprssed by these shots. Unless of course, they're console-only gamers. Then maybe it starts to make sense.

Perhaps someone might find them impressive if they weren't solely concerned with technical fidelity.

I don't think Javik is talking about graphics. You should go back a page to see him mention how the Crysis games have a poor story line and the game play can be frustrating.

That's precisely what I meant. It's about overall quality, not lacking in one specific area. Graphically Crysis (the only one from the series I actually played) was pretty impressive, it was the gameplay I thought was lacking. And that's the point I was trying to make, gamers shouldn't have to accept games that are poor overall.

Then of course, when a title like Crysis comes out and it's overriding feature is the graphics - and it has really horrible textures in some parts and anomalies in others, games should ask "well what's the point of this game then?".

Because Crysis 1 had some really crappy textures in places and the gameplay was pretty poor too.

Also, what other games use the Crytek engine?

Then of course, when a title like Crysis comes out and it's overriding feature is the graphics - and it has really horrible textures in some parts and anomalies in others, games should ask "well what's the point of this game then?".

Because Crysis 1 had some really crappy textures in places and the gameplay was pretty poor too.

Also, what other games use the Crytek engine?

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.

CrEngine is licensed by millitary forces.

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.

CrEngine is licensed by millitary forces.

Not true, it's just poor. Well maybe poor is harsh - mediocre at best.

  • Like 1

Not true, it's just poor. Well maybe poor is harsh - mediocre at best.

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. Then you have to be more selective and use the powers strategically. I have played through Crysis 1 maybe 8 times on delta, using different tactics on all.Seriously one of the most flexible fps games ever. No terrible scripting and such.

After Crysis most fps games became boring. Too bad Crysis 2 ruined everything with the "consoleitis" crap.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • And the fact that the majority of people from Poland are white European Christians while the people you are complaining about in post after post are not is just a coincidence... Every sentence in your post I am replying to is racist nonsense. None of it is actually based on any facts whatsoever. All immigrants are seeking a better life too. It's literally the only reason they would risk everything and leave their homes, families, and homeland. They are working and contributing to the economy too, as you even admit. They get the same benefits your partner did AND that YOU are eligible for as well. That is one of the key things of the EU and a mark of a civilization. That is the definition of a society where everyone is given a chance, treated equally and fairly, and is judged by the content of their character, not their different skin color or which version of ignorant superstitious nonsense their parents lied about as children. Racists around the world said the same things about the Irish and Jews and Poles (like your partner) and...every other immigrant movement over the centuries. What's your family's heritage, by the way? Were your ancestors lied about with racist fearmongering crapola by self-entitled locals the same way as you are now? If someone like that said the same things about all people from Poland, like your partner, would they be right? Or would you want them to judge your partner based on who they actually were, not where they just happened to come from?
    • Again, this is an irrelevant attempt to attack the messenger. The truth does not require any justification.
    • Removed the blue and underline as you did not post a link. This would also  be considered spamming.
    • Why it's almost impossible to produce a smartphone in the United States by Hamid Ganji If you look at the back of some Apple products, you can see the famous phrase “Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in China.” This phrase appears on products from one of the largest smartphone brands in the United States. These products are designed in the U.S., but their manufacturing takes place in China, India, Vietnam, or even Brazil. But why can’t Apple, as one of the largest American tech companies, produce its iPhones on U.S. soil? The idea for this topic came to me after the Trump Foundation launched a smartphone called the T1 and claimed that it was designed and built with American values in mind. However, this claim did not last long, as it was revealed that Trump’s phone was actually a rebranded HTC U24 Pro, with only a gold case and minor internal component changes. You see? Even a phone that is supposed to represent American values is manufactured in China. With a gross domestic product (GDP) exceeding $32 trillion, the United States is currently the world’s largest economy, while China ranks second with around $20 trillion. On the other hand, the United States is by a wide margin the global leader in various technological fields, and American companies spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually on research and development. From Apple and Google to Microsoft, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and others, American tech and industrial giants lead their foreign competitors in many sectors. The United States also has no shortage of smartphone brands. Apple, Google, and Motorola are among the major brands in the smartphone market, collectively holding a significant share. However, the vast majority of their products are manufactured outside the United States. So why is it that the world’s largest economy, home to the most advanced technology companies and industrial powers, cannot produce a smartphone on its own soil? Let’s explore this question together. Even threats to impose tariffs won’t work After Trump entered the White House as the 47th President of the United States, his administration adopted strict tariff policies. One of these policies was the imposition of a 25% tariff on smartphones manufactured outside the United States. Trump said he “had a little problem” with Apple CEO Tim Cook over producing smartphones outside the U.S. So he thought that threatening a 25% tax on imported phones might force Apple to bring manufacturing back to the United States. “I have long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhones that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. Image via The White House Although Apple currently manufactures some of the iPhone’s chips in the United States with TSMC's help, it still shows no willingness to shift full iPhone production to the country. At the time, renowned Apple supply chain analyst Ming-Chi Kuo wrote on X, “In terms of profitability, it’s way better for Apple to take the hit of a 25% tariff on iPhones sold in the US market than to move iPhone assembly lines back to the US.” However, manufacturing a smartphone in the United States is not as easy as it might seem, and many technical and economic barriers are involved. The lack of necessary manufacturing hubs There is a clear reason why many companies prefer to manufacture their products in China. China has established itself as the main global manufacturing hub for international companies, and over the past few decades, large contract manufacturers have emerged there, allowing companies like Apple to outsource production. One such example is Foxconn, which also manufactures some Apple products in India. Building the infrastructure required to produce smartphones in the United States would require tens of billions of dollars in new investment. Factories would need to be built, essential manufacturing equipment would have to be installed, and, most importantly, a skilled workforce capable of operating these systems would need to be recruited and trained. The United States currently lacks the core infrastructure needed to manufacture smartphones, and for this reason, many companies prefer to outsource production to Chinese contractors rather than spend tens of billions of dollars to build that infrastructure, which is significantly more economically efficient. Additionally, building such infrastructure in the United States could take up to a decade, ultimately leading to a significant increase in the product's final price for consumers. Shortage of trained labor in the U.S. compared to China Decades of serving as a global manufacturing hub have allowed China to build a massive talent pool in the production sector that is almost unmatched worldwide. Today, if a company chooses to manufacture its products in China, it can be confident that the workers involved in production have years of experience in their respective roles and are capable of producing high-quality goods with minimal errors. Even if we assume that tens of billions of dollars were invested in building smartphone manufacturing infrastructure in the United States, finding skilled workers would remain highly challenging. Apple CEO Tim Cook visiting the iPhone 6 assembly line in China in 2014. Image: Tim Cook on X In a 2015 interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes, Tim Cook said the main reason Apple isn’t producing in the US is a lack of skills. "China put an enormous focus on manufacturing, in what you and I would call vocational kind of skills. The US over time began to stop having as many vocational kinds of skills. I mean you could take every tool and die maker in the United States and probably put them in the room that we're currently sitting in. In China you would have to have multiple football fields,” Cook said. Also, in 2017, at the Fortune Global Forum in Guangzhou, Cook once again emphasized the importance of highly skilled Chinese workers. “China has moved into very advanced manufacturing, so you find in China the intersection of craftsman kind of skill, and sophisticated robotics and the computer science world. That intersection, which is very rare to find anywhere, that kind of skill, is very important to our business because of the precision and quality level that we like. The thing that most people focus on if they’re a foreigner coming to China is the size of the market, and obviously, it’s the biggest market in the world in so many areas. But for us, the number one attraction is the quality of the people,” Apple CEO said. Higher labor costs in the United States Producing almost any product in the United States is more expensive than in many other countries, and one of the main reasons is the higher cost of labor in the U.S. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, median weekly earnings of full-time workers in the United States were $1,235 in the first quarter of 2026. Meanwhile, the average annual salary in China's private sector in 2025 was RMB 71,590 (US$9,961). In many parts of the world, the weekly wage of an American worker is equivalent to several months of income. Another important factor to consider is that in the United States, the workforce capable of working on a smartphone assembly line is highly specialized and therefore commands higher-than-average wages. According to an estimate by Bank of America, producing an iPhone in the U.S. is technically possible, but “iPhone cost can increase 25% purely on higher labor cost in the U.S.” However, this 25% increase applies only if final assembly is performed in the United States while components are still sourced from China or elsewhere. In this case, the price of a base iPhone would rise from $799 to around $1,000. But in another scenario, if Apple were to produce the required components for the iPhone within the United States, production costs could increase by more than 90%. Trump’s dream for a “Made in the USA” iPhone might never come true In a free-market capitalist economy, one of the primary responsibilities of any CEO is to maximize profit. Using Apple as an example, Tim Cook’s role is to maximize the company’s profits so that it can fund research and development for new products and invest in areas such as artificial intelligence, while also keeping shareholders satisfied. Therefore, it is entirely understandable that Apple would choose not to bring its manufacturing back to the United States and instead keep production in countries where labor is cheaper, and products can be manufactured at a lower cost, thereby maximizing its profit margins. What is your opinion about manufacturing smartphones in the United States? If you are an American citizen, would you be willing to pay hundreds of dollars more for a smartphone made domestically in the USA? Let us know in the comments.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      jessse3334 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Reacting Well
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • One Month Later
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      506
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      196
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      153
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      72
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      65
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!