Video & PC Game Discussion

^ I only played Gold about ten years ago.

Playing Fallout 3 and enjoying it. Meanwhile I completed Crysis 2 and - I'm glad I don't know Crysis 1, this way, I'm going to enjoy 1 a lot.

Pong, we are all playing pong.  

KoS wrote: Crysis is the Avatar of recent videogames.

What? Recent? Crysis was a 2007 game. That's a time difference akin to that of the last wave of SNES games (1996) to the first wave of Playstation 2 games (2000). Crysis 2 is recent, but it has only moved backward, looking worse and playing like every generic shooter on the f**king planet.

Anyway, been playing me some Amnesia: The Dark Descent. Mmm, frankenzombies.

KoS wrote: It was and is a generic shooter. It looked pretty(like Avatar), is all.

Crysis was never an amazing game in terms of gameplay, no. However, it did offer more open worlds with different approaches depending on your preference (and encouraged you to use the suit to your preferences). Crysis 2 offers you narrow corridors with the occasional blatantly-obvious arena. No, Crysis was never an amazing piece of game design. However, Crysis 2 lost both of the advantages that Crysis had. While Epic is delivering amazing tech demos of the latest updates to the Unreal engine, Crytek, a studio founded on delivering what are remarkably similar to tech demos, is giving us an ultra-generic shooter on the technology of yesteryear.

//EDIT: But perhaps I should directly respond to your analogy. Every generation of games has its generation of graphical achievement. Or did, anyway, prior to this f**king generation of consoles. I don't think the original Crysis was so much of a leap in gaming graphics as Avatar was for the use of CGI in film. Compare to Oblivion, released just a year earlier. Sure, Crysis looked significantly better, but it was still really just incremental change. It wasn't even like Shenmue looked for its generation and hardware.


Edited by Gamemako - April 05 2011 at 00:24

James wrote: I heard Homefront was only about 7 hours in gameplay?  That seems awfully short.

That sounds about normal for an FPS these days. The last two Killzone games were about 8 hours, as are the Resistance games.

Gamemako wrote: KoS wrote: It was and is a generic shooter. It looked pretty(like Avatar), is all. Crysis was never an amazing game in terms of gameplay, no. However, it did offer more open worlds with different approaches depending on your preference (and encouraged you to use the suit to your preferences). Crysis 2 offers you narrow corridors with the occasional blatantly-obvious arena. No, Crysis was never an amazing piece of game design. However, Crysis 2 lost both of the advantages that Crysis had. While Epic is delivering amazing tech demos of the latest updates to the Unreal engine, Crytek, a studio founded on delivering what are remarkably similar to tech demos, is giving us an ultra-generic shooter on the technology of yesteryear. //EDIT: But perhaps I should directly respond to your analogy. Every generation of games has its generation of graphical achievement. Or did, anyway, prior to this f**king generation of consoles. I don't think the original Crysis was so much of a leap in gaming graphics as Avatar was for the use of CGI in film. Compare to Oblivion, released just a year earlier. Sure, Crysis looked significantly better, but it was still really just incremental change. It wasn't even like Shenmue looked for its generation and hardware.

^Well, it IS April, although I will say this:  It seems every FPS is the same anymore.  Some have cool stories or cool physics, etc., but most are just about the same thing.

^And Bioware better not, in any way, screw with Mass Effect 3's core gameplay to attract some FPS junkies!  I'd flip out if that happened!  

MillsLayne wrote: ^And Bioware better not, in any way, screw with Mass Effect 3's core gameplay to attract some FPS junkies!  I'd flip out if that happened!

They already have.

James wrote: Not completely... but yes, I don't like them cross-platforming.  Why they cannot just stick to the PC, I don't know.

Money. It's not just an issue of selling out, it's a matter of being able to fund a better game. You'll only get so much money from a given platform, and releasing it on multiple platforms gives you more revenue and therefore more cash to spend on development, which should bring in more cash. The real trouble is that there's a sort of going method of making a game for console and porting it to PC instead of the other way around. This isn't necessarily because developers hate PC but because consoles impose massive design restrictions. PC will always have plenty of buttons for doing what you want. It will always have the processing power to deliver the graphics you want. The consoles define what you can and can't do, so the ever-capable PC gets a port of the console version.