So does Crysis actually have gameplay or what?

Yeah the thread title is a bit of an exaggeration, but... Well, how many Crysis threads do we need extolling the virtues of how pretty it is? I don't think I've ever seen anyone actually talk about the gameplay outside a few isolated incidents, just is graphics... And if that's all people talk about, then is it REALLY a good game worth discussing? Sure, it's a pretty game and teh modz and teh foliage but what the hell is the point? wE get it, mods make the game look better. so what? Why do we need a thread about this seemingly every other day?

The first one did, the second one was boring.

The first one actually had some great gameplay. I never played the others, so I don't know how they turned out.

But yes, Crysis was awesome fun. Of course it looked so damn great for its time that most people focused on the graphics and as a result, many people that never played it just called it a glorified tech demo... how wrong they were.

The thing about Crysis is that the gameplay is as good as you make it. You're free to do so much with the mechanics and the world around you, but if you're not creative enough to take advantage of it then it sucks for you.

crysis 1 did have gameplay,

but it wasn't very good,

crysis 1 is basically the miss Utah 2013 of gaming,

fucking sexy,

but as sharp as a spoon

in Crysis games because it is a first person shooter you have a cross-hair right in the middle of the screen which you have to center on enemies to shoot and kill them. Beside that revolutionary gameplay mechanic of the FPS genre you have a suit that allows you to move fast and stuff.

As you can see, it's pretty crazy stuff indeed.

The fact that the Nanosuit actually gives you options on how to take an objective is pretty damn brilliant. Do you go stealth? Or gun in and gun out? Maybe throwing a flammable barrel is more your thing? Or sometimes, you just need to take the damage.

Crysis 1 should not be remembered for its graphics, it should be remembered for the power ups you can activate on the fly.

the power ups that were poorly implemented,

seriously have you played the game at higher difficulties?

this game is remembered for its graphics because everything about it was forgettable,

was the story good? no

did they have interesting characters? no

enemies? no,

and to not aid the problem,

the aforementioned terrible gameplay mechanics,

the suit should've been the focus of the game,

not side saddled to use uninteresting weaponry,

that has been seen in other "by the numbers" fps games before it

Crytek games in general do not have gameplay.

I wonder if Homefront 2 will continue that distinguished legacy.

barely

First one had amazing gameplay and visuals. I'd still go back and play that over the 2nd and 3rd ones.

Yawn. This thread again.

Couldn't have put it better.

so what is it? good gameplay or not? still too many different opinions to make a final call. One person says "great gameplay"..the next person says "nothing great"..is it,..or is it not?

I really liked Crysis 1 gameplay. You actually couldn't do much with its sandbox approach, but you could attack the enemy base from every direction you wanted.

I liked Nanosuit powers and customizable weapons.

So imho, Crysis 1 is the best in the series.

The original and more so Warhead had great gameplay. A bit tech demoish at times(original at least), but that game was oh so badass as far as emergent gameplay concerned.

It's the sequels that fucked all of that up.

Still the same. Consololites still hating on Crysis while never ever seen it in action. Crysis has the best gameplay of any FPS that came after HL2.

I enjoyed the first one but I didn't like crisis 2.

It's like people like different games.

I don't see how story and interesting characters matter and the suit was great.

It was one of the few sandbox shooters in the era of corridor, cinematic FPSs. It throws you in a big island right from the start. You can approach the enemy base however you want, vehicles, day/night cycle, power suit, gunplay is satisfying. The first one was a great FPS. I didn't like 2 and 3 though.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-y5KiJt9oxg#t=143

Crysis had great gameplay for its time - people down playing it probably premptively jumped to that conclusion because all they heard about it was the graphics and assumed the rest of it was terrible. The large sandbox levels were a lot of fun and made you feel like a great tactician picking which tools of yours you would use. If anyone wants to bash the game just mention the story or characters though - reminded me of a Michael Bay movie in that regard.

Yes there is and quite good too. The game have imaginative ways of killing enemies instead of the point point, shoot shoot of all other FPS games.

Edit:

The game is laid out like a sim. That is, enemies are organized into patrols with patrol routes and not just enemies randomly sprinkled around. They stick to their routes. But, they don't always behave the same. The same patrol may leisurely walk single file along a trail. On a different playthrough, the same patrol may be sprinting fast, or they may not even roam. They're under cover waiting for you to come to them. Sometimes, they'd even be prone in a circle, guns facing outward.

I found crysis 2 to be decent.. Crysis 1 was probably their best.. Crysis 3 was okay.. I think the Bow and Arrow ruined that game for me personally . It didnt feel cool , it felt awkward and cloaked bow and arrows was ez mode nonsense.

Crytek has a track record of making their expansions "even worst" .So i wouldnt expect much for another crysis or ryse.

@turtlethetaffer: Why don't you name your favorite FPS and discuss specifics of why you think it's better than Crysis. You'll get more responses than the generic crap you post.

You mentioned gameplay. Then discuss gameplay specifics.

Well If you wana talk Gameplay then Crysis has actually been improving its sequels in that area ever since it went Multiplatform.

The next one should come to the Wii U, maybe that would make it better ;)

At the time, the gameplay in Crysis was pretty revolutionary in a lot of different ways. My favorite being the way the physics were handled. You could be in a house, the enemy could throw a grenade and leave you completely exposed. Or being able to turn on strength mode and easily create your own "door" into a building. Or being able to kill enemies by shooting down trees. Everything in the game felt fully interactive. Everything could be broken or thrown and used as a weapon and this was all done in 2007. Compare this to a 2013 survival game like the Last of Us where the only items you can pick up and throw are... bricks and bottles with a completely static environment. The fact that they didn't take advantage of this and bring it to the next level in Crysis 2 and 3 are major disappointments. (That + the removal of power struggle)

Here's a good commentary on what makes its gameplay so great.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyQTCeobZlg

Tech demos aren't meant to be played

Crysis is pretty old so for it's time it was okay, is it good now like RE4 or Doom 2 or other games from the past that you can still enjoy today? nope. Crytech sucks at developing entertainment, but that's just my opinion.

There is gameplay, but people really just play Crisis for the Graphics.

The First game has terrible AI though.

... you make it sound like this is rare.

now lets go back to reality.

stealth - 12 seconds then a long ass recharge time, same with speed ect.

it was all a big pile of "meh" "powerups on the fly" you sound like their marketing crap =/

@jun_aka_pekto: Because I was trying to point out that no one EVER talks about the graphics here. I just saw another thread about Cryis vs Far Cry 3 graphics wise and it's getting old as hell.

But ya I think my favorite recent FPS would be Far Cry 3. Terrible story and characters but the free form gameplay was great. Taking down bases in a variety of different ways is empowering and awesome.

Crysis and Crysis Warhead were great games

Crysis 2 was a borefest

Crysis 3 actually improved alot on Crysis 2 though still far from Crysis 1 and warhead quality ( still decent game though )

Crysis 2 was great.

Stealth didn't work, but you don't play a shooter to be stealthy so it doesn't matter.

Not that I know of.

I can't move, or do anything. It just makes me stand there, looking at godrays coming through the trees.

Crysis has great gameplay, it won FPS of the year here at Gamespot beating Halo 3, Bioshock, Call Of Duty 4 and The Orange Box. So yeah, it's not just purty graphics. Contrary to System Wars, you don't have to choose just one of graphics or gameplay... you can have top quality in both :P

Crysis was a great game, awesome follow up to Farcry. Warhead messed it up a little but still was good. Crysis 2 messed it up even further but still slightly managed to be okay. Crysis 3 was even more messed up, that was enough for me.

The first had great gameplay. Problem is that the possibilities are not obvious. Many people, for example, still think speed is useless. The gunplay perhaps is not that great, but the movement in the game is a great.

It has tremendous, sandbox shooter game play. The nano abilities gave you a great toolset for tackling problems. Crisis 2 limited the sandbox by turning the game into a more linear affair without the go-anywhere appeal. Crisis 3 made some improvements based on the criticism for part 2, but the fact that it was ported to consoles still resulted in a game that felt limited and comparatively linear compared to part 1. So yeah, the game play is great, it just felt a lot better when it had an open world, go anywhere, do anything feel. Think Skyrim with guns... a bit like Far Cry 3.

Marketing? When I played Crysis for first time, the fact that you can use Camo just blew me away. Far Cry gave you options of how to take an objective, but Crysis made you a super soldier with tools to take down mooks.

hip hops saviour said the game shouldn't be remembered for its graphics,

so I gave him reasons as to why it will,

that is why the sequels sucked,

because the source was trash.

and compared to other fps games,

crysis failed as a competent shooter, and open world game,

only the graphics make it note worthy,

it is nothing but an over priced benchmarking tool

Trumping up graphics hold true for many FPS games. There's gameplay in games like BF4 and the KZ games. But most of the the time, it's their graphics everyone talks about.

Crysis used to be my most-played FPS game until Far Cry 3 came along. As I said in a different thread, Far Cry 3 out-Crysised Crysis.

correct answer. Crysis 1 let me take a huge detour around a mountain and slap c4 on trucks and drive them through buildings, use speed and strength modes, etc. Then they took all the fun away

You joined in 2009 and the game released in 2007. Of course you haven't heard much about it. The hyped died long before you joined.

I thought the gameplay in Crysis and Warhead when they came out were amazing. Going invis and being able to plot out your own plan in a big sandbox were rare sights in FPS gaming. Really just Farcry before Crysis.

The gameplay might be a bit dated now.

The first Crysis had excellent gameplay, I loved it. Shame the other two didn't hold the line...

I have Crysis for the PC... I think the gameplay was horrible, and still is. The AI was stupid and it was just run and shoot. Did not had to take any cover at all.

But then again I did not buy it in the year the game came out.

It definitely did. It was actually surprisingly good too imo depending on how you played it.

I do agree that we gush over teh grafix a bit too much on games like this. Keeps the game from being known as anything other than an eye pleaser to people who have not played it.