Dumbing down for consoles...

[QUOTE="sonicmj1"]

There are a few things worth noting here:

Firstly, hermits shouldn't be blaming consoles or Microsoft for games or franchises being dumbed down. Microsoft isn't making developers dumb down their games, and consoles don't force this to happen. If a game becomes less complex, the developer is doing it of their own volition. This may be because of perceived differences in what different markets expect, but either way, if Oblivion is less complicated than Morrowind, it's because Bethseda made it that way intentionally, and not because someone pressured them into doing otherwise.

Secondly, why is less complexity always a bad thing? Hard difficulty isn't always fun. Depth isn't always fun. Impenetrable interfaces aren't always fun. Having a massive world map with no direction and nothing to do isn't always fun. As someone pointed out earlier, this trend has occurred on PC exclusives as well, and sometimes, the games turn out better for it. I just don't understand why accessibility is anathema to so many hermits.

Vandalvideo

But complexity isn't good in and of itself, and not all the games you're talking about work the way you say they do.

I mean, I understand being mad if the developers strip out what made a game good from a game (Deus Ex) or turn the franchise into a different sort of title (like Rainbow Six). But take Morrowind, the first Elder Scrolls title to be released for multiple platforms. Its predecessor, Dagerfall, had a world map as big as England. Morrowind's was many times smaller. Was that a bad thing? Or did doing that just get rid of a ton of area that added nothing to the overall game besides increased travel time?

I guess it's just that you're used to a certain kind of game that is nearly impenetrable, but with dizzying depth, and when a few concessions are made that make it easier for people to access a portion of that depth, you throw a fit. I can understand that. I mean, there are people who liked Resident Evil more when you couldn't aim and got attacked by enemies that were offscreen. That's just what they were used to.

What I don't understand is how taking issue with titles that give you no motivation to do anything or mercilessly kick your ass for not spending hours learning the underlying gameplay systems somehow makes you an inferior gamer.

crysis is exactly the game that gives pc games their stereotype: high end graphics that only run on extremely high end computers and unnecessarily complexcontrolswith little to no quality gameplay. no thank you.Big_T-Mac

Could you please state your exact reasons? Because after playing it through I think it was a bloody fun FPS and a evolution tot he genre.. The one game that I found to be a de-evolution (gasp its not Halo, because I am not a fanboy like you), but Call of Duty 4.. That singleplayer is th most rediculous on rails game with infiintie respawn times and rediculous AI....

I bet you anything that you havn't even played it, nor do you need the top of the line hardware to play it either..

What I don't understand is how taking issue with titles that give you no motivation to do anything or mercilessly kick your ass for not spending hours learning the underlying gameplay systems somehow makes you an inferior gamer. sonicmj1

No, but not bothering to try to and then calling an interface "inpeneterable" is. What game specifically were you refering when you're saying that?

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="sonicmj1"]

There are a few things worth noting here:

Firstly, hermits shouldn't be blaming consoles or Microsoft for games or franchises being dumbed down. Microsoft isn't making developers dumb down their games, and consoles don't force this to happen. If a game becomes less complex, the developer is doing it of their own volition. This may be because of perceived differences in what different markets expect, but either way, if Oblivion is less complicated than Morrowind, it's because Bethseda made it that way intentionally, and not because someone pressured them into doing otherwise.

Secondly, why is less complexity always a bad thing? Hard difficulty isn't always fun. Depth isn't always fun. Impenetrable interfaces aren't always fun. Having a massive world map with no direction and nothing to do isn't always fun. As someone pointed out earlier, this trend has occurred on PC exclusives as well, and sometimes, the games turn out better for it. I just don't understand why accessibility is anathema to so many hermits.

sonicmj1

But complexity isn't good in and of itself, and not all the games you're talking about work the way you say they do.

I mean, I understand being mad if the developers strip out what made a game good from a game (Deus Ex) or turn the franchise into a different sort of title (like Rainbow Six). But take Morrowind, the first Elder Scrolls title to be released for multiple platforms. Its predecessor, Dagerfall, had a world map as big as England. Morrowind's was many times smaller. Was that a bad thing? Or did doing that just get rid of a ton of area that added nothing to the overall game besides increased travel time?

I guess it's just that you're used to a certain kind of game that is nearly impenetrable, but with dizzying depth, and when a few concessions are made that make it easier for people to access a portion of that depth, you throw a fit. I can understand that. I mean, there are people who liked Resident Evil more when you couldn't aim and got attacked by enemies that were offscreen. That's just what they were used to.

What I don't understand is how taking issue with titles that give you no motivation to do anything or mercilessly kick your ass for not spending hours learning the underlying gameplay systems somehow makes you an inferior gamer.

This a difference.. There is ones like TF2 which made it a less complex game but made it better because it made it more balanced, team orientated etc.. THen there is Oblivion, a game that cut out every certain thing that makes a rpg a rpg.. Character devolpment? There is none you have every skill to begin with and you max them out.. You could do this in Final Fantasy tactics but not ont he fly making any kind of uniqueness of your character could have.. Leveled enviroment, leveled items, all so a 8 year old could beat it easilly.. need I say more?

But complexity isn't good in and of itself, and not all the games you're talking about work the way you say they do. I mean, I understand being mad if the developers strip out what made a game good from a game (Deus Ex) or turn the franchise into a different sort of title (like Rainbow Six). But take Morrowind, the first Elder Scrolls title to be released for multiple platforms. Its predecessor, Dagerfall, had a world map as big as England. Morrowind's was many times smaller. Was that a bad thing? Or did doing that just get rid of a ton of area that added nothing to the overall game besides increased travel time? I guess it's just that you're used to a certain kind of game that is nearly impenetrable, but with dizzying depth, and when a few concessions are made that make it easier for people to access a portion of that depth, you throw a fit. I can understand that. I mean, there are people who liked Resident Evil more when you couldn't aim and got attacked by enemies that were offscreen. That's just what they were used to.What I don't understand is how taking issue with titles that give you no motivation to do anything or mercilessly kick your ass for not spending hours learning the underlying gameplay systems somehow makes you an inferior gamer. sonicmj1

[QUOTE="Big_T-Mac"][QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="Big_T-Mac"]crysis is exactly the game that gives pc games their stereotype: high end graphics that only run on extremely high end computers and unnecessarily complexcontrolswith little to no quality gameplay. no thank you.Vandalvideo

oh, and way back when Ocampo made a terribly racist remark in one of the Gamespotting articles. He said he prayed that rainbow six: lockdown didn't get all "gangsta" and hip-hop and drug infusedand wrote the entire editorial about it ruiningthe gamesimply because one of the screen shots had an african american with cornrows in it. to say that naturally assuming that simply because a game features an african american who sports cornrowshas gone 'gangsta' and is all about hip-hop is terribly, insanelyracist. is it safe to assume that if a game features a caucasion with hair that goes below the ear that the game is suddenly now all about rock-n-roll and electric guitars? i'm gonna go out on alimb and say no.

so, in my opinion anyways, a graphics whore and racist does not make a credible reviewer. but thats just my opinion. if u believe its all about graphics and racism is good, then so be it.

btw, don't think i'm one of those self righteous liberalswho thinks the word chocolate whendescribing m&msis racist. nothing could be further from the truth. reverse racists are just as bad if not worse than racist ppl. while racists are racist because they're ignorant, fearful morons, reverse racists are just as bad because they're equally ignorant, extremely asinine,self-righteous jackasses who find new ways to show their stupidity like saying non-caucasion ppl deserve more money, better grades, government assistance, etc. simply because they are not white. that is not fairness and equality by any stretch of the imagination and further strengthens racism.

EDIT: way to go forums. once again glitchspot has blessed my post with the "no spaces" disease that is so prevelant. why hasn't this place been shut down yet?

Why are hermits accusing console gamers for being shallow and then they themself bring up Crysis.

If you want to prove yourself a hardcore games please don´t bring up the biggest graphical powerhouse in history, it will only make you seem shallow. When your accusing other people for not caring about how deep a game is and then bring up crysis as an example of a deep game the irony is to big to comprehend. NO the Nano suite does not save crysis. Its a very good game but it is a not an example of a real hardcore deep pc game.

If you want to mention deep games on the Pc you should atleast mention:

Hearts of iron 1 or 2

Europa Universalis 1, 2 or 3

Civilization 1,2,3 or 4

Planescape Tournament

S.T.A.L.K.E.R: Shadow of chernobyl

Civcity: Rome

Baldursgate 1 or 2

Sudden strike

One more thing that has been mentioned in this tread is that consoles dont have any deep games. That statement cant be any more wrong. Most RPGs, most fighting games, gran turismo and forza, any Front Mission game, any armored core game, Final Fantasy Tactics, any Metriod Prime game and million more.

If you want hard games you have million of shooters on saturn.

Where to begin... oh yeah, he's by far the biggest graphics whore for any major publishing site. its not like gerstmann gave it a 9.5, it was ocampo. cod4 received a 9.0 from gerstmann and its multiplayer is literally a dozen times better than crysis'. as far as sp, cod4 was a short but extremely dramatic affair that crammed the most action per minute as any title to date. crysis' campaign was a more open ended affair of average length, but the last third of the game essentiallysucked. does that sound like a game thats .5 better? i'm gonna say no.oh, and way back when Ocampo made a terribly racist remark in one of the Gamespotting articles. He said he prayed that rainbow six: lockdown didn't get all "gangsta" and hip-hop and drug infusedand wrote the entire editorial about it ruiningthe gamesimply because one of the screen shots had an african american with cornrows in it. to say that naturally assuming that simply because a game features an african american who sports cornrowshas gone 'gangsta' and is all about hip-hop is terribly, insanelyracist. is it safe to assume that if a game features a caucasion with hair that goes below the ear that the game is suddenly now all about rock-n-roll and electric guitars? i'm gonna go out on alimb and say no. so, in my opinion anyways, a graphics whore and racist does not make a credible reviewer. but thats just my opinion. if u believe its all about graphics and racism is good, then so be it.btw, don't think i'm one of those self righteous liberalswho thinks the word chocolate whendescribing m&msis racist. nothing could be further from the truth. reverse racists are just as bad if not worse than racist ppl. while racists are racist because they're ignorant, fearful morons, reverse racists are just as bad because they're equally ignorant, extremely asinine,self-righteous jackasses who find new ways to show their stupidity like saying non-caucasion ppl deserve more money, better grades, government assistance, etc. simply because they are not white. that is not fairness and equality by any stretch of the imagination and further strengthens racism.Big_T-Mac

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="Big_T-Mac"][QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="Big_T-Mac"]crysis is exactly the game that gives pc games their stereotype: high end graphics that only run on extremely high end computers and unnecessarily complexcontrolswith little to no quality gameplay. no thank you.Big_T-Mac

oh, and way back when Ocampo made a terribly racist remark in one of the Gamespotting articles. He said he prayed that rainbow six: lockdown didn't get all "gangsta" and hip-hop and drug infusedand wrote the entire editorial about it ruiningthe gamesimply because one of the screen shots had an african american with cornrows in it. to say that naturally assuming that simply because a game features an african american who sports cornrowshas gone 'gangsta' and is all about hip-hop is terribly, insanelyracist. is it safe to assume that if a game features a caucasion with hair that goes below the ear that the game is suddenly now all about rock-n-roll and electric guitars? i'm gonna go out on alimb and say no.

so, in my opinion anyways, a graphics whore and racist does not make a credible reviewer. but thats just my opinion. if u believe its all about graphics and racism is good, then so be it.

btw, don't think i'm one of those self righteous liberalswho thinks the word chocolate whendescribing m&msis racist. nothing could be further from the truth. reverse racists are just as bad if not worse than racist ppl. while racists are racist because they're ignorant, fearful morons, reverse racists are just as bad because they're equally ignorant, extremely asinine,self-righteous jackasses who find new ways to show their stupidity like saying non-caucasion ppl deserve more money, better grades, government assistance, etc. simply because they are not white. that is not fairness and equality by any stretch of the imagination and further strengthens racism.

So now you're just all of a sudden forgetting about gameplay?

You didn't even mention any gameplay in your post. All you talked about was campaign stories.

[QUOTE="Big_T-Mac"]Where to begin... oh yeah, he's by far the biggest graphics whore for any major publishing site. its not like gerstmann gave it a 9.5, it was ocampo. cod4 received a 9.0 from gerstmann and its multiplayer is literally a dozen times better than crysis'. as far as sp, cod4 was a short but extremely dramatic affair that crammed the most action per minute as any title to date. crysis' campaign was a more open ended affair of average length, but the last third of the game essentiallysucked. does that sound like a game thats .5 better? i'm gonna say no.oh, and way back when Ocampo made a terribly racist remark in one of the Gamespotting articles. He said he prayed that rainbow six: lockdown didn't get all "gangsta" and hip-hop and drug infusedand wrote the entire editorial about it ruiningthe gamesimply because one of the screen shots had an african american with cornrows in it. to say that naturally assuming that simply because a game features an african american who sports cornrowshas gone 'gangsta' and is all about hip-hop is terribly, insanelyracist. is it safe to assume that if a game features a caucasion with hair that goes below the ear that the game is suddenly now all about rock-n-roll and electric guitars? i'm gonna go out on alimb and say no. so, in my opinion anyways, a graphics whore and racist does not make a credible reviewer. but thats just my opinion. if u believe its all about graphics and racism is good, then so be it.btw, don't think i'm one of those self righteous liberalswho thinks the word chocolate whendescribing m&msis racist. nothing could be further from the truth. reverse racists are just as bad if not worse than racist ppl. while racists are racist because they're ignorant, fearful morons, reverse racists are just as bad because they're equally ignorant, extremely asinine,self-righteous jackasses who find new ways to show their stupidity like saying non-caucasion ppl deserve more money, better grades, government assistance, etc. simply because they are not white. that is not fairness and equality by any stretch of the imagination and further strengthens racism.Vandalvideo

he said the gameplay was amazing because of the graphics. that's the definition of a graphics whore. is english not your first language? this isn't hard to understand...Big_T-Mac

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="Big_T-Mac"]Where to begin... oh yeah, he's by far the biggest graphics whore for any major publishing site. its not like gerstmann gave it a 9.5, it was ocampo. cod4 received a 9.0 from gerstmann and its multiplayer is literally a dozen times better than crysis'. as far as sp, cod4 was a short but extremely dramatic affair that crammed the most action per minute as any title to date. crysis' campaign was a more open ended affair of average length, but the last third of the game essentiallysucked. does that sound like a game thats .5 better? i'm gonna say no.oh, and way back when Ocampo made a terribly racist remark in one of the Gamespotting articles. He said he prayed that rainbow six: lockdown didn't get all "gangsta" and hip-hop and drug infusedand wrote the entire editorial about it ruiningthe gamesimply because one of the screen shots had an african american with cornrows in it. to say that naturally assuming that simply because a game features an african american who sports cornrowshas gone 'gangsta' and is all about hip-hop is terribly, insanelyracist. is it safe to assume that if a game features a caucasion with hair that goes below the ear that the game is suddenly now all about rock-n-roll and electric guitars? i'm gonna go out on alimb and say no. so, in my opinion anyways, a graphics whore and racist does not make a credible reviewer. but thats just my opinion. if u believe its all about graphics and racism is good, then so be it.btw, don't think i'm one of those self righteous liberalswho thinks the word chocolate whendescribing m&msis racist. nothing could be further from the truth. reverse racists are just as bad if not worse than racist ppl. while racists are racist because they're ignorant, fearful morons, reverse racists are just as bad because they're equally ignorant, extremely asinine,self-righteous jackasses who find new ways to show their stupidity like saying non-caucasion ppl deserve more money, better grades, government assistance, etc. simply because they are not white. that is not fairness and equality by any stretch of the imagination and further strengthens racism.Big_T-Mac

No he didn't, READ:

"How you get the job done is pretty much entirely up to you, which is part of the brilliance of the game's design. For instance, the environments are big enough to give you a wide range of latitude. Do you have to get to a certain point on the map? You can take a meandering route that avoids patrols and go stealthy, or try the up-front approach and try to blast your way through, with the danger of enemy reinforcements showing up. Need to infiltrate a North Korean-held village? You can try the front gate, or maybe explore and find a quieter way in."

"Couple these huge environments with the powers of the nanosuit, and you have a ton more options. You can play like the eponymous character from the movie Predator and use your cloaking abilities to stalk North Korean patrols, picking them off one by one and watching the survivors react in confusion. That could be via a silenced rifle, or simply coming up from behind a guard and grabbing him by the throat and hurling him off a cliff, or through the roof of a building, or against a tree, or whatever catches your fancy. Enhanced speed and strength give you an amazing amount of mobility, so you can vault atop buildings and come down behind someone, or run up against a North Korean vehicle next to a cliff and push it over the side. In a heartbeat you can switch between different roles, from stealthy assassin to seemingly unstoppable death dealer. It's a game that makes you feel like a superhero, though not an invincible one, because you simply can't run roughshod over the enemy. Crysis rewards smart, fast thinking."

What does any of this have to do with graphics?

So now you're just all of a sudden forgetting about gameplay?

You didn't even mention any gameplay in your post. All you talked about was campaign stories.

DragonfireXZ95

Casual gaming is killing the market. Before you know it, there will be Madden, GTA, and Halo clones everywhere.

BK-Sleeper

Sorry, what? Halo-clones? Dunno if my sarcasm-o-meter is fried but Halo is pretty much a generic clone in it's own right. I remember way back when all FPSs were called Doom-clones.

Anyway PC-to-console titles will always be "dumbed down" in one way or another, there's just so much difference between the two platforms. The differences between analogue control and mouse & keyboard is huge, you'd have a hard time fitting and choosing all the necessary buttons to go onto the controller. Also there're far more casual gamers on consoles so dumbing down would be the right choice to reach a larger demographic.

[QUOTE="DragonfireXZ95"]So now you're just all of a sudden forgetting about gameplay?

You didn't even mention any gameplay in your post. All you talked about was campaign stories.

Big_T-Mac

If i had realized it was u in the first place, Vandal, I wouldn't have even bothered with logic and reasoning. common sense is always lost on you.

And damn me again for not checking whom I'm responding to. You would think after repeated occurrences of frustration brought on by lack of coherent arguments with Vandal alone,I would learn to check if I'm arguing with fanboys or haters. Clearly this is on me.

[QUOTE="sonicmj1"]But complexity isn't good in and of itself, and not all the games you're talking about work the way you say they do. I mean, I understand being mad if the developers strip out what made a game good from a game (Deus Ex) or turn the franchise into a different sort of title (like Rainbow Six). But take Morrowind, the first Elder Scrolls title to be released for multiple platforms. Its predecessor, Dagerfall, had a world map as big as England. Morrowind's was many times smaller. Was that a bad thing? Or did doing that just get rid of a ton of area that added nothing to the overall game besides increased travel time? I guess it's just that you're used to a certain kind of game that is nearly impenetrable, but with dizzying depth, and when a few concessions are made that make it easier for people to access a portion of that depth, you throw a fit. I can understand that. I mean, there are people who liked Resident Evil more when you couldn't aim and got attacked by enemies that were offscreen. That's just what they were used to.What I don't understand is how taking issue with titles that give you no motivation to do anything or mercilessly kick your ass for not spending hours learning the underlying gameplay systems somehow makes you an inferior gamer. Vandalvideo

Would I like it if all the games I liked became minigame compliations? No. But I don't think that's the question we're asking here.

Whatever happens, I don't plan on blaming the Wii for the downfall of hardcore gaming, if that happens. The people making the games are the publishers and developers, after all. And even they are aware of the market for games that aren't minigame compilations, and they will continue to produce titles for that market for as long as it exists. Despite the Wii's success, I'm not starved for games, after all. Why would I blame the Wii? That would be like blaming consoles for the downfall of PC gaming. Is PC gaming dying?

The point is, a lot of these situations are solely due to the developers and publishers. Rainbow Six was on the PS1. Morrowind was on the Xbox. They had no issue with releasing these titles as they were on consoles before. It was their choice to remove elements or transform those franchises. Blaming consoles, console companies, or console players is foolish.

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="Big_T-Mac"][QUOTE="DragonfireXZ95"]So now you're just all of a sudden forgetting about gameplay?

You didn't even mention any gameplay in your post. All you talked about was campaign stories.

DragonfireXZ95

He's avoiding the question. This guy is just a lousy troll.

[QUOTE="snyper1982"]

This is exactly what I hate about most hermits. Their damned elitist attitude....

IgGy621985

What's so damned elitist about mine statement? That I hate auto-healing feature which has been used since Halo? Yeah, I hate it! It's too damned easy to play such game!

That I miss tycoon games? That I miss LucasArts adventure games= That I'm affraid that RTS genre is going to be casualised?

More and more great genres are becoming console-friendly so consolites could enjoy pressing their little jolly console controller buttons and yell "BOOYAH!!!1" around the house.

Just a note. There was no auto heal in Halo - your shields regenerated, but your health remained where it was until you found a medpac. I forget how Halo 2 worked, since I haven't played it in 2 years. In Halo three the idea is that your shiled is again regenerated - there are no med-pacs, if you are hit when your shield is down you die.

[QUOTE="IgGy621985"][QUOTE="snyper1982"]

This is exactly what I hate about most hermits. Their damned elitist attitude....

thew13

What's so damned elitist about mine statement? That I hate auto-healing feature which has been used since Halo? Yeah, I hate it! It's too damned easy to play such game!

That I miss tycoon games? That I miss LucasArts adventure games= That I'm affraid that RTS genre is going to be casualised?

More and more great genres are becoming console-friendly so consolites could enjoy pressing their little jolly console controller buttons and yell "BOOYAH!!!1" around the house.

Just a note. There was no auto heal in Halo - your shields regenerated, but your health remained where it was until you found a medpac. I forget how Halo 2 worked, since I haven't played it in 2 years. In Halo three the idea is that your shiled is again regenerated - there are no med-pacs, if you are hit when your shield is down you die.

Halo:CE was the best Halo in my opinion.

[QUOTE="IgGy621985"][QUOTE="snyper1982"]

This is exactly what I hate about most hermits. Their damned elitist attitude....

thew13

What's so damned elitist about mine statement? That I hate auto-healing feature which has been used since Halo? Yeah, I hate it! It's too damned easy to play such game!

That I miss tycoon games? That I miss LucasArts adventure games= That I'm affraid that RTS genre is going to be casualised?

More and more great genres are becoming console-friendly so consolites could enjoy pressing their little jolly console controller buttons and yell "BOOYAH!!!1" around the house.

Just a note. There was no auto heal in Halo - your shields regenerated, but your health remained where it was until you found a medpac. I forget how Halo 2 worked, since I haven't played it in 2 years. In Halo three the idea is that your shiled is again regenerated - there are no med-pacs, if you are hit when your shield is down you die.

Halo 2 dropped medpacks, leaving the shield bar as the sole indicator of health. Halo 3 uses the same system as Halo 2 did.

When a developer makes a console the lead platform for a game, or focuses primarily on the console experience, the end result is a "dumbed down" game on the PC. Whether it's Oblivion's interface, UT3's slower gameplay, or Bioshock's simplified RPG system and graphics, building games for the limitations of the 360's hardware, and the tastes of a more "mainstream / casual" audience results in a product that doesn't live up to PC gamer's expectations.subrosian

I think this deserves quote of the day .... for now.

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="Big_T-Mac"][QUOTE="DragonfireXZ95"]So now you're just all of a sudden forgetting about gameplay?

You didn't even mention any gameplay in your post. All you talked about was campaign stories.

DragonfireXZ95

He's avoiding the question. This guy is just a lousy troll.

cut the fat, get to the ultimate point; here is the reason 9.5 is a terrible score for this game:

"Crysis' plot pivots on the point of an alien invasion foreshadowed in the game's first two quarters. The third quarter takes us inside their lair (apologies to Mr. X). Although linear and unlike the mangroves and broad amphitheaters before it, the level's a perfect counterpoint: The vessel is ice-cold and gravity-free. It's deliberately disorienting -- I'll leave it at that -- and over when it ought to be, when we want a world we understand. And then, supercooled air shock freezes everything in the vicinity.

What was to be proof positive that Crytek's range encompasses more than Far Cry's merc in the wilderness becomes history repeating itself. Dumb monster apes and indoor drudgery dragged down the finale of the developer's last FPS. In Crysis, it's dull aliens and a direct reversal of design logic. The wintry jungle is just a white hallway that we escort another nanosuited soldier through. Now and then, flying things land to attack with tentacles -- no huts to hide in (would aliens strip shingles from the roof to shoot inside?), no shattering cover, and no three-way mix-ups with wandering Koreans. The order to protect our partner, I suspect, is a tension-inducing device there to distract us from the unfinished framework of a big plan that fizzled but couldn't be cut.

Afterward, we sit in a truck turret. Although they're there, we're unable to take another vehicle (doors don't open) or to switch seats. Before this, we've both fired while driving and flipped back and forth between driving and firing. What this means -- and what makes this stretch seem as though a different studio developed it -- is that Crysis teaches us to fish and then drops us in bone-dry desert.

And on it goes. Stints in motorized air-defense systems...that don't move. Low altitude flight in a leaden VTOL, where defeating drones dissolves invisible barriers no one intends to notice, allowing us to fly forward, fight off another three drones, dissolve another invisible barrier, fly forward....

Fast forward through scraps of miserable story and melodramatic dialogue, along with a "boss battle" inherited from the coin-op ****of '88 (see: Contra), and the ordeal is done -- beautiful throughout, mostly amazing, but vegetative by the end." -1up.

none of this is even addressed by Ocampo, unsurprisingly. now i'm done with this.

[QUOTE="thew13"][QUOTE="IgGy621985"][QUOTE="snyper1982"]

This is exactly what I hate about most hermits. Their damned elitist attitude....

sonicmj1

What's so damned elitist about mine statement? That I hate auto-healing feature which has been used since Halo? Yeah, I hate it! It's too damned easy to play such game!

That I miss tycoon games? That I miss LucasArts adventure games= That I'm affraid that RTS genre is going to be casualised?

More and more great genres are becoming console-friendly so consolites could enjoy pressing their little jolly console controller buttons and yell "BOOYAH!!!1" around the house.

Just a note. There was no auto heal in Halo - your shields regenerated, but your health remained where it was until you found a medpac. I forget how Halo 2 worked, since I haven't played it in 2 years. In Halo three the idea is that your shiled is again regenerated - there are no med-pacs, if you are hit when your shield is down you die.

Halo 2 dropped medpacks, leaving the shield bar as the sole indicator of health. Halo 3 uses the same system as Halo 2 did.

Thanks - I thought so, but wasn't 100% sureand you know what that can lead to here.

[QUOTE="DragonfireXZ95"][QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="Big_T-Mac"][QUOTE="DragonfireXZ95"]So now you're just all of a sudden forgetting about gameplay?

You didn't even mention any gameplay in your post. All you talked about was campaign stories.

Big_T-Mac

He's avoiding the question. This guy is just a lousy troll.

cut the fat, get to the ultimate point; here is the reason 9.5 is a terrible score for this game:

"Crysis' plot pivots on the point of an alien invasion foreshadowed in the game's first two quarters. The third quarter takes us inside their lair (apologies to Mr. X). Although linear and unlike the mangroves and broad amphitheaters before it, the level's a perfect counterpoint: The vessel is ice-cold and gravity-free. It's deliberately disorienting -- I'll leave it at that -- and over when it ought to be, when we want a world we understand. And then, supercooled air shock freezes everything in the vicinity.

What was to be proof positive that Crytek's range encompasses more than Far Cry's merc in the wilderness becomes history repeating itself. Dumb monster apes and indoor drudgery dragged down the finale of the developer's last FPS. In Crysis, it's dull aliens and a direct reversal of design logic. The wintry jungle is just a white hallway that we escort another nanosuited soldier through. Now and then, flying things land to attack with tentacles -- no huts to hide in (would aliens strip shingles from the roof to shoot inside?), no shattering cover, and no three-way mix-ups with wandering Koreans. The order to protect our partner, I suspect, is a tension-inducing device there to distract us from the unfinished framework of a big plan that fizzled but couldn't be cut.

Afterward, we sit in a truck turret. Although they're there, we're unable to take another vehicle (doors don't open) or to switch seats. Before this, we've both fired while driving and flipped back and forth between driving and firing. What this means -- and what makes this stretch seem as though a different studio developed it -- is that Crysis teaches us to fish and then drops us in bone-dry desert.

And on it goes. Stints in motorized air-defense systems...that don't move. Low altitude flight in a leaden VTOL, where defeating drones dissolves invisible barriers no one intends to notice, allowing us to fly forward, fight off another three drones, dissolve another invisible barrier, fly forward....

Fast forward through scraps of miserable story and melodramatic dialogue, along with a "boss battle" inherited from the coin-op ****of '88 (see: Contra), and the ordeal is done -- beautiful throughout, mostly amazing, but vegetative by the end." -1up.

none of this is even addressed by Ocampo, unsurprisingly. now i'm done with this.

You praise CoD4's linearity, than you knock the last 1/3 of Crysis' linearity?

It seems like you are just a tool who listens to reviewers instead of judging a game on it's own merits.

I think its funny how all HERMITS try and down consoles. Go ahead, keep it up. Its not gonna change. People would rather sit and play an easy to use console than a pc any day of the week. They have been since the Atari 2600 and will continue for many years to come.

Untill PC's become user friendly and make everything plugNplay and compatible throughout the whole gaming experience they will never be as good at gaming.

SO go crawl back into your den and keep staring at your lil screens and play your mmorg and online shooters till you pass out..

the irony...cut the fat, get to the ultimate point; here is the reason 9.5 is a terrible score for this game:"Crysis' plot pivots on the point of an alien invasion foreshadowed in the game's first two quarters. The third quarter takes us inside their lair (apologies to Mr. X). Although linear and unlike the mangroves and broad amphitheaters before it, the level's a perfect counterpoint: The vessel is ice-cold and gravity-free. It's deliberately disorienting -- I'll leave it at that -- and over when it ought to be, when we want a world we understand. And then, supercooled air shock freezes everything in the vicinity. What was to be proof positive that Crytek's range encompasses more than Far Cry's merc in the wilderness becomes history repeating itself. Dumb monster apes and indoor drudgery dragged down the finale of the developer's last FPS. In Crysis, it's dull aliens and a direct reversal of design logic. The wintry jungle is just a white hallway that we escort another nanosuited soldier through. Now and then, flying things land to attack with tentacles -- no huts to hide in (would aliens strip shingles from the roof to shoot inside?), no shattering cover, and no three-way mix-ups with wandering Koreans. The order to protect our partner, I suspect, is a tension-inducing device there to distract us from the unfinished framework of a big plan that fizzled but couldn't be cut. Afterward, we sit in a truck turret. Although they're there, we're unable to take another vehicle (doors don't open) or to switch seats. Before this, we've both fired while driving and flipped back and forth between driving and firing. What this means -- and what makes this stretch seem as though a different studio developed it -- is that Crysis teaches us to fish and then drops us in bone-dry desert. And on it goes. Stints in motorized air-defense systems...that don't move. Low altitude flight in a leaden VTOL, where defeating drones dissolves invisible barriers no one intends to notice, allowing us to fly forward, fight off another three drones, dissolve another invisible barrier, fly forward.... Fast forward through scraps of miserable story and melodramatic dialogue, along with a "boss battle" inherited from the coin-op ****of '88 (see: Contra), and the ordeal is done -- beautiful throughout, mostly amazing, but vegetative by the end." -1up.none of this is even addressed by Ocampo, unsurprisingly. now i'm done with this.Big_T-Mac

The point is, a lot of these situations are solely due to the developers and publishers. Rainbow Six was on the PS1. Morrowind was on the Xbox. They had no issue with releasing these titles as they were on consoles before. It was their choice to remove elements or transform those franchises. Blaming consoles, console companies, or console players is foolish. sonicmj1

I think its funny how all HERMITS try and down consoles. Go ahead, keep it up. Its not gonna change. People would rather sit and play an easy to use console than a pc any day of the week. They have been since the Atari 2600 and will continue for many years to come.

Untill PC's become user friendly and make everything plugNplay and compatible throughout the whole gaming experience they will never be as good at gaming.

SO go crawl back into your den and keep staring at your lil screens and play your mmorg and online shooters till you pass out..

FunkyHeadHunter

[QUOTE="sonicmj1"]The point is, a lot of these situations are solely due to the developers and publishers. Rainbow Six was on the PS1. Morrowind was on the Xbox. They had no issue with releasing these titles as they were on consoles before. It was their choice to remove elements or transform those franchises. Blaming consoles, console companies, or console players is foolish. Vandalvideo

Damn right, we blame developers. I do at least. Consilitus is a terrible thing, most of these games are still good ofcourse and the developers talent doesnt diminish.

But damnit I like at least a few games with ALOT of depth .... the list of those franchises is diminshing quickly into the mainstream, no doubt the developers deserve the success ... but damn...

[QUOTE="FunkyHeadHunter"]

I think its funny how all HERMITS try and down consoles. Go ahead, keep it up. Its not gonna change. People would rather sit and play an easy to use console than a pc any day of the week. They have been since the Atari 2600 and will continue for many years to come.

Untill PC's become user friendly and make everything plugNplay and compatible throughout the whole gaming experience they will never be as good at gaming.

SO go crawl back into your den and keep staring at your lil screens and play your mmorg and online shooters till you pass out..

TheJuiceyBar

[QUOTE="TheJuiceyBar"][QUOTE="FunkyHeadHunter"]Vandalvideo

So their "expectations" could have been 1000 copies. So if it sold 10,000 copies then that is beyond their expectations but far from anything worth braging about.

i REEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLY dont care

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="TheJuiceyBar"][QUOTE="FunkyHeadHunter"]FunkyHeadHunter

So their "expectations" could have been 1000 copies. So if it sold 10,000 copies then that is beyond their expectations but far from anything worth braging about.

So what? Doesnt mean its not selling good. You know thats only in the US right?

You know why consoles are more popular to the casual audience for gaming?

Plug and play.

You buy the console, you buy the game, and you don't have to fool with it anymore.

360 and PS3 owners look down on the Wii the same way PC gamers look down on the PS3 and 360.

It's funny though, that the simplest system, the Wii, with one SKU, no upgrades, no hard-drive, and a very simple and intuitive interface with simple and intuitive, yet fun games, is VASTLY winning the current system war for the genral consumer.

Difficulty aside, the fun you get from the games, and the reward, believe it or not, is the same.

People don't like to have to research and build a gaming computer. That is not something everyone can do. They don't like "compatibility" issues, patching, instability, bugs, and system requirements for games on the PC. They don't like buying a game only to find out they can't run it. The don't like deciding wheather to upgrade or buy another system or installing games or the heafty price tag that a CPU costs, when there is a potential that it will not run the game you want even if you have bought the right stuff.

They don't like issues with CPU software like Windows and don't understand drivers or what DirectX 10 is, and frankly, they don't care.

They don't like setting in an uncomfortable computer chair with a complex control scheme and user interface, like a keyboard and mouse. They don't like having to set 1-3 feet away from the screen to game.

There are too many variables involved in PC gaming for the casual audience ever to pick the PC as a true competitor for the consoles. For most people it is not even an alternative.

Sure, there are tons of fun PC games out there. However, there are tons of fun games for all the systems. Why would a casual person go through all that extra trouble, time, and money, to hopefully, eventually play games, when they could have that much, or even more fun, from a plug and play gaming system that takes them 30 seconds to hook up?

Thus, the downfall of PC gaming and development, imo.

At least us PC owners still have Blizzard.

Zenfoldor

8)

That is how I see it! And is also how I fell... I can't play nay of the games I want. I'm 16 but I live in a small town that never hires anyone under 18. My father went back to collage so I have no way to make money what so ever. I did however found a way to make money, there is this department store that will pay me $4 an hour and with a limit that they will only pay me $200 a month to help move boxes and packages. It's better then nothing, right? But I still want to be a
PC gamer. I start next week and now that I have a job I can make some money now. Xbox gamer first, PC low end PC gamer second. :( At least PC gaming isn't going make me pay for basic online play...

On topic: I don't think it's going die. There are more people who game on PC then consoles. In some countries PC gaming is cheaper because consoles cost extra for being shipped a long way. Oh so a hermit as told me.

The problem is a lot of people just don't seem to know or care. This is really an issue all of us here should be concerned about, since developers are increasingly putting less into their work.

It's not an issue of console vs. PC, since a lot of features we're talking about have absolutely no problems running on consoles, and that games like Oblivion and its fast travel system, or Bioshock and its no death penalty are done the way they are not because of hardware.

Yet I still see people posting things like "lol, omg elitist Hermits" and "consoles > PCs". It's just sad we can't all realize the problems here. We're increasingly being fed sub-standard experiences to appeal to that lowest common denominator gamer, and people are still treating it as system vs. system, when the issue is integrity vs. commercialization.

On topic: I don't think it's going die. There are more people who game on PC then consoles. In some countries PC gaming is cheaper because consoles cost extra for being shipped a long way. Oh so a hermit as told me.

Nerkcon

believe me , i have seen wii going for 600 dollars at retail at few places, and xbox for 700 dollars and console games costing twice that of pc games is also common is quite common in many countries

I don't blame the consoles, "dumbing down for consoles" makes it sound like the consoles are at fault. There isn't much stopping a developer from making a complex game other than themselves.

Don't hate on the systems, hate on the developers, they're the ones pissing on your favorite franchises.

I don't blame the consoles, "dumbing down for consoles" makes it sound like the consoles are at fault. There isn't much stopping a developer from making a complex game other than themselves.

Don't hate on the systems, hate on the developers, they're the ones pissing on your favorite franchises.

-RPGamer-

Wasn't trying to imply that and I do mention that it is the devs who are dumbing down the games as they believe the console audience is more casual to put it simply.

[QUOTE="FunkyHeadHunter"]

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="TheJuiceyBar"][QUOTE="FunkyHeadHunter"]Meu2k7

So their "expectations" could have been 1000 copies. So if it sold 10,000 copies then that is beyond their expectations but far from anything worth braging about.

So what? Doesnt mean its not selling good. You know thats only in the US right?

Those were not real numbers just examples right? And I really dont care about anywhere else in the world other than where I live. So it could sell 10000000000000000 over seas and I could really care less. Matter of fact, it could sell that much here in the states tomorrow and I could care less.

Funny how hermits will try and convince console gamers that PC is the end to all gaming and yet developers release games like Crysis that 99% of the world cant run on its highest settings....Making everyone run out and spend their money just to be able to come to system wars to brag how they can play a game that has 3% better graphics than most console games..lol

Whatever helps kids sleep at night I guess.....Anyways , global warming, close all borders down

NO MORE IMMEGRANTS" and quit making mixed babies.....and Crysis stinks.

Those were not real numbers just examples right? And I really dont care about anywhere else in the world other than where I live. So it could sell 10000000000000000 over seas and I could really care less. Matter of fact, it could sell that much here in the states tomorrow and I could care less.

Funny how hermits will try and convince console gamers that PC is the end to all gaming and yet developers release games like Crysis that 99% of the world cant run on its highest settings....Making everyone run out and spend their money just to be able to come to system wars to brag how they can play a game that has 3% better graphics than most console games..lol

Whatever helps kids sleep at night I guess.....Anyways , global warming, close all borders down

NO MORE IMMEGRANTS" and quit making mixed babies.....and Crysis stinks.

FunkyHeadHunter

Those were not real numbers, just hyperbole right?

[QUOTE="IgGy621985"][QUOTE="AdrianWerner"][QUOTE="Zenfoldor"]

You know why consoles are more popular to the casual audience for gaming?

Plug and play.

You buy the console, you buy the game, and you don't have to fool with it anymore.

snyper1982

Indeed, but it doesn't end with hardware, it extends to software. console gamers don't want to read manuals, to think to much while playing, to spend hours learning how to play, they want to sit down, pick up controler and play. To allow that games can't be too complex.

I agree with that 100%.

As a PC gamer, I like the compelxicity in the game. I like to learn a game. I enjoy tycoon games because there are tons and tons of elements you have to look at if you want to win. That's why I still play Transport Tycoon, RollerCoaster Tycoon, Capitalism II and enjoy playing Football Manager. Unfortunately, there are no tycoon games anymore.

I like complex and huge RPG games. I liked Arcanum, altough many publications reviewed it like an "average" RPG, and still it was one of the best RPG games I've ever played.

I liked adventure games, but not anymore. There are still some good ones, like The Longest Journey, Syberia and Still Life.

I mean, look what FunCom did with Dreamfall: The Longest Journey, a "socalled" sequel to The Longest Journey. But it's nothing like it. They practically made an action adventure of it.

I'll never forgive LucasArts for completely abandoning, primarily the adventure genre, and secondly the PC platform.

I also like an FPS genre, and the only games I really respect are the pre-Halo ones. Why? I seriously CAN'T stand that retarded auto-healing feature. You're shot, you get behind the cover, and-yay, you're healed. One of the few games that didn't featured auto-healing is Half-Life 2, and because of that it's still, IMO, the best FPS game out there.

I like an RTS genre. I like C&C, StarCraft, WarCraft, Total Annihilation, Supreme Commander etc, and I'm really affraid that the RTS genre is also going to be casualised with some retarded new features, because of this new console love. I'm affraid that in the future we won't see any single PC exclusive RTS game, but only flawed console ports with terrible interfaces, low amount of on-screen units and tutorials that say to us to press the "A" button on your controller to send the unit to the desired position...

This is exactly what I hate about most hermits. Their damned elitist attitude....

It's the truth.....I don't see how he's being an "elitist" hermit.......

crysis is exactly the game that gives pc games their stereotype: high end graphics that only run on extremely high end computers and unnecessarily complexcontrolswith little to no quality gameplay. no thank you.Big_T-Mac

9.5 and Shooter of the Year.

Now stop posting your worthless opinion.

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="Big_T-Mac"][QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="Big_T-Mac"]crysis is exactly the game that gives pc games their stereotype: high end graphics that only run on extremely high end computers and unnecessarily complexcontrolswith little to no quality gameplay. no thank you.Big_T-Mac

oh, and way back when Ocampo made a terribly racist remark in one of the Gamespotting articles. He said he prayed that rainbow six: lockdown didn't get all "gangsta" and hip-hop and drug infusedand wrote the entire editorial about it ruiningthe gamesimply because one of the screen shots had an african american with cornrows in it. to say that naturally assuming that simply because a game features an african american who sports cornrowshas gone 'gangsta' and is all about hip-hop is terribly, insanelyracist. is it safe to assume that if a game features a caucasion with hair that goes below the ear that the game is suddenly now all about rock-n-roll and electric guitars? i'm gonna go out on alimb and say no.

so, in my opinion anyways, a graphics whore and racist does not make a credible reviewer. but thats just my opinion. if u believe its all about graphics and racism is good, then so be it.

btw, don't think i'm one of those self righteous liberalswho thinks the word chocolate whendescribing m&msis racist. nothing could be further from the truth. reverse racists are just as bad if not worse than racist ppl. while racists are racist because they're ignorant, fearful morons, reverse racists are just as bad because they're equally ignorant, extremely asinine,self-righteous jackasses who find new ways to show their stupidity like saying non-caucasion ppl deserve more money, better grades, government assistance, etc. simply because they are not white. that is not fairness and equality by any stretch of the imagination and further strengthens racism.

EDIT: way to go forums. once again glitchspot has blessed my post with the "no spaces" disease that is so prevelant. why hasn't this place been shut down yet?

I think the real question is, why haven't you left yet?

Problem - The same interface that works at fifteen feet doesn't work at two feet. Font sizes, health bars, inventory menus, all of these must be changed from console to PC.

Problem - Controls, a keyboard gives you dozens of exact digital buttons, with the mouse giving you one solid, precise analog axis - joysticks give you two imprecise axis of rotation and limited access to pressing digital buttons. Controls work radically different - and while you can ask the PC gamer to plug in a controller, the game is fundamentally changed.

Problem - Memory, consoles tend to hurt for RAM, meaning PC expansive experiences, such as World of Warcraft, Crysis, or STALKER, are hard to make happen on consoles. When a console game goes to PC, it has trouble competing with the area size and complexity of a game built with a higher minimum memory.

subrosian