I've only seen regression since Crysis

Regression in the scope that FPS push.

No game still has the overall package in terms of A.I, physics, and environment interactivity that this game had.

Guess what, it came out a decade ago.

It's laughable to see how little games have evolved outside of graphics (leap is smaller than ever before) in the past 10 years.

99% of games still have 100% static everything in the environment and games like Crysis and FEAR are still considered to have the best game AI overall in a shooter.

The A.I. is so sophisticated M.I.T (considered the best tech school on the planet) has an publication written on the pure genius of the code. MIT publication

Compare the jump from 1997 - 2007, HUGE.

2007 to 2017, not so much. Let's be honest here, outside of graphics what else are games doing today that games a decade ago weren't.

Could the Switch even run Crysis maxed out at 60 FPS?

It's true. Singleplayer shooters hit thier stride with HL2, Fear, and crysis. There is still hope though.

Well what would you expect when everyone is busy making COD or Battlefield clone( Gameplay mechanics of course).

Also the amount of details Crysis 1 achived was because it was made for PC from ground up. Not like today where every other PC game is just a port with better graphics( Excluding PC exclusive games which IMO are very few).

I don't even like shooters that much except for a select few, but man. I totally respect this game.

If you could run this on max settings back in 2006 or 2007 whenever it came out, you were the man. It was amazing how far ahead of its time this game was in regards to its utilization of the tech available.

This game was so far ahead of the tech at the time, nobody could run it on very high until about a year later, even then 60 FPS stable was not a guarantee.

It wasn't until quad cores and the 8800 GTX/GTX 280 (huge leap over past series) when people started being able to push to the highest settings smoothly.

Well I guess if you forget about actually making a good/fun shooter sure things haven't evloved since boring to play Crysis.

Crysis was boring? Whereas your average shooter only gives you one way of tackling situations, Crysis gave a HUGE sandbox with full physics to allow the player to create there own ways of winning the fight. You don't get this style of shooter today, it's go in a straight line and pew pew bad guys who just stand there or duck every 2 seconds while being completely stationary.

Is that why it beat out Halo 3, CoD 4, Team Fortress 2 and Bioshock for FPS of the Year?

It also scored a 9.5.

Go play your generic reskins of CoD.

@brah4ever: It would definitely fit right in somewhere around 2015, to be quite honest. The graphics have a lot of features that are still considered relative novelties by today's standards.

I may be overselling it a tad bit, but nobody can deny it's a good looking game for sure. I don't know why I haven't played it yet; it seems to have a military theme going for it which I quite enjoy in my games.

Yeah, the game looks better than a majority of game released in the last couple of years.

Frostbite games such as Battlefront and BF1 have its number but overall Crysis 1 looks fine, especially maxed out.

The game has a military theme throughout, play it.

Modded Crysis is probably type 5 greatest looking games of all time. The vid in the OP was non modded.

@brah4ever: It was a tech demo that ran like chunky shit, but yeah sure great game.

A tech demo that beat out your all time GOAT, CoD 4.

Interesting.

Ran like chunky sh1t on your PoS of a rig breh.

@brah4ever: It ran like chunky shit on anything no matter how low end or high end you had brah. Sorry, but it takes more then a pretty screenshot for me to praise and love a game, and that's all Crysis had going for it, pretty screen shots.

Man, I was just waiting for the tech demo comment lol. So dumb. Crysis is 10x the game that most shooters are these days. Between Crysis and Warhead, we got an amazing glimpse at what the future of shooters might have been. The game would have been dope as **** even if it launched with PS2 graphics. The graphics were just a bonus on top of an awesome sandbox shooter with sweet ass gameplay and play style options for days. The freedom and empowerment those games afforded the player in what was typically a very restrictive genre was unreal.

But instead, CoD4 took the industry by storm and we went through years of linear set piece shooters with dull and shallow mechanics.

Gamers don't deserve good games.

God that looks like shit. Remember how hard Windows nut huggers used to jock this trash?

You are so friggin spot on with your comment. I forgot just how great the game was until watching the video above. Now I want to reinstall it. I wonder how it'll run with my new video card. I think this one might not be as powerful as the old one, but it has new features the old one didn't have. Hmmmmm....My main complaint, though, is how they dumbed the other two Crysis games down.

Don't bother with him. He's idea of fun of playing Crapzone and since he's a cow you can't expect him to be intelligent enough to play anything more than the onrails Sony's non-games.

What I love about Crysis is that even to this day I've not a level run through play the same as a previous one........ Crysis is only as boring as the player allows it to be.

Yip, Crysis blew my mind for many many years, it was the benchmark for every pc gamer, it caused untold buthurt in console fanboys, many many many screenshot threads, those were amazing times. The game was amazing through and through as well, Warhead was even better.

Then Crytek chased that console money and went down the crapper.

My mind raced while playing Crysis, it was an exciting time for first person shooters, it felt like Half life all over again in the ways it would change the industry, a dam shame it never went further than that.

I did the same last year when one of these threads popped up. Pretty amazing how well it still holds up, especially Warhead.

That tends to be the "problem" with games like these. With the freedom to play however you want also comes the freedom to play lame.

It seems unbelievable that a gamer could be disappointed with a wealth of tools and options in an interactive playground that caters to innumerable scenarios, breeding emergence and replayability. But then you see the reactions that games like Crysis and MGSV get and realize that some gamers just need a canned experience.

Nothing wrong with the latter of course, plenty of great games adhere to strict structure. But there's certainly room for both and I'd love to see more of the former.

I liked Crysis and Warhead when they were by themselves. Once Far Cry 3 and later, Far Cry 4 released, I much preferred the Ubisoft pair.

If Crysis/Warhead had the open world of FC3/FC4, that would have been great.

After this video, I kinda want to build a PC again :D Yeah Crysis was really something, I played it back in 2008 with a PC I just had built, used the mods that were available back then to make it look (and run) better. People who say it's just a tech demo are so wrong and haven't probably even played it.

Crysis was the game that got me back into PC gaming.. But I played it quite late, 2010 I think, and I was still blown away buy everything it offered. Wasn't really into Warhead that much, I guess I need to try it again.

Ugh. I never want to read about GOAP ever again. I had to study this document for A.I. Programming in college and it was a real head scratcher. I had an assignment on it and I barely passed. Hardest class I ever had to do. :(

Yeah, it would be great if there were more diverse behaviors in the FPS genre. Generally, I feel you could map most of them out using an FSM. It would make for more engaging fire-fights if AI had a larger pool of actions and prioritized these actions sensibly.

I think those people might have played it, but just really sucked at it. There's so much you can do in the game with the suit powers and shit. Some people just don't understand the gameplay and what you can do in the game. They probably just saw a jungle with some bad guys to shoot at and not much more, is my guess.

It's a shame they have to say it sucks just because they're too dumb to understand the gameplay.

@Litchie:

I feel the enjoyment you get from Crysis will depend on how you play it. I played the game primarily using the stealth mechanics (weapons silencers and suit cloaking) and had a generally bland experience. I really feel the game is designed around mixing up your approach with each encounter rather than focusing on one, single approach but this presents two problems.

1. The game doesn't persuade the player to experiment by using the level design or enemy encounters. It's too easy for a player to naturally start with one solution and stick to that solution for the duration of the game. Example: How I automatically took to using stealth. I was never dissuaded from not using stealth wherever I could.

2. The game generally isn't designed around taking a singular approach. Comparably, the level design isn't as good as a game that has stealth in mind nor is the design comparable to that of an action game. Crysis relies on its abundance of mechanics over the intricacies of its enemy placement and encounter design. For example, If you consider some other stealth-action games: stealth players who explore the environment are typically rewarded with hidden paths that give you a satisfying advantage over the enemy.

Yeah Crysis can't be applauded enough for what it was.

Not only did it totally deliver on a graphical level, keeping up with other games for about 5 years.

But the gameplay was truly fun and unique. You had 4 cool super powers, and giant levels you could go through.

I finished Crysis about 5 times, and it wasn't just because the games graphics never aged, but because I kept finding news ways to go through levels.

Crysis 2&3 never had ANY of that, all they had were graphiczzzzzzzz

Yeah, Crysis was a masterpiece. It is a shame the general public only seems to remember it for its graphics and not how far ahead of its time its gameplay was. Crysis was an actual sandbox. Unlike many of the faux sandboxes we see today, Crysis actually let you set up emergent situations like a TRUE sandbox would. You know, the defining characteristing of the genre. Crysis was dope for the same reasons BotW looks to be dope.

That is to say, a physics oriented sandbox, where unscripted situations will occur naturally and the physics based nature allows for so many solutions.

Crysis is a bad game and you're all fucking delusional

Ah Yes, Crysis, Brilliant Game with Brilliant AI.

People who say Crysis was nothing but graphics flick most likely never played the game.

@fantasygamer said:

@mems_1224 said:

Crysis is a bad game and you're all fucking delusional

http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-3/uncharted-3-drakes-deception

@mems_1224: you said Crysis is a bad game what uncharted has to do with my post? Lol

Goofy gamers deserve getting less great FPS. They buy the same trash every year that built on an ancient engine.

You deserve it.

bad games get good scores all the time. thought it was fairly clear

So.. U4 is a bad game?

its worse than UC3 and Crysis combined

@brah4ever: Defenitely true they let the single player fps genre down this gen, but it's not the only genre, it's been since 2011 they released a boxing game and there's a lot more than those two.

Not many games are released and it's mainly because a lot of them are such good money makers like cod/bf/fifa and so on. I think wolfenstein was a good hommage to the old shool fps, but if you look for something like crysis, yeah well, ubisoft ain't crytek are they, they're still using the name far cry but that was a game made by crytek not ubisoft, they just published it.

I'm not saying the far cry sequels are all bad. Far cry 2 had some amazing graphics with african nature, the gunplay was quite good as well but infinite spawning enemies is a major flaw in the game, and can simply not be overlooked anymore in fc 3, It's the reason why I avoided Fc 4 up until now. I have read when you clear a lot of outposts there are less enemies spawning but it's still a major flaw in the game. Crysis wasn't like that, once the enemy is dead they don't come back.

Of course there's also the destruction, that's pretty much missing in the far cry games. battlefield does quite a good job at this though but single player games isn't really there cup of tea and even in battlefield some structures remain indestructible.

I woudln't say the ai was that good in crysis, allthough for 2007 it was quite stellar. But idd, it hasn't improved much, especially in games like far cry.

Crysis gave you a huge jungle where everything looked the same filled with pointless random camps. So yes, it was boring. You could shoot guys or throw things at them. That variety! Games like Dishonored shit all over Crysis in terms of level design, ways to tackle enemies and most importantly: fun.

This

Blame consoles, they saw CoD 4 success and tried to chase it as did a majority of devs last gen.

Pretty much, Crysis gave the player options on how to tackle fights.

lol go play some Calla Dooty bro, typical Xbot.

Still needs his hands held when playing a game.

Doom has surpassed Crysis in a terms of gameplay.

Metro has surpassed Crysis in a terms of graphics.

Crysis was definitely one of the best game of last generation but it has been surpassed.

Doom and Metro, lol.

I'm not saying they are horrible but they didn't push the industry forward at all.

@nethernova: You could do a lot more than that but you seemingly haven't played the game so that's why you don't know.

I don't recall seeing enemies respawn at outposts in the SP campaigns of both Far Cry 3 and Far Cry 4. When you clear the outposts in both games, they remain clear. However, if you look at the location of hostile outposts on the map, they're surrounded by a red circle. You will see bad guys respawn within that circle. Once you capture an outpost, no more respawning bad guys.

Far Cry 4 added a caveat. After you capture an outpost, it may come under attack from Royal troops who can take away that outpost unless you capture the nearest fortress.

Well yeah, the genre evolves with the PC, this has always been the case. Halo and CoD's impact (and yes the first few Halos and CoD's were good games in their own right) were more specifically important for moving console FPS forward, but the stuff devs borrowed from those games did more harm to the genre than actually evolve. Because no one quite understood exactly why a 2 weapon limit works so well in Combat Evolved, or why Chief having a regen shield works well in that game. For instance a lot of them never had an enemy as consistently enjoyable to fight as those elites were in Combat Evolved.

It's why Lord of the Fallen is a mediocre game, even if superficially it looks like Dark Souls. Being hard and having deliberate animations aren't the only things that made Dark Souls special, and on a basic gameplay level they missed the mark.

So with all that said, you take a genre that flat out plays better on a mouse and keyboard, and said interface allows you to do more+tech that comes with a PC and you have what we have as far as first person games today. Elements of Crysis n STALKER were our glimpse at where the FPS could have been in terms of single player, instead we got a bunch of gamepad shooters. And every now and then that leads to a pretty bitchin game, like Doom, but even that isn't moving the genre forward in any way.

@brah4ever: don't really play cod. wanna try that one again bud? ill give you a do over