Crytek Abandons Crysis

I bought into the hype went and picked this up on opening day. After the visuals and physics glamor wore off I was left with a pretty average first person shooter.

I tried to stay wowed by everything but I ran into a few bugs where I would have to redo sections. The first time I went through the levels I was very cautious and tried to sneak by everything and eliminate all the enemies. On the second go around I just sped through the areas ignoring the enemies and the end was result was the exact same. That just took away all immersion for me and I uninstalled within a week.

To top this off their stupid DRM which they didn't at first admit to sounded like it was eating my DVD drive when I loaded the game which was extremely annoying while the people that pirated the game didn't have to suffer, great thinking there.

Overall they can blame piracy all they want but the truth of the matter is you made a mediocre game, extremely over hyped it, made it unplayable on the majority of systems, and added DRM that annoys your customers that actually purchased it. Those aren't the ingredients for a hit.
 
JVC said:
can you guys help me? why is everyone saying shit about crysis 1? is there something wrong with it, i just got a copy yesterday?? i haven't played it yet, i am wainting for the g280 to be released.
Click to expand...

Don't listen to them. Its a great game. I am not being sarcastic.
 
Crytek is not Valve. Not all game developers have their act together.

There were moments in Crysis where I felt like new ground was being broken, just with the realism of the graphics, the quality of the sound (best i've heard) and the realism of the game world itself.

With the right hardware someone, not Crytek, but someone, could make an amazing game with that engine. Crysis just is not it. When you get into the higher shader and post processing settings, with anti-aliasing, even though the frame rate is bad you can see the potential of it.

I think Crysis is awesome to romp around in as a tech demo, but no it does not stand up to the best shooters when it comes to level design, voice acting, ect. But somebody might do something great with that engine. I would almost rather see them give up on Crysis and start supporting third party developers more. As long as there are no real performance problems, memory leaks, with the game itself, I don't care if they stop patching it. The game just isn't good enough for me to care.
 
Dillirium said:
That's crap. I purchased the game because I was expecting some serious game age.. Hell the primary reason I purchased this game was to get the Mechwarrior Legends mod. The game itself wasn't that great. Hell it took me 2 hrs to beat the last boss.... no not because it was hard but because I kept falling thru the ship and/or crashing. The game was bug haven at release. They don't deserve anymore of my money anyways.. this also coming form a console owner.
Click to expand...

I have that falling through the ship bug too, even after the 1.2 patch.
 
blah blah blah piracy took away our sales blah blah fucking pirates blah blah pc gaming is doomed

I hope crytek rots on their own pool of incompetence and disregard for consumers demands. They wanna make a game for hardware that 0.1% of gamers have with gameplay comparable to Doom1/2 (hey, at least Doom 1/2 are good on their own way) and sell it like hotcakes? Well screw you whiningtek, cry some more.
 
JVC said:
can you guys help me? why is everyone saying shit about crysis 1? i.
Click to expand...
Great graphics with the exact same game play as Far Cry. Other than that it's a bunch of sour grapes from people who hop on the "it's cool to complain about X game today" bandwagon. Most of the people complaining about the game being unplayable on certain systems most likely never even loaded it on theirs because with my system below I played it with everything but one or two minor settings on max in DX10 just fine. Anyone who can't play it on their system with at least decent settings has something seriously wrong with their computer. In short what you're seeing here is game snobbery.
 
Biskquik said:
http://www.valvesoftware.com/publications/2008/GDC2008_CrossPlatformDevelopment.pdf
I've always found this presentation as an interesting look at console (or any embedded system for that matter) development.
Click to expand...

Holy crap that was a great read. First time I saw that lil gem. The guys/girls at Valve are a Cynical bunch. Lov'em!

About Crysis..it was a Decent game... but as already stated, it was nothing but a Tech Demo after you played a few levels.

Also, someone else asked this and I was always curious as well. Did anyone ever use the CryEngine besides Crytek?? I don't think anyone has besides modders...?
 
tickle_me_emo said:
Would they really drop support for a game that's only been out for 8 months? At least EA drops support after 12.
Click to expand...

I contacted EA support via phone the day that NHL 08 was released.
"Unfortunately, we no longer support this title"
Release day....Nice


Crysis was amazing, a blistered with potential. The game was so ambitious, cost is hard to recover.

A true gem, but when its backed by a company such as EA, all they care about is the bottom line.

Lets say it was Valve behind Crysis, it wouldn't matter if it sold 10 copies, they would back the product simply because they owe it to the advancement of gaming technology.

I pirate everything, every flipping game I can, I download.
But I paid for Crysis.
The success of milestone/benchmark games like Crysis directly influences the cutting edge of future games.

Want better looking games, new technology, better anything, you need to support the games that push it. If you don't fucktards like EA will stick to the old engines and we will never see anything new.
 
Why does everyone always blame the ninjas? Anyway I was hoping a patch would increase fps but oh well
 
Domingo said:
Perhaps no other companies are interested in the engine? I might be wrong, but was the Far Cry engine every used for any other games except Far Cry itself and the console spin offs?
Have they sold the Crysis engine to anyone else?
Why waste time fixing something that's probably already sold 90% of the copies it'll ever sell?
Click to expand...

Yes, they did. CryEngine 2 was licensed by a multitude of companies, but not all of them are going to use it for games.
 
It's sad to read this, but I'm really interested in knowing what is Crytek preparing. It may be something worthwhile.

I never had any bugs in Crysis, especially not the serious bugs some people complained about, but dropping support like this isn't really good news, regardless of what's coming.

And for those imagining Crysis on a console, you should imagine an equivalent to the PC version with medium/low settings. Consoles do not have the horsepower to run Crysis as it is.
 
Crysis is a very pretty game but gives me zero reason to play it over again. It's a nice beach but I don't have much incentive to go swimming in it again.
 
krupted said:
rotfl- the day i see crysis run on an xbox360 will be the day my wife lets me have another woman in bed.

even the latest pc games that do make it to consoles now are starting to show how 'slow' they are compared to pc's. i bet they would have to cripple crysis so much that it would be hardly recognizable on a console.

it was a historic even when the xbox360 came out, because it really did provide pc-like graphics... but really it just doesn't compare anymore.. again.
Click to expand...

Yet half the people on PC's have to "cripple crysis" to get it at a playable level.

Graphics arn't everything, Crysis is living proof of that. :rolleyes:
 
Blown 89 said:
Great graphics with the exact same game play as Far Cry. Other than that it's a bunch of sour grapes from people who hop on the "it's cool to complain about X game today" bandwagon. Most of the people complaining about the game being unplayable on certain systems most likely never even loaded it on theirs because with my system below I played it with everything but one or two minor settings on max in DX10 just fine. Anyone who can't play it on their system with at least decent settings has something seriously wrong with their computer. In short what you're seeing here is game snobbery.
Click to expand...

Not everyone can afford a top of the line computer during this shitty economy.

I dropped a bit over a grand on my last PC when I built it. 7800GT, but it’s already out dated enough to not be able to run most current games fluid like. I'm not about to drop any more money on a PC for a while. Thus, my PS3 is my new favorite toy. Got it Dec 06'.... and no plans on spending any more money on it, other than new games.
 
Baker said:
Yet half the people on PC's have to "cripple crysis" to get it at a playable level.

Graphics arn't everything, Crysis is living proof of that. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Actually it's not. It seems that most people that "say" they played Crysis, didn't look at anything beyond graphics. I was actually playing the game AND enjoying the pretty graphics. Gameplay wise, Crysis is very good and it has TONS of replayability, which is something I can't say for 90% of the games out there.

Story is probably Crysis's weakest element, but there are tons of other games that bank on the alien invasion story and most do not get the bad rep that Crysis did for it, for some reason. And still, and this is IMO, I enjoyed the "Core" levels. I never played a game in such an environment. If that's not innovation, I don't know what is.
 
Baker said:
Not everyone can afford a top of the line computer during this shitty economy.

I dropped a bit over a grand on my last PC when I built it. 7800GT, but it’s already out dated enough to not be able to run most current games fluid like. I'm not about to drop any more money on a PC for a while. Thus, my PS3 is my new favorite toy. Got it Dec 06'.... and no plans on spending any more money on it, other than new games.
Click to expand...

The problem is, you don't NEED to play it at max settings. I didn't and I enjoyed it. My 3 year old system was still able to handle it, at medium settings plus a couple set to high @ 1024x768. Most of the people complain because they couldn't run it at the highest settings @ insanely high resolutions, which is ridiculous for a game that brings graphics fidelity to the level Crysis did. Oblivion is also an example of a game, that required a next-generation GPU (i.e. G80) in order to be maxed out.
 
Silus said:
The problem is, you don't NEED to play it at max settings. I didn't and I enjoyed it. My 3 year old system was still able to handle it, at medium settings plus a couple set to high @ 1024x768. Most of the people complain because they couldn't run it at the highest settings @ insanely high resolutions, which is ridiculous for a game that brings graphics fidelity to the level Crysis did. Oblivion is also an example of a game, that required a next-generation GPU (i.e. G80) in order to be maxed out.
Click to expand...

I couldn't play the game on MEDIUM settings with a pretty high end rig. Slideshows are no fun, no matter how pretty the individual slides are.
 
Monkey God said:
I couldn't play the game on MEDIUM settings with a pretty high end rig. Slideshows are no fun, no matter how pretty the individual slides are.
Click to expand...

At what resolution ?
I played with everything set to medium, except texture quality and shaders, which were set to high @ 1024x768 and although not smooth, I was able to play it fairly well. How could you NOT achieve that with your rig (I'm assuming it's the same as in your sig) ?

The worst part for me was in that level where fighters were bombing koreans (or trying to) and we had to disable all their anti-air turrets. It was the only part where I saw this slideshow behavior and had to lower the texture quality to medium, in order to be able to even play that level. Everything else, even the snow levels that many complained about, was playable.
 
I ran it on high with my system in my sig. I never had a slideshow and the game was playable all the way through. The end mission on the carrier had some big slowdowns, but 99% of the time, things ran fine.
And my system is nothing spectacular.
 
Silus said:
At what resolution ?
I played with everything set to medium, except texture quality and shaders, which were set to high @ 1024x768 and although not smooth, I was able to play it fairly well. How could you NOT achieve that with your rig (I'm assuming it's the same as in your sig) ?

The worst part for me was in that level where fighters were bombing koreans (or trying to) and we had to disable all their anti-air turrets. It was the only part where I saw this slideshow behavior and had to lower the texture quality to medium, in order to be able to even play that level. Everything else, even the snow levels that many complained about, was playable.
Click to expand...

Dont ask me...I set it on medium settings and 1680 X 1050. And yes, is on the rig in my sig...20 fps average. I got the point where I was looking at playing with all the configs and im like "why the hell am I wasting time trying to tweak a game to run on medium settings on high-end hardware?" DONE.
 
all aboard the fail boat. toot toot. Who didn't see this coming.
 
it all depends on what mode your running the game on.. dx9 runs alot better when compared to dx10
 
Crysis was hyped because of the graphics engine, and the "new" wore off a long time ago. Big surprise here. :rolleyes:
 
Baker said:
Not everyone can afford a top of the line computer during this shitty economy.
Click to expand...

What a load of crap. Didn't you get your stimulus check?

Baker said:
I dropped a bit over a grand on my last PC when I built it. 7800GT, but it’s already out dated enough to not be able to run most current games fluid like. I'm not about to drop any more money on a PC for a while. Thus, my PS3 is my new favorite toy. Got it Dec 06'.... and no plans on spending any more money on it, other than new games.
Click to expand...

I dropped a grand on my pc that I built in 2003, and I can't play Crysis, PC Gaming ftl.:rolleyes:
 
I dropped a grand on my pc that I built in 2003, and I can't play Crysis, PC Gaming ftl.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Yeah.. when the ORIGINAL Call of duty, C&C Generals, and Max Payne 2 were the pinacle of graphics power. PS2 was still king of the hill back then ($200 for that).. factor in that if you want a top of the line system now, a PS3 with an extra controller cost what... $600? You are coming close to that grand that you dropped for your top end system back in the day.. Pc Gaming ftl? lol. :rolleyes:

On top of that, your system can probably still play just about any game out there besides crysis. Crysis is a cluster of fail as far as rendering and making it playable for the average user. Try popping in some of those blue ray games into your ps2 and lets see what happens.. nothing.
 
Monkey God said:
Dont ask me...I set it on medium settings and 1680 X 1050. And yes, is on the rig in my sig...20 fps average. I got the point where I was looking at playing with all the configs and im like "why the hell am I wasting time trying to tweak a game to run on medium settings on high-end hardware?" DONE.
Click to expand...

The only time the game should have been running like that was if you were running real AA. It utterly annihilates performance in Crysis.
 
lloose said:
Yeah.. when the ORIGINAL Call of duty, C&C Generals, and Max Payne 2 were the pinacle of graphics power. PS2 was still king of the hill back then ($200 for that).. factor in that if you want a top of the line system now, a PS3 with an extra controller cost what... $600? You are coming close to that grand that you dropped for your top end system back in the day.. Pc Gaming ftl? lol. :rolleyes:

On top of that, your system can probably still play just about any game out there besides crysis. Crysis is a cluster of fail as far as rendering and making it playable for the average user. Try popping in some of those blue ray games into your ps2 and lets see what happens.. nothing.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure the eyes indicated some sort of irony in the statement.

Anyways, I loved Crysis, and I played it on my laptop. All low settings with a couple mediums, 800x600. It was still pretty, just not as sharp as one might hope. It was an intense and immensely fun shooter, with so many ways to take care of any given situation, and if you haven't tried it already, its definitely worth it.
 
lloose said:
Yeah.. when the ORIGINAL Call of duty, C&C Generals, and Max Payne 2 were the pinacle of graphics power. PS2 was still king of the hill back then ($200 for that).. factor in that if you want a top of the line system now, a PS3 with an extra controller cost what... $600? You are coming close to that grand that you dropped for your top end system back in the day.. Pc Gaming ftl? lol. :rolleyes:

On top of that, your system can probably still play just about any game out there besides crysis. Crysis is a cluster of fail as far as rendering and making it playable for the average user. Try popping in some of those blue ray games into your ps2 and lets see what happens.. nothing.
Click to expand...

I was trying to be sarcastic, sadly it doesn't convey well online. I was hoping the ":rolleyes:" would help.

My old computer can still play new games such as Crysis. Its just on low/medium settings.
 
I'm morbidly curious about the "news very, very soon" bit, but as it stands...damn, people.

Having said that, though: are there any show-stopping bugs in Crysis as it is now?
 
Monkey God said:
I couldn't play the game on MEDIUM settings with a pretty high end rig. Slideshows are no fun, no matter how pretty the individual slides are.
Click to expand...

wow, i guess i have to praise my AMD system then because i can play it @ 1600x1200(sig), everything on high(DX9) at a steady 28FPS for virtually the entire game:confused:

i would think with your rig, you'd get at least what i'm getting:confused:

something must not be right somewhere - have you tried any new drivers and the patches?
 
Dunan said:
wow, i guess i have to praise my AMD system then because i can play it @ 1600x1200(sig), everything on high(DX9) at a steady 28FPS for virtually the entire game:confused:

i would think with your rig, you'd get at least what i'm getting:confused:

something must not be right somewhere - have you tried any new drivers and the patches?
Click to expand...

I have no idea, but I got rid of it soon after and have no desire to try again patched or not. At the time it had latest drivers.
 
Its just on your end then. I ran Crysis great with Helder's config (better IQ than stock very high) at 1280x1024. I swear, some of you guys complaining about Crysis' performance are trying to to run the game 1920x1200 or higher on max settings and expecting 60 FPS?

Even more blasphemous is people who are expecting to run Crysis with 3+ year old rigs. Crytek is not Blizzard, its pretty obvious from the get go older hardware will not be able to run Crysis well. Can rigs built in 2001 run Doom 3, Far Cry or HL2 well without killing the resolution and settings? I don't think so.
 
Sounds to me like they are going to announce a large content patch or an expansion, or possibly crysis 2. Check this out.

http://www.crysis-online.com/forum/index.php/topic,26864.new.html

"Apparently Crytek has registered a trade mark for the name "Crysis Warzone", as well as a website with that name. You can view the trade mark details for Crysis Warzone at the UK Intellectual Property Office website here.

Crytek now has 4 names trademarked (link): Crysis Wars, Crysis Warhead, World in Crysis and, as of May 19th, Crysis Warzone.

You can visit the website already, however it currently just shows a placeholder: http://crysiswars.com

May the speculation begin! "
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top