- Sep 24, 2007
- 565
- 0
- 18,980
Hello all, first I'll start off by saying that Call of Duty 4 is a much better purchase than Crysis. Allow me to explain why that is, and how I came to this conclusion, which is based on Single Player and Multiplayer aspects, graphics, overall performance, and game play.
The single player campaigns for both games are quite nice. I had a lot of fun with Crysis and CoD4 alike, however there were some problems I had when playing the Crysis single player campaign. When running on optimized settings, I encountered several areas where I got no more than EIGHT frames per second. That made that entire portion unplayable unless I turned the graphics ALL the way down, to something which looked on par with F.E.A.R on 800x600 @ Low Settings. Comparatively, Call of Duty 4 single player I blitzed through the whole thing with frames ranging from 60-90+, and those graphics were on par, if not the same, than Crysis graphics at Medium settings. Overall the single player campaigns were fun, but I enjoyed the Call of Duty 4 version better because I could play it with more stability.
Multiplayer, for most, is a big, big thing to have in a game for people. And I am no exception. Crysis multiplayer reminds me of a game that is in an immature stage. It's fun, but it has potential to be much more and mature into a multiplayer that is amazing, something like that of World in Conflict (which has dozens of tournaments and is action packed). Call of Duty 4 multiplayer is essentially the entire reason I bought the game, and I bought the game for it's multiplayer because the multiplayer in Crysis was just not on par with what I had expected. Call of Duty 4 has several game modes, whereas Crysis has two. Call of Duty 4 also allows unlocks and customization, whereas Crysis doesn't really expand on this all that much. The maps are really nice in CoD4, there's tons; Crysis has only 4. To me this is just unacceptable for a game of its prestige. Overall the fun factor of Crysis multiplayer versus Call of Duty 4 multiplayer, while both are fun, is like comparing apples to oranges, it's not even in the same ballpark really.
Graphics are what everyone loves, that's why we spend hundreds, if not thousands of dollars on our custom PCs that we game on. Crysis is a BEAUTIFUL game, but it's horrible when it comes to scaling. Absolutely horrible. Call of Duty 4 delivers on par with Medium Graphics in Crysis, only at 60+ frames a second on my old GPU. Why is Crysis displaying on par with CoD4 but taxing the system so much more? I do not know, but I think the game is unoptimized and potentially released to early.
Game play is also another issue I had. While the Call of Duty 4 manual is almost worthless to look at, the Crysis manual is roughly the same. I encountered certain things that I had questions about while playing the game, turned to my manual for Crysis only to find no documentation on the subject, which I felt was important, at all. Call of Duty 4 is easy to play, but the controls could be a lot better, but some fiddling and tweaking fixes that. Crysis and it's controls are much better in my opinion. It was easier to get the feel for things right away than it was in Call of Duty 4. The HUDs in both games are very nice as well. I wish I could take certain elements from one and put it to the other when I play either of the games.
If I was to pick a game and only purchase one of them based upon what I know now, I would purchase Call of Duty 4. I liked Crysis for it's single player a lot, but hated the multiplayer, I liked Call of Duty 4 and it's single player and multiplayer a lot as well, but favored the multiplayer greatly over the single player. Crysis and it's single player treads on ground I haven't played on since the original Half-Life. And Call of Duty 4 offers probably some of the best Multiplayer I've ever played. Hands down though when comparing each of these games it comes as no shock why I bought Crysis; it was the hype. Call of Duty 4 delivered on everything I had heard of, Crysis only delivered on the graphics, and that was about it. CoD4 > Crysis.
The single player campaigns for both games are quite nice. I had a lot of fun with Crysis and CoD4 alike, however there were some problems I had when playing the Crysis single player campaign. When running on optimized settings, I encountered several areas where I got no more than EIGHT frames per second. That made that entire portion unplayable unless I turned the graphics ALL the way down, to something which looked on par with F.E.A.R on 800x600 @ Low Settings. Comparatively, Call of Duty 4 single player I blitzed through the whole thing with frames ranging from 60-90+, and those graphics were on par, if not the same, than Crysis graphics at Medium settings. Overall the single player campaigns were fun, but I enjoyed the Call of Duty 4 version better because I could play it with more stability.
Multiplayer, for most, is a big, big thing to have in a game for people. And I am no exception. Crysis multiplayer reminds me of a game that is in an immature stage. It's fun, but it has potential to be much more and mature into a multiplayer that is amazing, something like that of World in Conflict (which has dozens of tournaments and is action packed). Call of Duty 4 multiplayer is essentially the entire reason I bought the game, and I bought the game for it's multiplayer because the multiplayer in Crysis was just not on par with what I had expected. Call of Duty 4 has several game modes, whereas Crysis has two. Call of Duty 4 also allows unlocks and customization, whereas Crysis doesn't really expand on this all that much. The maps are really nice in CoD4, there's tons; Crysis has only 4. To me this is just unacceptable for a game of its prestige. Overall the fun factor of Crysis multiplayer versus Call of Duty 4 multiplayer, while both are fun, is like comparing apples to oranges, it's not even in the same ballpark really.
Graphics are what everyone loves, that's why we spend hundreds, if not thousands of dollars on our custom PCs that we game on. Crysis is a BEAUTIFUL game, but it's horrible when it comes to scaling. Absolutely horrible. Call of Duty 4 delivers on par with Medium Graphics in Crysis, only at 60+ frames a second on my old GPU. Why is Crysis displaying on par with CoD4 but taxing the system so much more? I do not know, but I think the game is unoptimized and potentially released to early.
Game play is also another issue I had. While the Call of Duty 4 manual is almost worthless to look at, the Crysis manual is roughly the same. I encountered certain things that I had questions about while playing the game, turned to my manual for Crysis only to find no documentation on the subject, which I felt was important, at all. Call of Duty 4 is easy to play, but the controls could be a lot better, but some fiddling and tweaking fixes that. Crysis and it's controls are much better in my opinion. It was easier to get the feel for things right away than it was in Call of Duty 4. The HUDs in both games are very nice as well. I wish I could take certain elements from one and put it to the other when I play either of the games.
If I was to pick a game and only purchase one of them based upon what I know now, I would purchase Call of Duty 4. I liked Crysis for it's single player a lot, but hated the multiplayer, I liked Call of Duty 4 and it's single player and multiplayer a lot as well, but favored the multiplayer greatly over the single player. Crysis and it's single player treads on ground I haven't played on since the original Half-Life. And Call of Duty 4 offers probably some of the best Multiplayer I've ever played. Hands down though when comparing each of these games it comes as no shock why I bought Crysis; it was the hype. Call of Duty 4 delivered on everything I had heard of, Crysis only delivered on the graphics, and that was about it. CoD4 > Crysis.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram