Crysis vs Crysis Warhead vs Crysis 2 (PC)

[casualcolors]

I can deal with Origin......ANYTHING but GFWL. GFWL makes me invent new curse words, because none exist to properly convey my dismay at dealing with that crap.

I can't see myself buying this on release, though. The community will invariably latch on to it and release advanced config tools and graphic mods, and I'd rather my first play-though be in that context.

That is, unless I see some reviews proving that it isn't graphically gimped upon release like Crysis2 was.

I kind of have to agree. Both on the GFWL sentiment as well as Crysis 3 probably not being a day 1 purchase for me. For me, the prime reason it's looking that way is just the direction that the game is going in general. It would be even worse if they had the nerve to release a DX9 game, although I strongly doubt that will happen.

 

[wolfram23]

My problem with Origin is mostly that it doesn't let me configure it how I want. I've manually set the options for where it saves installers and where it installs games to, but it doesn't use those locations. So now I have to manually make an mklink for any games I want to use Origin with, as well as redownload a game if I ever uninstall it because the installers just disappear... or are hidden somewhere I don't know.

 

[casualcolors]

My problem with Origin is mostly that it doesn't let me configure it how I want. I've manually set the options for where it saves installers and where it installs games to, but it doesn't use those locations. So now I have to manually make an mklink for any games I want to use Origin with, as well as redownload a game if I ever uninstall it because the installers just disappear... or are hidden somewhere I don't know.

Yeah, the save configuration hasn't been polished yet. It only affects certain games though. Others I can install anywhere I want. I kind of forgive it that drawback though because I predict it will be fixed before Steam manages to add a goddamn volume control to their game trailers (seriously that has been the most requested feature addition for years now and they still haven't bothered to include it. Every time I go to watch a trailer I get to have my ears blown out).

 

[wolfram23]

Why would you have your ears blown out? Do you regularly listen to everything at ultra high volume?

I do understand the wanting of volume control, but I don't understand why your volume is so high to begin with...

Eh for me, not being able to select where to save my stuff is definitely worse.

Also doesn't help that there was some confusion on my side when purchasing BF3, because I didn't realize the account I made for DA2 (to get the free ME2 copy) with BioWare also became an EA account which then became an Origin ID. And then when I contacted them, they don't let me merge my accounts. Wonderful.

 

[casualcolors]

Why would you have your ears blown out? Do you regularly listen to everything at ultra high volume?

I do understand the wanting of volume control, but I don't understand why your volume is so high to begin with...

Eh for me, not being able to select where to save my stuff is definitely worse.

Also doesn't help that there was some confusion on my side when purchasing BF3, because I didn't realize the account I made for DA2 (to get the free ME2 copy) with BioWare also became an EA account which then became an Origin ID. And then when I contacted them, they don't let me merge my accounts. Wonderful.

Soundcard, amp, high quality very loud headphones. I run my overall audio at 35% and different video applications between 5-20% independently depending on the quality of the sampling. When I have junker hardware plugged in, it's not an issue. Unfortunately for my ears when it comes to Steam trailers, I don't use that crap =(. Hopefully that clarifies my audio situation enough for your understanding. lol

Besides it just being grating, the thing that bugs me about them never adding a volume control to their trailers is that it's just abjectly lazy. Everyone always asks them to do something about it, but they more or less have adopted the stance that if it doesn't help push video games out the door, they don't really care.

 

[jessterman21]

You can take Crysis out of the jungle, but you can't keep the jungle out of Crysis. At least not for more than one slightly-lackluster game...

 

[davemaster84]

First crysis for sure, warhead was really cool same as for crysis 2. As for graphics I dunno but I think crysis 2 takes the award, but for gameplay, physics and all the rest I stick to crysis

 

[PCgamer81]

Meh, looks like the city has been destroyed and overgrowth has made it's way in. Kind of like an urban jungle hybrid.

Looks more like a sad compromise.

No, anything less than a full fledged return to a tropical jungle will make me rage against Crysis 3 just like I did Crysis 2.

If I wanted to play Halo I have my 360.

Sorry.

 

[casualcolors]

I'm not digging the literal urban jungle concept either so far. One or the other. I can live with either one. But I prefer to pass on bastardized amalgamations of both.

This reminds me of what happened with Resident Evil, where it went from each of the first 3 games somewhat contributing to the storyline (although not as much to RE1's storyline as they should have), then it just completely jumped the shark as a series. I smell the same shenanigans.

 

[PCgamer81]

It's like Crytek's trying to please everybody.

You said a while back that Crytek is trying to climb the ladder at EA, and I agree. I wonder just how much influence EA has over Crytek and their design team. It saddens me, it is a shame that Crytek ever got themselves mixed up with a publisher like EA. EA only cares about EA and making a buck. And the PC gaming community is so far down the priority list at EA that I think I want to puke.

I look at DICE and am truly astonished that BF3 turned out as good as it did. I can say with absolute moral certainty that it's quality is in spite of EA, and not because of it. Everything bad about BF3 can be attributed to EA - Origin, Battlelog , Customer Support - everything. And everything good is because of DICE. The same is true with Bioware's titles. Every negative thing can always be attributed to EA. They are blood suckers that stick their big fat head in looking for a buck. I hope they all burn in hell.

When a developer sells itself to EA, they are selling their souls. We will never get another Crysis. Never. Never ever.

RIP Crysis.

 

[PCgamer81]

Speaking of Resident Evil, I think RE lost it's quality at the same time everyone else seem's to think it gained it. RE4.

Code Veronica was the last true Resident Evil as far as I'm concerned. Although...

I have Resident Evil: Revelations on 3DS and it is great fun.

But Resident Evil 2 was the pinnacle of greatness. The old camera mode with premade envirments and horrible controls is what made Resident Evil so freaking epic.

Does that sound illogical? Maybe so. But I have fond memories of those lousy graphics and controls and they had a charm that the new games can't touch. I also remember Silent Hill and (here's one) Martian Gothic. Bet you never heard of the latter.

 

[Stringjam]

I think one of the most disappointing things, for me anyway, about Crysis2 was the revamped aliens. They look like generic, cheesy, adolescent Saturday morning cartoon characters. It looks like we get the same boring aliens in Crysis3, so I'm not stoked about that.

The aliens in Crysis were pretty unique.....I wish they would have gone more in the original direction - with more serious, creepy models.

I even found this thing while digging through assets in the Crysis SDK, and I can't even find it anywhere in the game. It appears to be a model they were working on that must not have made the cut. There seems to be several things that didn't get deleted in the assets....including an "Aurora Dunn" folder, which makes me wonder if at some point they were working on a character for Nomad's wife or sister.

I wish they would have gone this direction with the alien design - - more ominous and scary.

 

[PCgamer81]

^ Predator!

 

[casualcolors]

It's like Crytek's trying to please everybody.

You said a while back that Crytek is trying to climb the ladder at EA, and I agree. I wonder just how much influence EA has over Crytek and their design team. It saddens me, it is a shame that Crytek ever got themselves mixed up with a publisher like EA. EA only cares about EA and making a buck. And the PC gaming community is so far down the priority list at EA that I think I want to puke.

I look at DICE and am truly astonished that BF3 turned out as good as it did. I can say with absolute moral certainty that it's quality is in spite of EA, and not because of it. Everything bad about BF3 can be attributed to EA - Origin, Battlelog , Customer Support - everything. And everything good is because of DICE. The same is true with Bioware's titles. Every negative thing can always be attributed to EA. They are blood suckers that stick their big fat head in looking for a buck. I hope they all burn in hell.

When a developer sells itself to EA, they are selling their souls. We will never get another Crysis. Never. Never ever.

RIP Crysis.

Well, the things that make Crysis 3 look unappealing to me so far seem more like fan-service than kowtowing to EA. To me, the publisher never directly contributes benefit to the quality of a game, but I also don't see them having as much negative impact either. All of these early design decisions are just reflections of the developer. Could be said, looking at the evidence, that maybe Crytek is just a 1 or 2 trick pony. I don't think anyone from EA strolled into Crytek's bombed out eastern european offices (as I like to imagine them ) and said, "BIODOMES! THIS GAME WILL HAVE BIODOMES SO SAYETH THE LORD!" Just seems like Crytek trying to find some way to rationalize some way to use a lot of their Crysis 2 source while giving the fans some jungle experience, which ironically I doubt is going to be as charming as either straight jungle or straight city gameplay. But let's face it, they want to do that so they can get a game out by 2013 and make money for Crytek first, and if EA makes money too that's all well and good from their position.

You brought up DICE who I think is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. It's pretty clear with BF3 that they tried to make something special and in my opinion, EA doesn't seem to have gotten in the way of that at all. And no title in EA's entire catalog for the last several years could have garnered more in-house attention than Battlefield 3. It's clear EA was determined to make that a cornerstone of their modern business model, by how much they sank into marketing it alone. But, in spite of all that attention and what you would presume would be pressure to both get the game out on time as well as get it out as a high quality product, there weren't really any hitches with the game. The Beta stress testing went well, the game released, small bugs here and there were wrapped up with patches (which was annoying for anyone affected by said bugs, but statistically they were such a minority that I don't fault EA or DICE for this when the game sells 10 million copies across all platforms). So, if something as important as Battlefield 3 was able to be carried out without the dreaded EA-touch, I really hesitate to blame EA for anything relating to Crysis. I think if anything, DICE is a good example that the developer is to blame if the game is bad, and should receive the credit if it is good.

 

[jessterman21]

Just seems like Crytek trying to find some way to rationalize some way to use a lot of their Crysis 2 source while giving the fans some jungle experience, which ironically I doubt is going to be as charming as either straight jungle or straight city gameplay.

Yeah compromise is the name of the game. But I personally like the look - reminds me of two of my faves, Portal 2 and Prince of Persia (2008). Two games with amazing art direction.

I understand it's best not to get too hopeful, then be pleasantly surprised if it turns out pretty good. At least it will look incredible - I mean, we do know that.

Not sure what good a bow is going to be? Isn't that what silencers are for?

 

[casualcolors]

It bears mentioning that the only reason these AAA titles from EA are occasionally not available on Steam anymore, is because of an egregiously greedy policy on Valve's part. The reason EA yanked Crysis 2 from Steam, and did not sell Battlefield 3 on steam, is because EA wants any game-specific DLC to function on said game, regardless of the point of purchase. In other words, EA wants a game purchase from Gamersgate to be playable on Steam and be able to have Steam-purchased DLC added to it. Conversely, they want a game Purchased on Steam to be able to add DLC from other sources as well, if there was ever a service-specific DLC published for X title.

Valve rejected that policy and said that the only way they would agree was if the games were purchased through Steam, and the DLC was purchased exclusively through Steam, permanently linking the title to the Steam service.

EA rejected that policy because EA is trying to cater to more retailers than just Steam, and EA is open to making different versions of DLC available to different distributors.

Those are the reasons Crysis 3 will only be available through Origin, Amazon, Gamersgate etc. It's not as if EA doesn't want to have their titles sold through Steam. They just disagreed with the surreptitiously greedy policy that Steam tried to adopt with Crysis 2 and Battlefield 3. EA themselves are fairly greedy, as any corporation usually is, but at least they're the ones sinking hundreds of millions of dollars into marketing these titles.

I hate to pander on EA's behalf, but the whole perception of Origin that has been perpetuated by Valve as they simultaneously throw their hands up in the air and pretend like they aren't just trying to defend their digital distribution marketplace, has been severely misleading. Origin has basically stepped in to fill the role of the EA updater that preceded it, in lieu of Valve basically offering EA a zero-sum proposal and telling them it's either my way or the highway, since Valve has so much leverage in the digital distribution game. Both companies are vastly more alike than different.

 

[PCgamer81]

^ The above are good points.

But, let's not forget that the reason EA wants DLC and their respective games to be so "universally compatible" is because that policy puts more money in EA's pocket, not necessarily because it's good for gamers.

On the flip side, I imagine the reason Steam rejects that policy is that it would open Steam up to have to do all kinds of work that they not only wouldn't profit from, but could potentially cause all kinds of compatibility issues that would have to be sorted out round the clock by Valve - and for what? So EA can make more money.

I don't blame Valve for telling EA to get their **** and get out.

 

[PCgamer81]

...Not sure what good a bow is going to be? Isn't that what silencers are for?

What if the arrows are the kind that explode???

Still meh, but just sayin'...

 

[casualcolors]

^ The above are good points.

But, let's not forget that the reason EA wants DLC and their respective games to be so "universally compatible" is because that policy puts more money in EA's pocket, not necessarily because it's good for gamers.

On the flip side, I imagine the reason Steam rejects that policy is that it would open Steam up to have to do all kinds of work that they not only wouldn't profit from, but could potentially cause all kinds of compatibility issues that would have to be sorted out round the clock by Valve - and for what? So EA can make more money.

I don't blame Valve for telling EA to get their **** and get out.

It came across more to me like Valve tried to strongarm EA like they do to everyone else and EA said lol, well no thanks. I have a lot less qualms with EA pocketing DLC cash than Valve taking 30% for distribution and nothing more. It's not like Valve has any semblance of customer service to begin with lol. Their troubleshooting is done via a cold-drop lockbox. Let's bear in mind the last time that was a non-laughable means of communication, it was during Cold War, and regarding espionage. Lol.

 

[Stringjam]

Not sure what good a bow is going to be? Isn't that what silencers are for?

Don't really get the bow thing, either. Perhaps for "super stealth," since silencers aren't really silent per se (in reality).

Maybe you'll be able to remain cloaked while shooting it, whereas shooting a gun always uncloaks you and drains your energy.

 

[Stringjam]

^ Predator!

Yeah, and it's creepy too.....that thing is about 8' tall. Much better than the pseudo-squids in Crysis2.

 

[PCgamer81]

Fair enough CC...

But let me ask you this...

Yes or no...

Can you at least imagine the technical nightmare and PR hassle that the DLC policy would have caused Steam with gamers posting and calling and emailing and demanding refunds and "this not compatible" and "that not compatible" and "blah blah" "help up Steam" "it's not WORKINGGG!!!!!!" ... ...

...all the while Valve isn't so much as making a buck. Not a single buck (but EA is!)???

 

[casualcolors]

Fair enough CC...

But let me ask you this...

Yes or no...

Can you at least imagine the technical nightmare and PR hassle that would have caused Steam with gamers posting and calling and emailing and demanding refunds and "this not compatible" and "that not compatible" and "blah blah" "help up Steam" "it's not WORKINGGG!!!!!!" ... ...

...all the while Valve isn't so much as making a buck. Not a single buck (but EA is!).

I think I've made my point. 😉

I can imagine it, because they used to actually use this system. It was never an issue. The reason Valve wanted DLC sold exclusively through Steam wasn't because of compatibility, it was because other sites offer different sales. So the point you made is fine, but not very applicable. As far as EA making all that DLC cash, Steam used to take almost 30% for a title simply as a distributors fee. You tell me which is more unfair, lol. I'd say they're about similarly so.

All of that, coupled with the fact that Valve outright has the worst customer service of any of the digital distributors, makes the notion of them rushing around trying to help all of their customers kind of silly. They just don't do business that way. They never have, either.

 

[PCgamer81]

No, things weren't always like that, because those big games weren't out yet. DLC is still a relatively new concept (or at least charging for it) in the PC gaming arena. Used to be DLC was pretty much free and nobody was making a buck. But now that there's money to be made, it's causing trouble.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, DLC ... let's just say I'm not a fan of it. At least not when it's being sold.

I used to be able to say when convincing people why PC gaming is so awesome, "DLC is free". I can't say that, anymore. I can still say that in regards to modding, and with Steamworks (thanks, Valve!) that's more true than ever.

EA is not our friends. I will rail and hate on EA the same way you rail and hate on Halo. Even if I thought EA was right, I would ignore it and still call them wrong. I hate them with a fiery passion.

Valve has done more for PC gaming than EA ever dreamed. Yeah, they get 30%. So what? If it was the old way of doing things, the publisher would be the one getting 30% because of shipping, and trucks, and retailers, etc... Let Gabe make his 30%. He is, after all, our leader. To hell with EA and the horse they rode in on.

I can't even buy used games because they make me pay just to take it online (EA).

I could literally go on and on about the crappy treatment of gamers that companies like EA are pushing for.

They go to and fro, sticking their big fat corporate pig heads in the midst of creative artists everywhere, at all times looking to subvert and destroy to feed their greedy pig faces.

That pretty much sums up EA. You can quote me any time for free.

*takes a bow*

 

[casualcolors]

No, things weren't always like that, because those big games weren't out yet. DLC is still a relatively new concept (or at least charging for it) in the PC gaming arena. Used to be DLC was pretty much free and nobody was making a buck. But now that there's money to be made, it's causing trouble.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, DLC ... let's just say I'm not a fan of it. At least not when it's being sold.

I used to be able to say when convincing people why PC gaming is so awesome, "DLC is free". I can't say that, anymore. I can still say that in regards to modding, and with Steamworks (thanks, Valve!) that's more true than ever.

EA is not our friends. I will rail and hate on EA the same way you rail and hate on Halo. Even if I thought EA was right, I would ignore it and still call them wrong. I hate them with a fiery passion.

Valve has done more for PC gaming than EA ever dreamed. Yeah, they get 30%. So what? If it was the old way of doing things, the publisher would be the one getting 30% because of shipping, and trucks, and retailers, etc... Let Gabe make his 30%. He is, after all, our leader. To hell with EA and the horse they rode in on.

I can't even buy used games because they make me pay just to take it online (EA).

I could literally go on and on about the crappy treatment of gamers that companies like EA are pushing for.

They go to and fro, sticking their big fat corporate pig heads in the midst of creative artists everywhere, at all times looking to subvert and destroy to feed their greedy pig faces.

That pretty much sums up EA. You can quote me any time for free.

*takes a bow*

Oh I have no love for EA, but in a vacuum where you're comparing Valve and EA, neither is much if any different at all. Seeing them at each others' throats never inspired me to outright defend one or the other on moral principle, but more so just to make me laugh.

Aside from developing the Half Life franchise and the tertiary products thereof, I never thought Valve did anything really beneficial for PC gaming personally. They began DRM exploration and were monumentally greedy when the PC scene was otherwise scarce.