hey guys,i think it is unfair that all pc gamers are crazily running after crysis and call of duty 4 is not getting the proper attention that it deserves.i have played many first person shooters and i have been hearing about crysis since last year,now it has come and my first impression about it is that it is a combination of 'far cry' and 'stalker' with some extra controls and some additional amazing visual details which depends entirely on the power of one's cpu and gpu,game play is too tough and confusing,open ending and directional compass and instructions issued are more or less lame and confusing.unless a player is too patient he/she will soon interest in pursuing the game to end.on the other hand though call of duty has got an outstanding rating yet it has got a very low advertising and campaigning,but anyone who will play it would understand what a masterpiece it is,every pc gamer should buy it,it even runs superbly on not so high end pc,with superb video,excellent audio,outstanding gameplay it should win the praise of everyone.after playing all the recent games,i vote for COD4.
Friends,why running after crysis?there is call of duty 4
- Thread starter ani123
- Start date
- Status
L
link590o
i also discussed this. my thread was "somewhat disappointed with crysis"
and you're absolutely right. i pinned it as a combination of fear and counter strike. many would agree.
and quite honestly red fox, i'm somewhat surprised by your reasoning for preferring crysis. graphical quality? graphics in both are stunningly well done. graphics have advanced so much it's barely worth paying attention to them anymore. it's more of a matter of is it satisfying to play at this point in time. and for me, the answer there is no. call of duty 4 kicks the crap out of it to me. all of the call of duty games have been fantastic.
crysis had a few let-downs. but that's all opinion. i'll admit i have a bias towards call of duty. so in that respect, i'll say the games are equally matched. but ani123 is right. call of duty 4 seems to have been down-played a bit.
woot for call of duty 4 fans.
and you're absolutely right. i pinned it as a combination of fear and counter strike. many would agree.
and quite honestly red fox, i'm somewhat surprised by your reasoning for preferring crysis. graphical quality? graphics in both are stunningly well done. graphics have advanced so much it's barely worth paying attention to them anymore. it's more of a matter of is it satisfying to play at this point in time. and for me, the answer there is no. call of duty 4 kicks the crap out of it to me. all of the call of duty games have been fantastic.
crysis had a few let-downs. but that's all opinion. i'll admit i have a bias towards call of duty. so in that respect, i'll say the games are equally matched. but ani123 is right. call of duty 4 seems to have been down-played a bit.
woot for call of duty 4 fans.
pcnthuziast
Posts: 1,515 +1,341
Some people will probably hate on me for this post, but Bioshock is a far better game than both IMO!!! They are great games don't get me wrong and notice that IGN gave both a 9.4... interesting.
L
link590o
hahahah. ok pc, you win. i think you're right. bioshock is better than both.
samjohnson
Posts: 232 +0
WOW! I just played the demo for COD4 and IT WAS AWESOME!! I am not sure if I like crysis better or this. I am leaning more towards COD4 though. TALK ABOUT ONE INTENSE GAME!!!! AGAIN IT WAS FREKIN AWESOME!!
ok for starters i have beaten both games...both maybe in a matter of a day or so. and first as far as storyline goes i will have to say that COD4 has a better storyline then crysis did...i found crysis to be a little too...insanely retarded at some times
as far as graphics go i don't even have to say which of these two games win...it should be obvious.
thirdly the gameplay of both is very well done to me...although i have to say that some of the things you can do in crysis are way over COD4.
and as far as replayability goes, crysis (due to the fact you can do things differently if you so choose each time through) out does COD4 again.
Well these are things that i look for in a game and these are also my opinions.
so no calling me down for them please.
Thanks for your time.
as far as graphics go i don't even have to say which of these two games win...it should be obvious.
thirdly the gameplay of both is very well done to me...although i have to say that some of the things you can do in crysis are way over COD4.
and as far as replayability goes, crysis (due to the fact you can do things differently if you so choose each time through) out does COD4 again.
Well these are things that i look for in a game and these are also my opinions.
so no calling me down for them please.
Thanks for your time.
Vehementi
Posts: 2,644 +2
I've been playing both, and, like I said in my CoD4 thread I prefer it. CoD4 was just more fun to play. You could run into a room, cap 4 baddies and knife the last one. In Crysis you have to wait outside for them to pop their heads out one at a time, and your aim has to be perfect on their domepiece or else it takes 20 bullets to kill them. I'll play it, but not enjoy it as much as the faster paced game.
Crysis is obviously the more technical of the two. The AI is better, especially on Delta - the difficulty levels too are perfectly handled, in CoD4 it just makes the baddies more accurate and tweaks the damage, etc. Crysis is more realistic, has the better graphics... yada yada yada
CoD4 isn't unrealistic by any means. It just doesn't let it's realism get in the way of the gameplay. It's the first game I've played that successfully combines fast paced gameplay and realism.
I also don't know how it's possible, but the developers of CoD4 managed to make it work equally well on PC and console... that's a feat. I tried playing Gears of War on the PC the other day, and well, it didn't work.
Crysis is obviously the more technical of the two. The AI is better, especially on Delta - the difficulty levels too are perfectly handled, in CoD4 it just makes the baddies more accurate and tweaks the damage, etc. Crysis is more realistic, has the better graphics... yada yada yada
CoD4 isn't unrealistic by any means. It just doesn't let it's realism get in the way of the gameplay. It's the first game I've played that successfully combines fast paced gameplay and realism.
I also don't know how it's possible, but the developers of CoD4 managed to make it work equally well on PC and console... that's a feat. I tried playing Gears of War on the PC the other day, and well, it didn't work.
Vehementi said:
Agreed. I've been raving over CoD4 recently and after playing both games I'm sticking with CoD4.
Before building my new pc, I was stuck with a laptop with rather old specs from 2006 (1.66 Duo, 1gb ram, ATi X1400 512mb hypermemory) and bought the game and played it to the end (with everything onto low) with a decent framerate. Then I got Crysis, and with everything onto low, got a rather horrible framerate and stopped till I got my new pc.
With my new pc (Q6600 2.4, 2gb ram, 8600 GT) I was able to play Crysis on medium graphics, and stopped halfway. I simply couldn't bring myself to play a game that forced you to jump out, shoot some baddies, and hide to recharge energy once you got shot. That said, I'm not exactly a pro at FPS games, but I really don't know why all those reviews I read on Crysis are so hyped. Sure, the graphics are great (I have to hand it to them) but what's the use if the gameplay doesn't match up?
On the other hand, I haven't played the CoD4 campaign on my new pc yet (because I've been playing the multiplayer part of it on it!), I believe its gameplay is simply better than Crysis's- it delivers a realistic wartime experience.
As Vehementi mentioned, Crysis may be more technical but I think it could be more developed and play a bigger part in gameplay. I completely agree with the thread starter, PC gamers should be running after CoD4 instead of Crysis.
Although I have to say the thread title tickled me..XD
- Status
Similar threads
