Crysis is another great game that was followed by a shitty sequel.
Farcry 4
- Thread starter Melvil
- Start date
D
DArtagnan
Guest
True, in the case of Crysis - the sequel is quite inferior. That said, I wouldn't call it shitty. It's certainly miles ahead of games like Rage and DNF 
I enjoyed both Rage and DNF more than Crysis 2. Not sure what those games have to do with anything, but at least we agree about the inferiority compared to the original.
Most disappointing sequel since... Far Cry 2.
Most disappointing sequel since... Far Cry 2.
S
sakichop
Guest
Crysis was a great game for the first 3/4 then aliens and more linear areas ruined the ending. Crysis 2 was destroyed by consoles.
Also, not to go off topic but I am enjoying far cry 3 quite a bit despite the save mechanics. We live in a console world now have to adjust. Maybe next gen consoles will have the ability to save anywhere.
Now back on topic, I prefer Chrome browser.
Also, not to go off topic but I am enjoying far cry 3 quite a bit despite the save mechanics. We live in a console world now have to adjust. Maybe next gen consoles will have the ability to save anywhere.
Now back on topic, I prefer Chrome browser.
D
DArtagnan
Guest
I was poking fun at you - as I actually expected you would have enjoyed Crysis 2 more than Rage and DNF. Then again, you do seem to have a fondness for the most awful crap on rare occasions
Well, to be honest - I can sort of see the appeal of DNF in that old-school kind of way, but Rage? That has to be one of the weakest shooters I've ever had the displeasure of trying.
Thrasher
Wheeee!
Heretic!
I still need to play Crysis and need help giving up ME3 multiplayer. F'ing addictive.
I still need to play Crysis and need help giving up ME3 multiplayer. F'ing addictive.
I'm surprised you would find a linear shooter like Crysis 2 more enjoyable than Rage. Yes, Rage was disappointing for the hype it received, but at least there was some degree of freedom in the game. Of course I know you didn't play very far either, and you probably didn't reach the more interesting areas.
DNF is pretty weak from a gameplay perspective, but it was humerous enough on occasions for me to enjoy it. No modern game was going to live up to Duke 3D anyways.
Thrasher
Wheeee!
It probably has to do with not playing hardly any coop mode MP before. If you haven't played a Vorcha flamer, you haven't lived.
SpoonFULL
SasqWatch
Not played Rage yet, but Crysis 1 and 2 had the unique 'epic' atmosphere that I don't see in other games. Not saying that Crysis 1 and 2 are better than any other shooters (e.g. I enjoyed FEAR 3 more than Crysis 2!) but the grand atmosphere is unique in Crysis games - now if you excuse me: cloak engaged!
That's like saying one turd smells better than another.
Speaking of another great original game (F.E.A.R.) that was followed by crap sequels…
D
DArtagnan
Guest
Crysis 2 wasn't entirely linear - and several areas were partially open to whatever approach you had in mind. But I'm a bit of a sucker for beautiful games that use modern technology - and with DX11, Crysis 2 is VERY good looking. It's also very visceral and feels fantastic as a shooter.
Rage felt like shit and the environments were drab and dull, so I didn't feel the need to play on. The "megatexture" technology is something I consider a blatant failure, but I suppose it's an interesting experiment. I generally don't respond to games based on the hype they receive. I can be disappointed, but I don't let the hype drag the game down. Certainly not for a shooter from id - because they've never made a game that appealed to me as singeplayer experience, except perhaps Doom 3 - because it was sci-fi and had a slight System Shock feel going on. Rage was just plain uninspired, archaic in terms of gameplay - and it performed like crap. I'm not sure what people saw in it - unless you really like that ancient style of ultra repetitive shooting in endless areas of brown.
DNF was a complete joke in a bad way - but to each his own
SpoonFULL
SasqWatch
That's like saying one turd smells better than another.
Speaking of another great original game (F.E.A.R.) that was followed by crap sequels…
FEAR 3 is not as good as the original FEAR, but it was a damn good, satisfying shooter. The enemy AI is as good as previous FEAR games which makes a huge difference. Plus you get to play two characters in FEAR 3 with different powers. The co-op (which you can play solo) is brilliant and unique and offered me many hours of solid shooting entertainment.
SpoonFULL
SasqWatch
Crysis 2 wasn't entirely linear - and several areas were partially open to whatever approach you had in mind. But I'm a bit of a sucker for beautiful games that use modern technology - and with DX11, Crysis 2 is VERY good looking. It's also very visceral and feels fantastic as a shooter.
Rage felt like shit and the environments were drab and dull, so I didn't feel the need to play on. The "megatexture" technology is something I consider a blatant failure, but I suppose it's an interesting experiment. I generally don't respond to games based on the hype they receive. I can be disappointed, but I don't let the hype drag the game down. Certainly not for a shooter from id - because they've never made a game that appealed to me as singeplayer experience, except perhaps Doom 3 - because it was sci-fi and had a slight System Shock feel going on. Rage was just plain uninspired, archaic in terms of gameplay - and it performed like crap. I'm not sure what people saw in it - unless you really like that ancient style of ultra repetitive shooting in endless areas of brown.
DNF was a complete joke in a bad way - but to each his own
Doom 3 was a joke to me; a claustrophobic corridor shooter at best with cheap scares. Nice graphics at the time, but that's it. Quake 4 (by Raven) was much better and so was Painkiller.
Crysis 2 wasn't entirely linear - and several areas were partially open to whatever approach you had in mind. But I'm a bit of a sucker for beautiful games that use modern technology - and with DX11, Crysis 2 is VERY good looking. It's also very visceral and feels fantastic as a shooter.
Rage felt like shit and the environments were drab and dull, so I didn't feel the need to play on. I generally don't respond to games based on the hype they receive. I can be disappointed, but I don't let the hype drag the game down. Rage was just plain uninspired, archaic in terms of gameplay - and it performed like crap.
DNF was a complete joke in a bad way - but to each his own
No, Crysis 2 wasn't entirely linear, but most areas generally were. It was indeed fantastic from a visual standpoint, but the story and gameplay were unispired to me. Other than the graphics, it was a basic run-of-the-mill shooter, nothing more.
Rage definitely doesn't perform like crap. I have to assume whatever issues you had were a product of your setup. In fact, it was one of the smoothest running games I played in a long time. As far as the environments go, well that's subjective. It doesn't surprise me that you didn't like the setting though, as you've stated many times that you're not a fan of post-apocalyptic worlds.
Overall, I don't consider Rage to be above average, but I think it's worth a playthrough for most people.
Thrasher
Wheeee!
I have to agree that I liked Q4 better than Doom 3 for gameplay. The Q4 atmosphere wasn't as scary and claustrophobic, but that got tiresome after a while for me.
Thrasher
Wheeee!
Painkiller has them all beat for atmosphere (and gameplay for at least those that I have played).
SpoonFULL
SasqWatch
Ok… now we know for sure that there's something wrong with you.
Well, we have different views over things, but Quake 4 to me was more colourfull, had varied environments, enemies, tank shooting sequences and overall of epic scale - its Raven after all!
I actually can't think of any shooter I've played in my lifetime that's more repetitive than Painkiller, but to each his own.