Crysis vs Far Cry 2

[Poizen22]

, I can't bring myself to play it... Crysis/Warhead is better in every respect

as an action/rpg, open world sort of game


the way i see it hes refering to crysis warhead.

 

[Ste]

I stick to playing farcry 2, no loading of levels. Well unless you use the bus system.

 

[braz]

far cry2>crysis IMO. Isnt warhead just crysis with more vehicles? I have crysis, but never even looked into the next one.

 

[Poizen22]

far cry2>crysis IMO. Isnt warhead just crysis with more vehicles? I have crysis, but never even looked into the next one.

no there is more action in one level in war head then there is in all of crysis, imo. the game is pure run and gun to its finnest. few more vehicles, and wepons, and then the game mechanics have been improved, with better gfx, and as mentioned mor action given to it. alltho you can still be super stealth, and conservative, the game on a whole is so much better, exept i find the story to be better in crysis.

 

[Akubane]

if that was the case he'd have used a period after game instead of a comma. Plus, without any lead in, his statement about fallout 3 completely obliterating far cry 2 has absolutely no relevance at all.
Anyway I'm done arguing grammar.

Point is, far cry 2 is cool because of the open world, even though a 30 second load screen here and there isn't a big deal.
but crysis has A) better graphics, B) Better physics, C) better a.i, D) So far the story is more engaging, rather than killing the same 3 or 4 man militia groups over and over again, and piecing together a story from random little hits.

All that being said, when able to play, far cry 2 is still lots of fun. most of the time is spent running back and forth over the same areas killing the 4 man militia cells, or blowing up a convoy to get new weapons, but when you get to go do the big hits where there's a dozen or more guys, it's great. Lots of fun.

I'd say I have ALMOST as much fun with FC2 as crysis. In crysis I can have fun blowing up buildings and causing mayhem. Not so much in FC2.

Mechanically, crysis is superior. minus the fire propagation and dynamic weather.
And even though it runs at half the FPS as FC2, it feels the exact same, so that's a non issue.

Anyway, they're both good games, but FC2 needs some serious patching.


edit~ And warhead a new game. Much better than crysis. Screw crysis.

any time I've mentioned crysis in any of my posts I'm referring to warhead BTW.

let's just forget crysis exists.

edit2~ well that's kinda harsh. I did like the original crysis. but it isn't as good as warhead.

 

[Merkwürdigeliebe]

, I can't bring myself to play it... Crysis/Warhead is better in every respect

as an action/rpg, open world sort of game


the way i see it hes refering to crysis warhead.

Sorry capitalization and punctuation would have made my statements clearer. Those are two separate ideas I had in my post.

Crysis is only partially 'open-world' because there are plenty of paths and methods to take to get to a certain point and objective, but it's not open world because the missions progress in a linear fashion and it goes from level to level, you have no choice as to which location you go to and most areas are made to be constricted

 

[Ste]

Hopefully a patch for FC2 will fix alot of crap.. Who knows. I love the Uzi, AS 50 and of course the guided missle launcher. Fun times.

 

[Merkwürdigeliebe]

Hopefully a patch for FC2 will fix alot of crap.. Who knows. I love the Uzi, AS 50 and of course the guided missle launcher. Fun times.

I don't think they'll 'fix' these things. These aren't 'glitches', these problems have an overall-effect and it's really just a problem with the overall design. I really, really hate FC2. Everything is bland, generic and boring. The mission structure is CRAP. Why can't I take on more than one mission at once? Why do I always have to go to people to get a mission? Why not just call them with that stupid cellphone?


Let's compare to Crysis/Warhead from an FPS point of view:

Graphics: billion times better, everything looked full and lush, colorful and despite being stuck in a tropical settings, there was a lot of variance in the plant life and various locations within the tropical setting, and the plain rendering quality is much better, and as far as performance is considered, FC2 maxed out is just as bad, if not worse than Crysis/Warhead, in fact, Warhead is significantly smoother to play

Physics: quadrillion times better, everything in the game has physics properties, a good deal of the buildings fall apart, piece by piece, there's nothing like that in Far Cry 2, stuff just explodes into particle effects

Destructibility: even better with buildings, vehicles break apart better, (however I'll give a break to Ubisoft for their great fire mechanics/effects)

storyline, well, both are kinda weak, but Warhead kind of delivered a more cinematic feel and the voice acting was much better. Plus Psycho is a cool and likable character "I'm British you muppet"

 

[Ste]

Its only your opinion..

I don't play FC2 over warhead because the graphics or physics are better, because they aren't, I play it because its open world and no level loading. (Unless you use bus system)

 

[Merkwürdigeliebe]

Its only your opinion..

I don't play FC2 over warhead because the graphics or physics are better, because they aren't, I play it because its open world and no level loading. (Unless you use bus system)

well, I guess that's a matter of opinion as well (which I entirely disagree with)

with regards to having an open world and short if not barely any level loading, IMO, Fallout 3 outdoes Far Cry 2 there, and IMO it outdoes it in most other aspects as well as an open world Action-RPG/shooter

no need to explain my view on Crysis vs. FC2, as I already did. And you just happen to disagree, so we agree to disagree there, I guess. anyway...

*Closes browser and runs Fallout 3*