delta578 wrote:No offense taken from any comments by the way.

Grev wrote:

delta578 wrote: Plot wise I will give you that Halo is better. . .slightly. Tactics wise Crysis is better. The main tactic in Halo is jump around as much as you can and blow someone up. In Crysis if you jump, you get your head blown off. Each person can have their own fighting technique in Crysis, in Halo there are only two ways to play. Snipe or charge!!

So I suppose this means that the vehicles in HALO are there simply for the scenery? I don't remember vehicles sniping, or charging. And saying that everyone jumps around can only be said by a person who hasn't played HALO. It's a relatively popular gameplay style, that's true. But there are SO many other game opportunities in HALO. Besides, is HALO is one of the most praised games out there, but you can only snipe or charge, what does that say about EVERY other game out there?

Ahem, what do you do in a vehicle. . .charge, I wasn't even referring to vehicles in that post anyway. In Crysis you can charge, snipe, assasinate, not kill at all (unless you have to I guess) and many other things that I am sure are to be discovered.

Well, I thought that "tactis" encompasses every strategic movement you can make in a game, not excluding vehicle maneuvers. And adding 2 things to the list isn't much of an argument. In fact, all of that can be done in just about every game, down to the not getting the kill because of a death.

Graphics wise, Crysis is better hands down.


True That;
However, if Crysis is so great looking, how come there aren't too many Machinimas out there for it? Or videos of anything other than regular gameplay? Thats because what HALO lacks in Graphics, it makes up in community. Also, the graphics make it extremely demanding on a PC.

X-box version coming out in 2010. Crysis, if I remember, is a newer game than Halo. And video options are. . .limited at the moment.

"limited at the moment"- Exactly. HALO is a well rounded game, and in my opinion, every aspect that is touched up on is done almost perfectly, including and not limited to the video capabilities.

Gameplay wise, Crysis is playable many time over, while Halo gets boring after a while.
Which is why it's the most popular game franchise of this decade? People who get bored quit, and play other games. This is NOT a problem in HALO, in any of the HALO games for that matter, on any platform. HALO:CE is actually for more thriving in multiplayer on PC and Xbox than both Battlefronts put together, and the trilogy arguably has one of the largest and most active online ingame communities on any platform.

Crysis isn't as well known as Halo.

You would presume there's a reason for this? Its first game wasn't wildly popular? It's sequel wasn't game of the year? While popularity doesn't always equal a good game, a saga that is popular enough to spark novels, comic books, action figures, and partially a movie has got to be a pretty good saga.

Crysis has more varied AI animations and direction.
All AI have their faults. Also, the thing that makes HALO so beautiful is how accustomed you become with the enemy. I will always look at a grunt and think coward, and I'll always look at an Elite and say "Diet Dr. Pepper, them shields is Hecka powerful!" It can be argued that the variety in Crisis makes you have to adapt on the spot, and this may be true, but I think the environment, and the possibilities it gives you in HALO makes up for that and sets it equal to Crisis in gameplay opportunities and AI.

Are you saying that Halo is more varied in AI performance than Crysis?

Other than questioning the obvious, this question does nothing to rebuke my statement. *Ignored*

I like Halo, don't get me wrong, But in 2010 when Crysis 3 and the X-Box 360 Crysis games come out they are going to be more opular than the entire Halo series hands down!!
Not sure what opular means, but no games so far has been able to best HALO 3 online, and the HALO 3 community is what will keep it up above other games.

I can admit with much enthusiasm that Halo online is extremely popular. That doesn't rule out that Crysis sucks online, I find it quite fun.

I never said it sucks online. I stated that it wasn't as popular or widely known as HALO, and a sequel won't change this, unless it can cross out everything done by all 3 HALO games. HALO was amazing from the beginning. Trying to regain popularity from a sequel never works.

I award you the "MOST BIASED POST EVER MADE" award!

So shoot me.

If I see you in-game, remind me!

Let's address everything separately, shall we?

To finish off my statement, these are two wildly different games, two totally different genres settings, and shouldn't even be grouped in a debate.

Crysis is cool visually. If they could somehow combine that with amazing gameplay, then it would be alot better. However, there really isn't anything currently that can beat Halo's full mp support from Bungie, with a skill-based matchmaking system, playlists with community created content, functions that allow you to create game modes and maps from basically nothing, and then a theater function that allows you to replay all matches you've played and watch them from literally any angle. Halo 3 is really where Xbox LIVE is defined, and I highly doubt Crysis can pull off anything that compares to Halo's multiplayer.

Both of you guys need to cool it with the line-by-line aggressive responses. It's a freakin' game, we all get that some like one and some like another. You both need to cool down with the aggressive "fanboy defense mode" or I'll give you both warnings. No excuses, just move on.

I find this conversation rather amusing. Each of them is absolutely sure hes right and the other one is wrong while they both are forgetting that some people like other things than other people. And that was already stated here.

As for me I really hate Halo, and I like Crysis. Now all you Halo fans dont waste your time trying to kill me or at least to make me play Halo till I like it.
I must admit Halo has got a much better story but thats all. Gameplay-wise Crysis beats Halo and for me thats the most important part. Yet again its my opinion.

Crysis has the looks but not the story, just another Alien take over.

Maveritchell wrote: Both of you guys need to cool it with the line-by-line aggressive responses. It's a freakin' game, we all get that some like one and some like another. You both need to cool down with the aggressive "fanboy defense mode" or I'll give you both warnings. No excuses, just move on.

In addition to that I'm more than willing to lock the thread. If you like the Crysis series great, if you don't great. But keep the aggressive responses to a minimum or this thread is done.

Next slightly heated/aggressive response brings a padlock to this thread.

delta578 wrote:Oh I found this pretty cool piece of info that isn't related to this debate at all-One tree in Crysis has more animations and texture detail than the entire game of FarCry.

While the amount of detail is cool, to me that's a waste of processing power. Uber-trees do not a good game make.

delta578 wrote: Back on topic, how about we wait until "OMG CRYSIS 2!!!" before we worry about "OMG CRYSIS 3!!!"? I'm sure it says "Crysis 13" on the internet somewhere. I'm sure they'll make & hype a second one before a third.

Crysis WARHEAD was Crysis two my friend.

Not sure where you got that piece of information, but Crysis: Warhead was a sequel to Crysis, NOT Crysis 2. If you had watched E3, you would know this.

DarthRogueKnight wrote:

delta578 wrote: Back on topic, how about we wait until "OMG CRYSIS 2!!!" before we worry about "OMG CRYSIS 3!!!"? I'm sure it says "Crysis 13" on the internet somewhere. I'm sure they'll make & hype a second one before a third.

Crysis WARHEAD was Crysis two my friend.

Not sure where you got that piece of information, but Crysis: Warhead was a sequel to Crysis, NOT Crysis 2. If you had watched E3, you would know this.

Yeah, Crysis: Warhead was a parallel game of Crysis, not Crysis 2.

Its called a stand-alone addon.

I didn't intend to start any arguments with any straight forward aggression to others. I guess trouble and hard-core arguments will track me to the end. . .

Well I seem to owe you all an apologize, I did find the trailer to Crysis 2 on the internet. I can admit when I am wrong.

It's a page late, but there is a demo, if you use Firefox, just search "Crysis demo" and it'll direct you right there.

When it comes to thinking of the next game in a series, I love using the GTA series as an example. I believe the main games in the series were GTA, GTA II, GTA III, GTA Vice City, GTA San Andreas, and THEN GTA IV. Not to mention all the other games in between.

Anyways, the point of this topic was to talk about Crysis & the upcoming sequal. What say we stop arguing about Halo? Like, right now?

Agreed about Halo. Anyway, I got the demo of it and, much to my surprise, it was so annoying and bad, I deleted it after playing for about 15 minutes. I dunno what was wrong with it, but for some reason my SCAR (which I remember Delta saying is capable of killing a man in one shot) was the most useless weapon ever and I couldn't kill a single guy with it, with few random exceptions. Meanwhile, while I was incapable of killing unarmored men with a highly advanced rifle, they were more than able to kill a guy in a freakin' nanosuit with grade B weapons in a matter of seconds. The only way I survived at all was using the stealth suit, which obviously doesn't last long when you're on the move. The only consistent way I found to get kills was to sneak up using stealth and then grab one and throw him at a nearby enemy. Obviously, when stealth runs out before I get there, I'm helpless. Oh, and before anyone asks, I was playing on easy. This was the original Crysis, so I don't know if this problem exists with later versions.

Basically, I give it a 5/10, +3 for graphics and +1 for the whole suit dynamic, and -9 for gameplay.
I think I'll for the most part just ignore all the Crysis threads now that I know I don't like it at all.

GangsterJawa wrote:Agreed about Halo. Anyway, I got the demo of it and, much to my surprise, it was so annoying and bad, I deleted it after playing for about 15 minutes. I dunno what was wrong with it, but for some reason my SCAR (which I remember Delta saying is capable of killing a man in one shot) was the most useless weapon ever and I couldn't kill a single guy with it, with few random exceptions. Meanwhile, while I was incapable of killing unarmored men with a highly advanced rifle, they were more than able to kill a guy in a freakin' nanosuit with grade B weapons in a matter of seconds. The only way I survived at all was using the stealth suit, which obviously doesn't last long when you're on the move. The only consistent way I found to get kills was to sneak up using stealth and then grab one and throw him at a nearby enemy. Obviously, when stealth runs out before I get there, I'm helpless. Oh, and before anyone asks, I was playing on easy. This was the original Crysis, so I don't know if this problem exists with later versions.

Basically, I give it a 5/10, +3 for graphics and +1 for the whole suit dynamic, and -9 for gameplay.
I think I'll for the most part just ignore all the Crysis threads now that I know I don't like it at all.

Yeaaaahhh the higher the difficulty the higher damage the weapons do. . .on both sides.

I haven't played the demo but, the graphics are going to be bad on a demo. You can think what you want by trying merely a demo but you are making a mistake.

I will try the demo and get back to you. . .

I played both demo and full versions and havent encountered such problems.
Of course if you put your silencer on and then shoot at the enemy from medium to far distance you wont be able to kill anything, but thats realistic. With silencer you have to aim for the head. Without, doesnt matterwhat you aim but still headshots kill faster.

negah wrote:I played both demo and full versions and havent encountered such problems.
Of course if you put your silencer on and then shoot at the enemy from medium to far distance you wont be able to kill anything, but thats realistic. With silencer you have to aim for the head. Without, doesnt matterwhat you aim but still headshots kill faster.

Realistically a silencer does not affect weapon power, this is a common mis-conception, it only reduces accuracy by a fraction.

But they would have had to put in a dis-advantage to it in-game or else people would go around with a silencer on 24-7.

delta578 wrote:

negah wrote:I played both demo and full versions and havent encountered such problems.
Of course if you put your silencer on and then shoot at the enemy from medium to far distance you wont be able to kill anything, but thats realistic. With silencer you have to aim for the head. Without, doesnt matterwhat you aim but still headshots kill faster.

Realistically a silencer does not affect weapon power, this is a common mis-conception, it only reduces accuracy by a fraction.

But they would have had to put in a dis-advantage to it in-game or else people would go around with a silencer on 24-7.

Yeah, I understand graphically the demo is not as good, notice however I still give +3 for that aspect. I dunno what it was, I just couldn't kill the freakin' guys. Just not my sort of game I guess, and I'm willing to leave it at that.

GangsterJawa wrote:

delta578 wrote:

negah wrote:I played both demo and full versions and havent encountered such problems.
Of course if you put your silencer on and then shoot at the enemy from medium to far distance you wont be able to kill anything, but thats realistic. With silencer you have to aim for the head. Without, doesnt matterwhat you aim but still headshots kill faster.

Realistically a silencer does not affect weapon power, this is a common mis-conception, it only reduces accuracy by a fraction.

But they would have had to put in a dis-advantage to it in-game or else people would go around with a silencer on 24-7.

Yeah, I understand graphically the demo is not as good, notice however I still give +3 for that aspect. I dunno what it was, I just couldn't kill the freakin' guys. Just not my sort of game I guess, and I'm willing to leave it at that.

Opinion is respected.

delta578 wrote:

negah wrote:I played both demo and full versions and havent encountered such problems.
Of course if you put your silencer on and then shoot at the enemy from medium to far distance you wont be able to kill anything, but thats realistic. With silencer you have to aim for the head. Without, doesnt matterwhat you aim but still headshots kill faster.

Realistically a silencer does not affect weapon power, this is a common mis-conception, it only reduces accuracy by a fraction.

But they would have had to put in a dis-advantage to it in-game or else people would go around with a silencer on 24-7.

Realistically you wont use a silencer alone, but also sub-sonic ammunition, that deals far less damage, since a silencer alone is not that effective as everyone thinks.
The problems is that its not shown in most computer games.
Best silencers are made for the MP5SD series SMGs, still SF-units use sub-sonic ammunition for that SMGs to achieve better effect.
But what you say is true, silencers dont reduce damage.

Realistically, if a military dude shoots you with a gun, you're gonna die or be in serious pain, regardless of silencer or ammo...