Something I often read about Crysis is that this game is merely graphic eye-candy, which impressed in 2007 but lacks gameplay depth. However, this does a disservice to the game because Crysis is much more than a simple first-person shooter. And Crysis knows (most of the time) exactly what it is.
Unlike in Call of Duty, you don't follow linear paths here. Unlike in "modern" Far Cry games, Crysis doesn't use its open world to guide you from quest marker to quest marker. Instead, Crysis offers players open areas where the goal is fixed, but how you achieve it is entirely up to you. You can sneak through the jungle, swim or dive in the sea, or you can engage in open combat. The game allows you to decide how you want to play, and there's no "one right way". With this approach, Crysis created a gameplay structure that wouldn't be revisited with the same level of quality until a decade later in The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild.
This gameplay style isn't just enabled by the game world. The Nanosuit is brilliantly implemented and gives players the choice to rely on stealth functions or switch to armor mode to engage in open combat. In terms of gameplay, you can see some parallels to Crytek's earlier work, Far Cry. Crysis builds upon the gameplay strengths of its predecessor and expands them in the way already mentioned. Both games were groundbreaking in terms of technology and share some visual similarities.
However, Crysis has something that Far Cry lacked: Art direction. It shows that Crysis knows exactly what it is. In 2007, it wasn't just graphically impressive; it also consolidated all the visual elements into a highly focused visual style that organically blends all the then-new graphical effects.
For these reasons, Crysis is more than just graphic eye-candy. The game set benchmarks in technology, art direction, and player freedom in 2007 that remain largely unmatched today.
However, this game is not perfect. Thus, I have to address the part of the game that is most frequently criticized: the final third of the game. I mentioned earlier that Crysis MOSTLY knows what it is. Unfortunately, the missions in the last third of the game do not build upon the established gameplay strengths. The very linear sections in the final third strip away the freedoms that made the game great in the first place. While Crysis's gunplay isn't bad by any means, it's not the game's standout feature that sets it apart from other games in the genre. As a result, the last third of the game is, visually stunning as it is, gameplay-wise, nothing special.
Butt all of this criticism doesn't change the fact that Crysis was a genre-defining game, providing players with a remarkable degree of freedom within its missions even by today's standards. Only the final third of the game keeps this masterful game from being an absolute masterpiece.

Something I often read about Crysis is that this game is merely graphic eye-candy, which impressed in 2007 but lacks gameplay depth. However, this does a disservice to the game because Crysis is much more than a simple first-person shooter. And Crysis knows (most of the time) exactly what it is.
Unlike in Call of Duty, you don't follow linear paths here. Unlike in "modern" Far Cry games, Crysis doesn't use its open world to guide you from quest marker to quest marker. Instead, Crysis offers players open areas where the goal is fixed, but how you achieve it is entirely up to you. You can sneak through the jungle, swim or dive in the sea, or you can engage in open combat. The game allows you to decide how you want to play, and there's no "one right way". With this approach, Crysis created a gameplay structure that wouldn't be revisited with the same level of quality until a decade later in The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild.
This gameplay style isn't just enabled by the game world. The Nanosuit is brilliantly implemented and gives players the choice to rely on stealth functions or switch to armor mode to engage in open combat. In terms of gameplay, you can see some parallels to Crytek's earlier work, Far Cry. Crysis builds upon the gameplay strengths of its predecessor and expands them in the way already mentioned. Both games were groundbreaking in terms of technology and share some visual similarities.
However, Crysis has something that Far Cry lacked: Art direction. It shows that Crysis knows exactly what it is. In 2007, it wasn't just graphically impressive; it also consolidated all the visual elements into a highly focused visual style that organically blends all the then-new graphical effects.
For these reasons, Crysis is more than just graphic eye-candy. The game set benchmarks in technology, art direction, and player freedom in 2007 that remain largely unmatched today.
However, this game is not perfect. Thus, I have to address the part of the game that is most frequently criticized: the final third of the game. I mentioned earlier that Crysis MOSTLY knows what it is. Unfortunately, the missions in the last third of the game do not build upon the established gameplay strengths. The very linear sections in the final third strip away the freedoms that made the game great in the first place. While Crysis's gunplay isn't bad by any means, it's not the game's standout feature that sets it apart from other games in the genre. As a result, the last third of the game is, visually stunning as it is, gameplay-wise, nothing special.

Butt all of this criticism doesn't change the fact that Crysis was a genre-defining game, providing players with a remarkable degree of freedom within its missions even by today's standards. Only the final third of the game keeps this masterful game from being an absolute masterpiece.

Wow. I really didn't have high expectations for this game. I didn't like from the beginning that there are 1000 planets. Nevertheless, I could understand the artistic intention behind this decision. And the gameplay presentation looked quite promising. And I even liked Fallout 4.
And yes, Starfield is not Fallout, but Starfield lacks what is most important for a Bethesda game, and what Fallout 4 still did very well: Big quests for different factions that all felt relevant to the game world, and where I could decide from the beginning which faction to join. And that was my only expectation for Starfield. But no, instead of letting me explore this vast universe and join any faction, Starfield forces me to join the Constellation. A group full of boring do-gooders. And instead of giving me the opportunity to decline joining and find another faction, I am brought into the Crimson Fleet within the main quest anyway and then I get the opportunity to join them. Thanks for that, Bethesda, so much for the advertised freedom.
At this point, I could also complain about the super crappy skill system, which has been completely ass since Fallout 4. And Starfield even manages to make skills like Speech feel even less rewarding here because the game wants to steer me towards just one story path anyway. But hey, not every game can be Fallout New Vegas. And we've already established that Starfield doesn't give a shit about freedom.
It makes me fucking angry. What makes Bethesda games stand out the most is even further removed here. Instead, you get the most boring game I've played in years. Thanks for that, Bethesda.