to0kenZA
New member
Woos.
Even Azi is more man than you are
*runs like hell*
/runs after shadow so you only see "stof spat"
Crysis 2 review - single player (MyGaming)
- Thread starter Tinman
- Start date
/runs after shadow so you only see "stof spat"
symbolofmylife
New member
I have to say, although I havent finished it yet, Crysis 2 does appear to have a bit more playtime than recent, or most FPS's. And that is a most welcome. There's nothing more disappointing than shelling out the cash for a title, popping it in the console asap, and standing there 5-6 hours later looking at the credits, wondering "WTF?!?!?! Is that all?!". Yes, I'm looking at you Killzone 3.
Graal
New member
I guess it depends on how you look at it. I liked the way they incorporated the suit functions this time around. It made more sense and was a lot more practical than the wheel-based system of the previous games.
The linearity of the game was a bit disappointing, but then again Crysis 1 was also fairly linear, the 'corridors' were just wider.
I also feel the story was a lot better than the first game. The first game's story was just tacked on to a game that was essentially nothing more than a tech engine. The second game's story actually feels like something worth following, and the setpieces in the game are pretty amazing.
Overall you can feel Crysis 2 was focused more towards consoles, but I don't think the game suffers for it. I'd definitely play it a few time more, whereas after playing through Crysis 1 I could never get myself to play it again.
The linearity of the game was a bit disappointing, but then again Crysis 1 was also fairly linear, the 'corridors' were just wider.
I also feel the story was a lot better than the first game. The first game's story was just tacked on to a game that was essentially nothing more than a tech engine. The second game's story actually feels like something worth following, and the setpieces in the game are pretty amazing.
Overall you can feel Crysis 2 was focused more towards consoles, but I don't think the game suffers for it. I'd definitely play it a few time more, whereas after playing through Crysis 1 I could never get myself to play it again.
OmegaFenix
The Legendary Troll Hunter
Not more than most games nowadays. As someone who hated the original I quiet enjoyed no. 2. I liked the way the levels where in essence a series of small sandbox levels interconnected with corridors. AI was decent even if they where rather easily corralled into Kill Zones. Suit powers worked better and over all the suit felt more like super soldier suit that something that ran off penlights. I enjoyed the story my only real issue with it is that it wasn't really balanced for all out stealth play.
The whole "dumbed down" argument, I personally feel, is kinda like nostalgia; the classics always seem better when viewed through the rose tinted specs of nostalgia. Also unfortunately to reach a wider audience certain sacrifices are made.
judgefredd_za
New member
What's frustrating is that you get people play the sequel/next game in series only, who then go on praising the game to no end, no matter how good the game is compared to the first. Developers make more money and then think they've done a good job but they have actually isolated the fans the original game. I don't think Crysis 2 was as "dumbed down" as say Mass Effect 2 or Dragon Age 2 because I didn't think Crysis 1 was as much of a sandbox game as people made it out to be.
Necuno
The Piper
I hear what you guys are saying however I should have been clear by what I mean when I said dumbed down. It now occurs to me that it can include a lot of things such as linear vs non linear.
Now when I asked the question I was specifically thinking about crysis 2 seems to be made easier than crysis 1.
For example pressing B to point your enemies and seeing all the weapons caches before jumping in. This might have been something that I didn't use a lot in crysis 1, but used once in crysis 2 and hated it. It's a mechanic to the game, but using it for me well it spoils the surprise/difficulty edge. So I look around by myself and jump in doing what seems best at the time.
I haven't yet felt challenged or pressed in the game and hopefully that is still coming or else I should just unlock the highest difficulty level. To that end it seems I'm destined to hang around dark souls for a while and return to "pc sp", which imho have gone to end of "if quake was done today".
I hope this was posed more clearly than just going by dumbed down, it's question with a rant inside
:edit
I should maybe ask as well to what end do I want to be challenged and being able to have a good time. *shrugs*
::edit
I'm going to ponder on this
Now when I asked the question I was specifically thinking about crysis 2 seems to be made easier than crysis 1.
For example pressing B to point your enemies and seeing all the weapons caches before jumping in. This might have been something that I didn't use a lot in crysis 1, but used once in crysis 2 and hated it. It's a mechanic to the game, but using it for me well it spoils the surprise/difficulty edge. So I look around by myself and jump in doing what seems best at the time.
I haven't yet felt challenged or pressed in the game and hopefully that is still coming or else I should just unlock the highest difficulty level. To that end it seems I'm destined to hang around dark souls for a while and return to "pc sp", which imho have gone to end of "if quake was done today".
I hope this was posed more clearly than just going by dumbed down, it's question with a rant inside
:edit
I should maybe ask as well to what end do I want to be challenged and being able to have a good time. *shrugs*
::edit
I'm going to ponder on this
Last edited:
Sou1Co11ector
New member
What happened to the BLUE aliens did they get eaten by the RED ones?
Also why wasn't I given the freedom, like Crysis, to run around and find my own path? Non-linear is what they called it... Why was I treated like a n00b when using my visor? I like to find my own strategy to play a game, not being spoon fed, go the point A and you can flank them, go to B and you can hide like a pussy, etc. The only thing the visor needed was a wikipedia link to explain to you what flanking was and what it means to be a pussy.
And why was I even able to play this game? Shouldn't my pc be a smouldering heap of ruin just because I thought about playing Crysis 2 on the same spec pc I played the first game on. Logic dictates that when the first game made hardcore gamers cry because it pwned every pc and GPU on the planet, the second game would do the same to every modern pc setup.
The first game was the benchmark for performance and had the latest tech... Crysis 2 was the prettiest DX9 game you'll ever see, but that's it.
Ooooooh! Console game, ported to pc, DUH! Why were console gamers even able to play Crysis 2? Their consoles should've been sucked into the nearest quantum singularity for even contemplating the idea of playing Crysis 2.
I wanted to like the game and cry because I couldn't play it until I upgraded to some new monster pc setup.
I wanted to like the game like the first game and expansion.
I wanted Crysis, but only better and expanded, but then got this game just with the Crysis name and a 2 stuck to it.
And yeah I know why console gamers were able to play the game, because they wanted money...
Also why wasn't I given the freedom, like Crysis, to run around and find my own path? Non-linear is what they called it... Why was I treated like a n00b when using my visor? I like to find my own strategy to play a game, not being spoon fed, go the point A and you can flank them, go to B and you can hide like a pussy, etc. The only thing the visor needed was a wikipedia link to explain to you what flanking was and what it means to be a pussy.
And why was I even able to play this game? Shouldn't my pc be a smouldering heap of ruin just because I thought about playing Crysis 2 on the same spec pc I played the first game on. Logic dictates that when the first game made hardcore gamers cry because it pwned every pc and GPU on the planet, the second game would do the same to every modern pc setup.
The first game was the benchmark for performance and had the latest tech... Crysis 2 was the prettiest DX9 game you'll ever see, but that's it.
Ooooooh! Console game, ported to pc, DUH! Why were console gamers even able to play Crysis 2? Their consoles should've been sucked into the nearest quantum singularity for even contemplating the idea of playing Crysis 2.
I wanted to like the game and cry because I couldn't play it until I upgraded to some new monster pc setup.
I wanted to like the game like the first game and expansion.
I wanted Crysis, but only better and expanded, but then got this game just with the Crysis name and a 2 stuck to it.
And yeah I know why console gamers were able to play the game, because they wanted money...
Last edited:
OmegaFenix
The Legendary Troll Hunter
Crysis 1 wasn't a sandbox, it just had really wide corridors. Its was still non-linear, the individual sandboxes could be approached in any number of ways. As for the visor, if its not giving you hardcore kick here's a thought... dont use it. As if I recall correctly it is only during the tutorial that u are forced to use the visor, the rest of the time its all you.
I have said it before and I'll say it again; to each a wider audience sacrifices has to be made. Crysis 1 was reduced to a niche market of those with the space age machines to run it. Crysis 2 could be enjoyed by 3X to 5X more people for the simple reason that the entry barrier was dropped. Ok so it didn't hit the glorious Photo realism of Crysis 1 but it is still a pretty decent looking game.
Graal
New member
When putting the two next to each other, Crysis 1 is only technologically superior. Crysis 2 is by far the better looking game. Crysis 1 is just like BF3. People always go on about how good it looks, when it is in fact a pretty fugly game.
Good graphics do not equal a good game. Crysis 1 remains one of the ugliest games I've played to date. It also remains one of the least fun FPSs I've played in recent history, because it was a tech engine with a game loosely tacked on.
And Soulcollector, there's nothing wrong with Crytek expanding into consoles. If they made Crysis 2 a PC exclusive, they would probably have been closed down by now. Contrary to popular belief, Crysis 1's sales were pretty bad.
Stating that the only reason they went into consoles is to make money is really a silly argument to make, because, well, any company exists to make money. Developers don't exactly develop games just because they have a bit of spare time in the afternoons.
Anyway, if Crysis 1 is what people want PC exclusives to be like, then I'll be moving over to consoles.
OmegaFenix
The Legendary Troll Hunter
I've been saying the same thing for years; graphical fidelity does not equal a good game. This argument was usually responded 2 with "it's just coz u couldn't run it at max."
I play games, if all I wanted was pretty pictures I'd watch a movie.
The elitist view that a game turns to crap just coz its devs opted to go multi-plat has to be the most moronic argument in a long line of moronic gamer arguments.
I play games, if all I wanted was pretty pictures I'd watch a movie.
The elitist view that a game turns to crap just coz its devs opted to go multi-plat has to be the most moronic argument in a long line of moronic gamer arguments.
Isengard
No Hobbits Allowed
Well then it's clearly a very subjective opinion. For me Crysis 1 had some of the best graphics for it's time and is still one of the best looking games today. As for gameplay some aspects of Crysis 2 was an improvement over the original, but overall I found Crysis had a more satisfying campaign (only worse narrative).
And why do you think BF3 looks ugly? Every time I play it, it astounds me just how good it looks, especially when things start to become chaotic.
I suppose "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" comes to mind for this scenario.
Graal
New member
I'm glad to see there's still some people left who share my sentiments. This elitist view is one of the reasons I've been distancing myself from the online gaming community more and more over the last year. It seems to have become the norm for gamers to slag off any and all games, nitpick for issues and then blame everything on consoles. It's much the same as the 'cool' kid at school saying he hates books and then everyone agrees with him because they think it will increase their coolness rating.
I don't mind people having valid criticisms for games, but this whole 'consoles are making games teh suck' thing got old ages ago. It's just another bandwagon.
As for Prophet's question, I also found Crysis 2 to be significantly less difficult than Crysis 1. It didn't really bother me too much because my limited time usually means I play most games on Easy or Normal anyway.
It's visuals are pretty good, but it's not a pretty game. I absolutely hate the art-style. Everything is all grey and depressing. Even CoD is more colorful than BF3, and CoD is a pretty bland looking game itself.
It was the same with Crysis 1. Grey and carbon visuals.
I guess it's down to personal opinion, but for me the art-style is much more important than having good technology backing it.
Last edited:
Dohc-WP
Ron Burgundy
that is what i refer to as hitting the nail on the head !
OmegaFenix
The Legendary Troll Hunter
It is purely subjective. Take Bulletstorm for that matter, a game than anybody who spends even a little bit of time on the forum will know that I despised. Many Loved it, i found it easy, repetitive and boring, a sentiment very few people share.
I'm glad to see there's still some people left who share my sentiments. This elitist view is one of the reasons I've been distancing myself from the online gaming community more and more over the last year. It seems to have become the norm for gamers to slag off any and all games, nitpick for issues and then blame everything on consoles. It's much the same as the 'cool' kid at school saying he hates books and then everyone agrees with him because they think it will increase their coolness rating.
I don't mind people having valid criticisms for games, but this whole 'consoles are making games teh suck' thing got old ages ago. It's just another bandwagon.
As for Prophet's question, I also found Crysis 2 to be significantly less difficult than Crysis 1. It didn't really bother me too much because my limited time usually means I play most games on Easy or Normal anyway.
It's visuals are pretty good, but it's not a pretty game. I absolutely hate the art-style. Everything is all grey and depressing. Even CoD is more colorful than BF3, and CoD is a pretty bland looking game itself.
It was the same with Crysis 1. Grey and carbon visuals.
I guess it's down to personal opinion, but for me the art-style is much more important than having good technology backing it.
There are a few of us remaining that can enjoy a game for what it is and not what we wanted it to be or because it doesn't fall into our narrow view of how games are supposed to be.
As someone who is studying to become a game designer, I tend to have a unique perspective on most games & their mechanics.
Alan
New member
For me the best graphics I've seen in a game. Gameplay and campaign was great too. Crysis 2 represents everything that is wrong with gaming today. The motivation for the original was creating the most realistic looking game with a unique open gameplay. Profit was solely the motivation for Crysis 2. It was dumbed down into essentially the same game as every other FPS, to appeal to the lowest common denominator simply to sell as many copies as possible. Hence it's release on console.
There is no diversity left in FPS gaming today. It's all just mass produced, run and gun, hope you took your Ritalin this morning, turkey shoots
OmegaFenix
The Legendary Troll Hunter
For me the best graphics I've seen in a game. Gameplay and campaign was great too. Crysis 2 represents everything that is wrong with gaming today. The motivation for the original was creating the most realistic looking game with a unique open gameplay. Profit was solely the motivation for Crysis 2. It was dumbed down into essentially the same game as every other FPS, to appeal to the lowest common denominator simply to sell as many copies as possible. Hence it's release on console.
There is no diversity left in FPS gaming today. It's all just mass produced, run and gun, hope you took your Ritalin this morning, turkey shoots
Yep that (mentality) about sums up perfectly what is wrong with gaming today.
Crysis 1 was not unique in any way, neither was it "open World" it was about as open as the original Far Cry. You where funnelled from encounter to encounter, the only place u had a bit of freedom to how you approached was during the individual encounters, a mechanic that was reproduced faithfully in Crysis 2; the sandbox was just smaller. But because the illusion of a huge open island was abandoned and suddenly your in a city where you can see the ends of you sandbox clearly its "no long open world."
Venom
New member
Crysis 2 was awesome , 1 was too much for my machine
Only much later was I able to enjoy it but still not at ultra , here I think is where Crysis 2 won out, if it was because they did a console release so be it , end of the day it looked good enough to play and satisfied.
What most fail to realise is that what is good and acceptable to me or you wont be to someone else, gameplay or GFX wise.
I have no problem with developers making sequels for more money , as long as I am entertained.
Innovation is far and few inbetween , when everygame is a clone of the last it all comes down to one Question was it Fun ?
Not Everygame well be or can be a Crysis (Tech demo or not it was fun) , or a God of War or a Arkham Asylam .
Only much later was I able to enjoy it but still not at ultra , here I think is where Crysis 2 won out, if it was because they did a console release so be it , end of the day it looked good enough to play and satisfied.
What most fail to realise is that what is good and acceptable to me or you wont be to someone else, gameplay or GFX wise.
I have no problem with developers making sequels for more money , as long as I am entertained.
Innovation is far and few inbetween , when everygame is a clone of the last it all comes down to one Question was it Fun ?
Not Everygame well be or can be a Crysis (Tech demo or not it was fun) , or a God of War or a Arkham Asylam .