Crysis 2 Review

[Netrigan]

If Crysis 2 falls short in any one key area, it's story. Or maybe it's better to say that the story falls short because of the way it's told. The plot itself might be actually enjoyable. The problem is that all the elements are jumbled together and parceled out seemingly at random. You don't even know who your character is supposed to be until a few hours into the game. Even then your character is defined entirely by what he does, which makes all the accompanying melodrama (not to mention the I-so-saw-that-coming twist towards the end), kind of unsatisfying. The campaign itself clocks in around 10 hours, which is long enough to be satisfying, but not so long that you're not likely to go back and play it a different way.

http://kotaku.com/#!5513872/crysis-2-writer-on-modern-warfare-2-story-jesus-what-have-you-been-doing

"I thought Modern Warfare 2 was an immense disappointment," Morgan told CVG. "It was a massive stepdown from CoD4. What I thought when I played it was, 'Jesus guys, what have you been doing? You've not ramped anything up. The story is worse and the game doesn't really hang together, it's just a bunch of mission levels.'"

"It made no sense. It was totally implausible," Morgan added. "It doesn't resolve. Basically, all the things that bad storytelling does. I just think they were way too impressed with themselves and that's always a danger. It's just unfortunate."

Yeah, the writer doesn't sound like a complete hypocrite or anything...

Regardless, I actually cancelled my pre-order of this game after playing the demo, I'll probably get it when the price drops slightly; as the reviews of the single player sound highly promising.

He didn't say he'd tell a good story, merely that it would actually hang together

Just played MW2 for the first time and on a pure gaming level, I was satisfied... but there seems to be little doubt that it was a bunch of cool set-pieces linked together by a story that was never in danger of actually making any sort of sense.

After I played it, I thought for several minutes about what had just happened, couldn't make heads nor tails of it, read the plot synopsis on Wikipedia, re-read the plot synopsis on Wikipedia, read it again... then gave up trying to make any sort of sense of what had happened in the game. Why were they in Brazil... don't know, but it made for a cool level. Why did they attack a Russian gulag... don't know but it made a cool level. Somehow these two things were linked, but why a arms dealer in Brazil would be leading them to Capt. Price does not make sense on any level known to man.

But it was fucking cool.

And, ultimately, that's the problem with MW2. And whatever the problems the Crysis 2 story might have, it sounds as though there actually is one.

 

[Distorted Stu]

I loved it, just wish the sotry could o fbeen told a bit better. Also, the voice acting.. OH LORD THE VOICE ACTING

 

[Wicky_42]

Ok, 10hr campaign is good, but I still want to know how it performs on PC before I'd spend money on it. The multiplayer demo did not spark my interest at all, I'd only be getting it for the single player and the graphics - here's hoping they see fit to incorporate Dx11 sometime in the near future...

 

[cainx10a]

If Crysis 2 falls short in any one key area, it's story. Or maybe it's better to say that the story falls short because of the way it's told. The plot itself might be actually enjoyable. The problem is that all the elements are jumbled together and parceled out seemingly at random. You don't even know who your character is supposed to be until a few hours into the game. Even then your character is defined entirely by what he does, which makes all the accompanying melodrama (not to mention the I-so-saw-that-coming twist towards the end), kind of unsatisfying. The campaign itself clocks in around 10 hours, which is long enough to be satisfying, but not so long that you're not likely to go back and play it a different way.

http://kotaku.com/#!5513872/crysis-2-writer-on-modern-warfare-2-story-jesus-what-have-you-been-doing

"I thought Modern Warfare 2 was an immense disappointment," Morgan told CVG. "It was a massive stepdown from CoD4. What I thought when I played it was, 'Jesus guys, what have you been doing? You've not ramped anything up. The story is worse and the game doesn't really hang together, it's just a bunch of mission levels.'"

"It made no sense. It was totally implausible," Morgan added. "It doesn't resolve. Basically, all the things that bad storytelling does. I just think they were way too impressed with themselves and that's always a danger. It's just unfortunate."

Yeah, the writer doesn't sound like a complete hypocrite or anything...

Regardless, I actually cancelled my pre-order of this game after playing the demo, I'll probably get it when the price drops slightly; as the reviews of the single player sound highly promising.

He didn't say he'd tell a good story, merely that it would actually hang together

Just played MW2 for the first time and on a pure gaming level, I was satisfied... but there seems to be little doubt that it was a bunch of cool set-pieces linked together by a story that was never in danger of actually making any sort of sense.

After I played it, I thought for several minutes about what had just happened, couldn't make heads nor tails of it, read the plot synopsis on Wikipedia, re-read the plot synopsis on Wikipedia, read it again... then gave up trying to make any sort of sense of what had happened in the game. Why were they in Brazil... don't know, but it made for a cool level. Why did they attack a Russian gulag... don't know but it made a cool level. Somehow these two things were linked, but why a arms dealer in Brazil would be leading them to Capt. Price does not make sense on any level known to man.

But it was fucking cool.

And, ultimately, that's the problem with MW2. And whatever the problems the Crysis 2 story might have, it sounds as though there actually is one.

1/ they went to brazil to track the dude who provided the munitions used to kill the russian civilians ... hoping it would help them get a clue as to where Makarov would be... not sure if that's how they got the info about Makarov's supposed enemy

2/ they went to the gulag to rescue a mustachioed enemy of Makarov, hoping he might give them some lead to capture him

3/ MW2 storyline was a messed, too bad IW is kinda dead, and I doubt the remnants working on MW3 will have any clue on how to follow-up on the storyline or even have the technical pro-efficiency that IW had. They did upgrade the CoD4 engine beautifully to the one used in MW2, unlike Treyarch.

 

[fullboat]

I assume this is the Xbox 360 review, as Crytek did not provide the PC or PS3 games to reviewers.

It would be very helpful if when people did game reviews they indicated what platform they reviewed the game on.

I know a lot of PC gamers are very disappointed with a lot of aspects of Crysis 2.

 

[NewYork_Comedian]

Crysis 1 was one of the best games ive ever played, so either way im going to get this anyway. Glad to see almost all the reviews are positive though.

 

[Hungry Donner]

I was a big fan of the original so it was nice to get a review from someone else who enjoyed it as well.

 

[Valanthe]

I assume this is the Xbox 360 review, as Crytek did not provide the PC or PS3 games to reviewers.

It would be very helpful if when people did game reviews they indicated what platform they reviewed the game on.

I know a lot of PC gamers are very disappointed with a lot of aspects of Crysis 2.

If you read the article, it states right at the end end above the product information,

"This review was based on the Xbox 360 version of the game."

 

[Still Life]

I haven't had this much fun in a shooter for a while now. Crysis 2 has a lot of depth in its gameplay for a fast-paced shooter. Considering that Crytek have managed to go multiplatform and still maintain very high quality visuals also makes it a technical achievement.

The story takes time to warm up, but it answers all the fundamentals by the end and actually gives us closure -- unlike the first game.

 

[D_987]

He didn't say he'd tell a good story, merely that it would actually hang together

Hence the bolded section "The problem is that all the elements are jumbled together and parceled out seemingly at random", the reviewer implies the elements of the story, much like MW2, are jumbled.

 

[Woodsey]

Biggest problem for me playing through the story right now is the enemies that can sometimes see you even when you've cloaked before you've gone in the same room as them.

They've flunked a bit on the story too so far as well, which is annoying given the two names behind it. Say what you will of the original game's story, but it was coherent, and I could tell you how I got from the first beach to where I was at the end of the game. Here, I just seem to black out at the end of every section and wake up randomly closer to where I need to be.

I seem to be getting a lot of AI issues also - seems either broken to the point where they can see me when cloaked like I said, or I'm standing right in front of them and they simply walk in the opposite direction. This does seem to be varying wildly from person to person as far as I can tell though.

Still enjoying it.

Oh, and the thing with the PC graphics menu is absurd. 3 presets? And how can it be marked 'high' if its the lowest setting? Still, runs great and looks great.

 

[Twilight_guy]

And yet I still don't care. Nice review but nothing that I saw or read really got me interested enough to go out and buy it.

 

[Baneat]

Crysis 2 is very mediocre, 5/10 at most. The thing that bugs me most is that the FOV is like 45 or something, it's like the nanosuit blocks out 80% of your vision.

Sadly, game reviews can never be taken seriously because 8/10 is a "decent" score for AAA games.

Or people just don't have the same opinion as you regarding the game...

This is true, but I'm referring to the industry as a whole. When a movie or book is average it gets a 5/10. When a game is average it gets a 7/10 or a 8/10.

Hint: score systems are an attempt to objectivise the subjective, I've never even read a book that had these score things on it.

Anyway:
Here are the settings I had placed into my launch options for crysis 2 demo
"C:\Program Files (x86)\Electronic Arts\Crytek\Crysis 2 Demo\bin32\Crysis2Demo.exe" +cl_fov=90 +r_DrawNearFoV = 90 +pl_movement.power_sprint_targetFov = 90 +g_skipIntro=1

Skip intro and constant FoV of 90, I think all the console commands are still functional, there just isn't an easy, in-game way to do the more basic things (bloom/HDR, AA etc.), because I've heard of people altering the bloom and stuff in Crysis 2.

 

[Drakmorg]

Meh, never had any interest in the Crysis series at all, and this review has failed to change my opinion.

Then again maybe I'm just biased because it looks like all they did was take Call of Duty and shove Halo Reach armor powers into it.

 

[ImprovizoR]

There is absolutely nothing remarkable about this game. Nothing at all. Not even graphics. It's a simple modern shooter with some aliens and a nano-suit that essentially plays just like call of duty. So call me a PC fanboy all you want but it's a FACT that Crysis 2 is dumbed down for consoles. Even the interface is consolized for crying out loud! Animations look like they were ripped straight from call of duty. The overall atmosphere and the feel of the game is completely ruined. It feels like any other FPS on the market. I can see why console gamers will like it. It is fresh for consoles. It isn't fresh on PC. PC has Crysis 1 and Warhead. This game is a disgrace in all aspects. All those little things that made Crysis special are now gone.

A.I. is retarded. You don't even need the nano-suit in most cases while in Crysis 1 it was essential. And when you use it the game becomes a walk in the park. Almost literally in some cases where you just walk past enemies while cloaked. And if you shoot one you jut need to wait a few seconds for energy to recharge and cloak again. And they just leave you alone.
Nano-suit is dumbed down. Now you can't sprint without using your super-speed the way you could in Crysis 1. Armor mode and strength mode are combined making the game even easier and less tactical. Binoculars is a nano-suit mode. You can't dual wield weapons. You can't carry more than 2 weapons and an RPG.

The setting is very unimaginative. All of the stuff you hear about the city looking great might be true if you compare Crysis 2 to every other console shooter, CoD primarily. But you have to compare it to it's predecessor and when you do you will realize how unoriginal the setting is. And level design is linear and boring.

Story is dreadful. I don't even know why am I doing things in this game anyway. A mute character gets a suit against his will and knowledge and then he starts doing errands for everyone he meets without asking questions. The mute character in Crysis 2 makes the story even dumber and more meaningless than it already is. You just can't feel any connection to anything that's going on. It just doesn't matter. The story fails to pull you in because even though it's a FIRST PERSON game it feels like you're an outsider who just happened to be there and everything that happens is out of your reach. It's like you can't do anything unless you're told too. And what you're being told doesn't make sense because of the way it's told. It makes the single player pretty much meaningless. And did I mention how the story doesn't make any sense whatsoever? And I have to mention that none of the questions from Crysis 1 were answered. So if you were hoping to find out what happened on the island after the events of Crysis 1 you will be disappointed.

 

[Emergent System]

I'm a couple of hours into this game and I still don't understand what's going on.

 

[ZeroMachine]

If Crysis 2 falls short in any one key area, it's story. Or maybe it's better to say that the story falls short because of the way it's told. The plot itself might be actually enjoyable. The problem is that all the elements are jumbled together and parceled out seemingly at random. You don't even know who your character is supposed to be until a few hours into the game. Even then your character is defined entirely by what he does, which makes all the accompanying melodrama (not to mention the I-so-saw-that-coming twist towards the end), kind of unsatisfying. The campaign itself clocks in around 10 hours, which is long enough to be satisfying, but not so long that you're not likely to go back and play it a different way.

http://kotaku.com/#!5513872/crysis-2-writer-on-modern-warfare-2-story-jesus-what-have-you-been-doing

"I thought Modern Warfare 2 was an immense disappointment," Morgan told CVG. "It was a massive stepdown from CoD4. What I thought when I played it was, 'Jesus guys, what have you been doing? You've not ramped anything up. The story is worse and the game doesn't really hang together, it's just a bunch of mission levels.'"

"It made no sense. It was totally implausible," Morgan added. "It doesn't resolve. Basically, all the things that bad storytelling does. I just think they were way too impressed with themselves and that's always a danger. It's just unfortunate."

Yeah, the writer doesn't sound like a complete hypocrite or anything...

Regardless, I actually cancelled my pre-order of this game after playing the demo, I'll probably get it when the price drops slightly; as the reviews of the single player sound highly promising.

He didn't say he'd tell a good story, merely that it would actually hang together

Just played MW2 for the first time and on a pure gaming level, I was satisfied... but there seems to be little doubt that it was a bunch of cool set-pieces linked together by a story that was never in danger of actually making any sort of sense.

After I played it, I thought for several minutes about what had just happened, couldn't make heads nor tails of it, read the plot synopsis on Wikipedia, re-read the plot synopsis on Wikipedia, read it again... then gave up trying to make any sort of sense of what had happened in the game. Why were they in Brazil... don't know, but it made for a cool level. Why did they attack a Russian gulag... don't know but it made a cool level. Somehow these two things were linked, but why a arms dealer in Brazil would be leading them to Capt. Price does not make sense on any level known to man.

But it was fucking cool.

And, ultimately, that's the problem with MW2. And whatever the problems the Crysis 2 story might have, it sounds as though there actually is one.

They were in Brazil to track down someone linked to Makarov and his weapon supplies. That led them to the gulag because the guy confessed that Makarov wanted someone, namely Price, dead, most likely for his involvement with the death of Zakhaev in Modern Warfare 1, whom Makarov viewed an an idol and martyr.

Why the hell does everyone has such an issue understanding the story of Modern Warfare 2? I don't get it... It's a simple story, if a little convoluted. Am I playing a different game? Gah...

Anyways, I think I may get this when I get a better PC. I saw it in 3D at PAX East and it looked awesome, and I actually kind of enjoyed the demo, so I don't see why not. Better get the first one first, though...

 

[infohippie]

So, sounds like they've simplified the nanosuit a fair bit when it was already simple enough. They've apparently not bothered to put a lot of effort into the story and only ten hours for the single-player campaign? Are Crytek kidding here? I loved Crysis 1, and Crysis Warhead, but I don't think I'll be buying this.

"The game also includes a tactical vision mode that highlights on the screen key locations where certain types of play might be appropriate. It might, for instance, call out a sniping position on a roof, or a subway entrance you can use to sneak around behind your enemies."
Really? And console gamers wonder why PC gamers complain that console versions cause PC franchises to get dumbed down. Looks like Crysis 2 is the perfect illustration of why such complaints are made.

 

[tautologico]

I want to try it sometime, but play Crysis 1 first. I never got the first, though, because of SecuROM. I don't mind DRM in general, but I don't want a program eating my CPU away.

 

[MGlBlaze]

Do note that this is based on the 360 version, thus most complaints about the PC version (poor textures, complete lack of graphics options, sheer laziness in porting) doesn't apply.

I haven't noticed any texture problems yet.

I will say the lack of customisable graphics is a little alloying though; it lets you set the screen resolution and change all the settings in general, but without using console commands you can't set individual components separately. I can run it at max settings with 1680x1050, but hypothetically if I didn't have a fairly good graphics card and I didn't care about the anti-aliasing but I did care about model and texture detail, I wouldn't be able to make that choice to get an 'optimal' graphical experience for me.

Also, the 45 degree FOV is kinda sucky. I like having 90 so it's actually somewhat close to what a human's field of vision is (Although that's still quite far off; A human eyeball's vision covers 155 degrees horizonaly and 125 degrees vertically.).

At least there isn't auto-aim. I don't like auto-aim you can't turn off on any PC version. I'd be insulted if it turned out I've been playing with auto-aim so far.
...Please tell me the PC version either has no auto-aim or has auto-aim you can easily turn off and is forced off in most multiplayer servers...