Crysis 2 Review

[Droppa Deuce]

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.

After reading Eurogamer's review and their Digital Foundry article, it really does seem like a 6/10 game.

When I see 8/10 I am rarely impressed. I only buy AAA titles now, I can't afford to take the risk with games that are getting such mixed reviews. I'll prob rent this, but it won't be a first week buy.

My PS3 collection now is Demon Souls, MGS4, MvC3. Unchartered 2, MW2, Arkham Asylum.

 

[Jamous]

Oh but Steve, didn't you know? Wood is stronger than anything when put into door form!

Using that radial menu is extremely annoying and unintuitive, the moment i realize i can activate cloak by double tapping crouch I never used that radial menu again.

OMG YOU CAN DO THAT?!? I HAVE NOT LIVED YET. Excuse me, I must leave that I might live a little. ;D

 

[Serving UpSmiles]

Crysis 1 could support 32 players in its MP instead of this measly 16, and the maps were way larger as well. Considering people buy FPS titles these days mostly for the MP, this is downgraded.

But crysis 1's multiplayer was crap....

 

[Netrigan]

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...

Constant narrative switches in Act I & II and highly implausible plot developments will do that to you.

Having the weapon supplier give them the name of a guy that Makarov wants to kill... who just so happens to be your lost Captain from the first game... who doesn't actually have information needed to get to Makarov... but whose sideways thinking saves the day.

That's not a logical progression. That's a writer desperately making pieces fit. There's a reason why truth is stranger than fiction... we demand out fiction make sense.

As legend goes, all of the set pieces of Mission Impossible II were put together *before* anyone wrote a script. Likewise, it's a pretty cool movie, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. MW2 is not so much a story that was written, but a story that was script doctored.

 

[Serving UpSmiles]

Crysis 2 is a huge step backward from Crysis 1.

I didn't realize they would make so much cuts for the console development, but they did. For instance, on PC, there are no graphics options. Absolutely none. You can choose from a few presets (e.g. Extreme) and that is all. As a PC game, this is probably the worst entry for lack of customization ever, and that is saying a lot. Second, the Field of View is tremendously awful, just awful. It made me dizzy.

No destructible environments, the levels are very narrow and linear, the AI is poor and it turns into space invaders 95% of the time.

To be perfectly honest, this is an awful game. This would be a great first franchise entry for a company, but as a sequel to one of the greatest PC technical achievements ever, this is a flop. For anyone that doesn't realize this, you are in denial, including the delusional folks at PC Gamer who failed to report on this. Or you are simply who they are catering to with this entry, such as people who enjoy CoD and think it's mediocre mechanics are the greatest technical achievements ever.

I started playing the game, and couldn't finish it. The plot is mostly an incoherent mess, and everything is strung together. Honestly, I was flabbergasted by how mediocre it is.

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.

Seriously why can't people just focus on the good aspects of the game instead of the negative ones, like the great graphics, weapons and interface and all.... :/

 

[Asehujiko]

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...

It's standards 2006 graphics shitport tripe. Should run on your microwave by now.

If all reviewers are saying exactly the same, it's probably whispered into their ears by a marketing director.

 

[Cowabungaa]

4. About the Story and main protagonist, like someone just recently added, it does feel a bit goofy how he is mute, and follows orders without questioning them, almost as if he was a little doggy. But seriously, Gordon Freeman never spoke one damn word, and he still managed to save Humanity! Give this Prophet look-alike a chance.

So far this is my biggest gripe with the game as well, especially because Crysis 1 did this beautifully well. Thanks to it staying in first person view, bar some loading screens, the story flowed very well despite being not all that special. It made the whole thing very immersive.

Crysis 1 took the Half Life road, which in my opinion is the best way of telling a first person (shooter) story, barely ever really cutting you out of the action. Crysis 2 however, despite not even being half-way through, is already doing that a lot. They pretty much completely skipped the tunnel beneath Wall Street Church, all you get is a little tactical thing ala CoD showing you were you traveled. And that's just one example. Real shame.

Game is pretty enjoyable, besides some bugs... AI really looks somehow broken, enemy soldiers are acting in weird way (like soldier, who is away about 200 metres sees me and shoots me for a few minutes, but those 10 metres away from me (however below) don't notice me at all... where is so called "I heard shots" thing? Not to mention the fact of soldiers running into objects or into themselves... AI in Crysis 1 was for sure much better, I don't remember any of those problems

And my favourite bug, the space-wrapping shotgun
http://img837.imageshack.us/img837/7058/crysisg.jpg

I had a little bug for a while that every time I wanted to look through my K-VOLT's sights the gun went all warpy and twitchy for a second or so, like Alexander was practicing his Gun Kata or something.

I don't recognise that AI thingy though. Soldiers were pretty observant with me, and each time I shot someone they checked up on him after a few seconds, going all "Please come in!" and switching to their alert mode, spotting me in Cloak mode more than once.

You're right about the bumping into things though. I had a group of 3 alien grunts that were apparently clusterfucked together somehow. Sure was a perfect rocket opportunity. Shame that wasted 300 nano-catalyst. But Crysis 1 wasn't free of AI issues either:
It was also incredibly easy to abuse the cloak function. Them Koreans really needed some glasses.

If all reviewers are saying exactly the same, it's probably whispered into their ears by a marketing director.

Or, you know, they agree. Just a guess.

 

[Asehujiko]

Seriously why can't people just focus on the good aspects of the game instead of the negative ones, like the great graphics, weapons and interface and all.... :/

Because all of the things you mentioned are worse then the first game?

Or, you know, they agree. Just a guess.

And they all conveniently ignored exactly the same problems like this being a downgrade from crysis 1, the lack of customization, modding support and being a large lump of console cancer in general by sheer coincidence?

 

[Cowabungaa]

And they all conveniently ignored exactly the same problems like this being a downgrade from crysis 1, the lack of customization, modding support and being a large lump of console cancer in general by sheer coincidence?

I don't know about the modding support, but you are at least right about the customisation thing. It's rather silly that we don't have proper graphical sliders and all that jazz to optimise performance.

However, I'd say saying that it's a 'large lump of console cancer' is an overreaction. The fact that the interface is streamlined (definitely not a downgrade in my view) is not so much a console thing, works brilliant on the PC as well, the fact that our multiplayer still works with dedicated servers and a proper lobby ain't a console thing either and the fact that they screwed up the narrative (which they did address) isn't to blame on consoles either. I also don't even nearly agree that this Crysis 2 is '2006 graphics shitport tripe', where you got that from is a mystery to me.

As for the rest, I'm having a blast with this.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

10 hours huh? Not worth it.

 

[tehroc]

10 hours huh? Not worth it.

How long did it take you to go through Black Ops? 5 hours at most? Yet I bet you'll be buying the next one no matter what.

If you have a 360 and like FPS shooters, Crysis 2 is a must play title. Biggest complaint, no dedicated servers for multiplayer. Cmon EA has always been good at providing dedicated servers for their games, why is this one using a P2P system?

 

[mr.mystery]

should I get it for the X-box?

 

[Steve Butts]

Alright, Steve, I know you respond to questions, so, yeah...

are as tired of Call of Duty clones as I am

Which CoD clones? What are those infinite CoD clones everyone is talking about, apart from MoH and Homefront?

Well, just sticking with the past two years or so, we've had two official Call of Duty games, plus Medal of Honor and Homefront. But there's also been Breach and Blacklight, Arma and OpFlash, MAG and SOCOM. And that's just off the top of my head. Depending on your definitions, some of those may not technically be clones, but they all stick very close to the content and tone that have made COD such a success.

In any case, having nearly a dozen games which cover so much of the same territory all released with 24 months is just too much.

This was the kind of crap we used to see in the PC market years ago, when we'd get four different Star Trek games all being released within weeks of each other. Back then people used to claim one of the benefits of the console catalog was that it didn't encourage that sort of saturation. But everyone is chasing Call of Duty now, which creates even more restrictions for developers working in the already narrow console market.

When a game like Crysis comes along and delivers an experience that isn't like the last five shooters I just played, I think it's worth taking notice. Hopefully it encourages other developers to take a chance. To be fair, the game was first developed on the PC free from some of the expectations of the console market, but there's no reason a success here can't help us broaden the definition of the current gen shooter.

 

[RA92]

Considering people buy FPS titles these days mostly for the MP

I object to this statement, as I really don't give a crap about multiplayer most of the time.

Crysis 2 is obviously single player focused since it has a 12 hour campaign instead of the 5-6 hour campaign that most Call of Duty games seem to have these days.

I find it saddening how many people are actually calling the game mediocre simply because they did not like the multiplayer while pretty much just ignoring the single player game.

And your point is...? Crysis 1 had a longer campaign with destructible open world environment. Crysis 2 is way too linear for my taste.

Like I said, this is a huge step back.

 

[JourneyThroughHell]

snip

I appreciate you took time to respond. Don't mind me doing the same thing.

Breach and Blacklight

Kind of, but those are budget shooters, you expect that sort ot thing.

Arma and OpFlash

Arma is a super realistic PC shooter that can't possibly be compared to CoD. Latest OF - maybe.

MAG and SOCOM

MAG's a Battlefield knockoff, SOCOM's a Ghost Recon one.

I can see where you're coming from - most of these games are military FPS games set somewhere in the Middle East and have Americans and other European nations shooting bad guys. But, that's the setting and, really, you can't say Prototype's a Grand Theft Auto clone just for them both being set in a fake-y NYC.

Gameplay-wise, these games are quite different. In fact, I know a lot of people who, based on the demo, got the impression that Crysis 2 is more of a CoD knockoff than most of the games listed. Me being one of them.

Yes, people are chasing CoD. And, yes, this clearly works. After all, Homefront sold really well even without being anything spectacular. But is that really a bad thing? Every shooter that's trying to be like CoD still brings its own thing and usually lifts only the things that worked in CoD as well as in other games. The RPG elements in multiplayer, the perks, the killstreaks. Doesn't Crysis 2 have all of that? And it's hardly a ripoff.

There's an over-saturation of military FPS games, sure. But straight-up CoD clones? Hardly so.

Then again I am a huge series fanboy, so I don't really mind.

 

[Seneschal]

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...

That makes no sense. It isn't convoluted, it isn't even connected. So, someone in Brazil supplied Makarov with weapons. On the verge of war, the best special forces unit in the world goes to South America to track this guy who might not know anything, and certainly doesn't know where Makarov is now. He inexplicably knows about someone whom Makarov wants dead. That someone is in a russian gulag, he could have been killed by Makarov at any time, knows nothing, means nothing, and is just a hook to get Price back. How they justified this expense of military assets is never explained. Oh, and this aimless little sidequest takes up most of Act 1 and 2.

I'm not surprised that they can hire Morgan, a published sci-fi bestseller writer, and still botch the story. Crysis 2 has a bad story because it's a shooter. Shooters inherently lack the capacity to carry a dramatic arc because they require that your character does not interact with anything other than his guns, that he doesn't speak (because a voiced first-person role is confusing and distracting), that the tension doesn't drop, and that you never face insurmountable odds because that would break the difficulty. They represent a tiny facet of potential events in a story (namely, gunfights) and build a 5-10-hour experience on that. If the story ends up being good, it is mostly divorced from the actual gameplay, or at least isn't reinforced by it.

However, setting, environment, tone, pacing, atmosphere - this is where a shooter can shine just like any other game. And many do, especially those often-mentioned gems like Bioshock and Deus Ex, but that doesn't make their story any better. They just make their worlds more fleshed-out and plausible. It's always the same goal-oriented filler, with an epic background event if the writers are any good. Crysis 1 lacked any focus in this area, and was mostly what you made it be and how you chose to play it. The sequel seems to aim at more consistency, but it again gets bogged down in stupid plots and exposition that never did shooters any good.

 

[Bluntknife]

I have every intention of getting this game...eventually.

Once they have a patch out for DX11 and fixed the issues with people connecting to multiplayer.

Or I might just hold off until a sale on steam.

 

[Frostbite3789]

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.

Exhibit A: http://www.halolz.com/2011/01/16/how-gamers-interpret-review-scores/

OT: I'll probably get it eventually. It looks pretty neat.