EA: Crysis 2 Will Be a "Halo Killer"

[L-J-F]

The only "killing" Crysis will do is hardware.

The first crysis game beat your computer with a rusty pipe, now they made a second one to finish the job.

The second one's for consoles, so PC's that can barely run Crysis should have no trouble with Crysis 2.

Yeah, that's what the publishers like to say for their big titles. Halo-killer, WoW-killer, and all those good stuff. I'm not exactly sure how to kill something that's not alive (not to mention software aren't exactly physical objects), but if that's what floats their boat then good on them.

Presumming it'll be optimized, which you can bet your ass it won't be. It'll look a little better than the console version but will require cutting edge hardware to run it maxed, I have no idea how a brand new $2000 PC can't handle some of the games that run on a 5 year old console ... oh wait, yup, because nobody seems to care.

I think their attitude is: "well hey, PC's can handle it, whey spend time and money optimizing like we do on the consoles?"

 

[thatsnotchocolate]

just before you read my bit, I am a fanboy. So watch out.

But seriously, how the fudge does crysis expect to kill halo. It is already just a shitter version of halo and it misses what makes halo awesome. Halo is easy to pick up and play and has a story that makes you go "oh shit, this is awesome".Crysis has a button for sniffing your ass its so damn complicated and the story has the same cool stereotypes of halo it just somehow screwed the pooch. Your not meant to sit back and let the flavours of the story rest on your pallet. Your meant to SCULL that shitty water because your a hardcore army-man.
i think a better term would be halo-clone. it follows the same order of super-power-armour-guy but the suit looks gay (biggest mistake) and you never feel awesome; which is the whole point of super-power-armour-guy games.

 

[Silver Patriot]

"...we were trying to craft a Halo-killer, you know a product that would squarely go after what Bungie built with our partners at Crytek. So the Crysis 2 product is spectacular, very high-end, and is going to be a multi-year franchise," said Gibeau.

So you built your product . . . to go up against Halo? It's one thing to say your game is better or stronger or more whatever but it seems a little . . . limiting to build your game around beating one other game.

I heard of so many "Halo Killers." Resistance, Medal of Honer, Haze, Doom 3; They were fun, well except for Haze, but they weren't Halo Killers.

Still waiting for Resistance 3 SONY! Anyone who's played Resistance 2 know they can't leave it at that.

Can we please stop trying to kill FPS franchises, it's very silly.

That was to funny. Just the way you said it.

I hope this game sells like shit. And I'm pretty damn sure Reach will outsell Crysis 2. Everybody and their grandma knows what halo is. only pc gamers are really familiar with crysis. whether crysis 2 will be the better game or not remains to be seen. The beta for halo: reach is out, crytek, and it kicks ass. You can start talking when you get atleast a beta out.

I kind of like this philosophy.

 

[SpecklePattern]

The people behind Crysis 2 seem to be pretty cocky. But I guess they've got a reason... I mean, I can't even mention the game without mentioning the amazing graphics... they're just so beautiful...

Yes but that hardly makes a good game. But if they make the gameplay to match the graphics, then we are talking business.

 

[DTWolfwood]

a bit late aren't they? mw has long since taken over that name

 

[ProfessorLayton]

Yes but that hardly makes a good game. But if they make the gameplay to match the graphics, then we are talking business.

I know, but look:

I get mesmerized every time I see a screenshot... I can't look away.

 

[blindthrall]

What is it with these forums and the unrelenting hatred of Halo?

Are you all just pretentious, or did I miss some sort of massive flaw?

The first one probably. I'm puzzled if halo sucked so much why does everyone call their games HALO KILLERS. I know why because halo was actually epic and other developers can think of a original idea but to make a war game.

I usually let Halo defense slide, but this is bullshit. 90% of shooters involve a war, setting it in space does not make it original. Space Marines are lifted straight from aliens, even down to Sgt. Apone. The idea of the halos themselves is from Larry Niven's Ringworld books. The vehicles handle like shit, I could never understand why people said the Mako sucked but the Warthog was fun. The biggest flaw was the completely unthreatening enemies. I felt like I was shooting Teletubbies. When those extraterrestrial Care Bears started making cute little noises when I shot them, I realized this was either a parody or made for preteens. Oh, and what exactly is it that makes a game 'epic'? Is it the size of the space you're fighting in, or just the number of flashes happening at once? Because I don't think you really know what that word means.

My other gripe with Halo is that it paved the way for regenerating health, which opened the floodgates for every kind of developer hand-holding. I'm not saying all console games are inherently easier(Goldeneye was a *****) but after Halo, the majority of them were. Regenerating health is lazy developers catering to lazy players who can't be assed to backtrack for health or even remember where it was. Developers are afraid the ADHD generation will quit if they make their game too hard, and they'll tell their friends it sucks. So they make sure everybody can limp to the finish line in their own sad time. Games used to be actual antagonists, some of them going so far as to make them impossible to beat if you made the wrong choices. Those are games I can respect.

Now, if you're only talking about multiplayer, Halo is pretty good. Not the best, but still fun. The only gripe I have is the fucking plasma sword.

You can love Halo as much as you want, it won't bother me. But if you call me pretentious for hating it, I'll call you a retard for not playing STALKER instead.

Stalker? Never played it becuase my firend says its amazing, so trying to avoid a hyper's creed.

It seems we are in different boats for the same reason. But I'm confused. You like Halo, but won't play STALKER because of the hype? Last I checked, they weren't selling Snork Slurpees at the 7-11, although that would be beyond awesome.

 

[blindthrall]

Ahem. Regenerating health DID make games easier. I agree with you on that. But it also allows a tighter focus on good game mechanics and encourages a greater level of immersion. Witness, for example, Call of Duty (yes, the first one). It was a very cinematic and well-designed game, but epitomizes what I hate about non-recharging health. A simple defense mission could get frustrating simply because a swarm of incoming enemies would take away 95% of your health, following which a random shot would then kill you while you made a mad dash for a stash of health kits. Eventually, the game devolved into a hunt for health packs (especially in the Stalingrad levels), which frustrated me to no end. Yes, limited health forces you to play more skillfully, but you have less fun and feel less like a conquering badass. Bottom Line: go ahead and be snooty, but regenerating health just makes a game more immersive and engaging.

This is personal preference, but regenerating health yanks me right out of the game. Getting shot in the face and magically healing 10 seconds later is like someone threw a flashing light in front of me that says "This is a video game!" Immersive? What's more immersive than desperately scrounging the battlefield for medical supplies while the enemy tries to get a bead on you? Besides, the enemies dropped health, so as long as you where dishing out more bullets than you took, you could survive. And you can always just spam quicksave, a system which I prefer to regeneration, because you do feel like a pussy for doing it. Again, personal preference, but when I play a war game, I don't want to be Rambo. I want to be Vasily Zaitsev, just another scared grunt in the trenches who happens to be very good at killing. If I want to be a conquering badass, I'll play an RPG. Regeneration doesn't make you a superhero, it makes you a half-planarian mutant.

I do think there should be a semi-regeneration system, like in Farcry 2, where little potshots to the limbs heal. But major wounds should not close up on their own, or the game just becomes Whack-a-mole.

 

[blindthrall]

If you want realism then why not make a game where when you get shot ONCE you die.

Ever play a game called "Call of Cthulhu: Dark Corners of the Earth?" Now THAT was a FPS that was so much immersed it was crazy.

It's not exact realism I'm asking for, just a certain degree of difficulty. The one-shot-kill mechanic was why I never got into any of the Tom Clancy shooters.

It's funny you mention Call of Cthulhu. I really wanted to like that game, since Lovecraft is the shit, but it was too immersed. They valued atmosphere over gameplay. I never got out of Innsmouth.

You're very right about being able to carry the damn medkits. As I said above, I think Farcry 2 did health right. You can only regenerate up to the last 20% (if you're at 68%, you only heal to 80%) but you could carry a decent number of medkits. And you could bleed to death. And sometimes, you had to yank bullets out of your flesh with a pair of pliers.

 

[Cody211282]

Or you could, you know, actually worry about making your own damn game. *sigh* And this is why people (for no logical reason) bash Halo.

But this way if it sucks they can always say it sold more then Halo 3 did this year, also I think the Crysis 2 team is full of retards and the only way they know how to get the word out on their game is to bash other games.

 

[Wolfram23]

Halo killer? People play Halo?

Oohhh, on the 360... yea, good thing there's PCs and PS3s with equal/better FPS games.

 

[FinalHeart95]

Dear EA and Crytek,

Yeah, you can try to kill Halo and all that. OR, you could try to make an ORIGINAL GAME with the intention of actually entertaining people. I know I may be asking much, but I hear people actually buy entertaining, original games as well as carbon-copy clones with graphics increases! They might possibly buy it more!

Also, why Halo? I thought everyone hated it now.

From,
Fuck off

 

[thatsnotchocolate]

@HG131- must agree

 

[Nouw]

This pops into my mind "Could you please stop fucking bragging about Crysis 2?"

What do they have against Halo? Seriously! Crysis 2 hates Halo story. Now they want to try and make it a Halo Killer. Crysis 2 better be godly.

If not, I will laugh my throat out.

 

[FinalHeart95]

Dear EA and Crytek,

Yeah, you can try to kill Halo and all that. OR, you could try to make an ORIGINAL GAME with the intention of actually entertaining people. I know I may be asking much, but I hear people actually buy entertaining, original games as well as carbon-copy clones with graphics increases! They might possibly buy it more!

Also, why Halo? I thought everyone hated it now.

From,
Fuck off

No, the haters are (yet again) the vocal minority. Reach got rid of the shit that ruined Halo 3.

Just out of curiosity, what is this "shit" that you speak of?

Also, I realize that now with the "vocal minority" thing. Even the people I know who claimed that Halo 3 was "for fags" (guess my age bracket) are playing the Reach beta. Probably did it because it was cool anyway.

 

[Petromir]

Presumming it'll be optimized, which you can bet your ass it won't be. It'll look a little better than the console version but will require cutting edge hardware to run it maxed, I have no idea how a brand new $2000 PC can't handle some of the games that run on a 5 year old console ... oh wait, yup, because nobody seems to care.

I think their attitude is: "well hey, PC's can handle it, whey spend time and money optimizing like we do on the consoles?"

And the big demonstratsion of it scalling well, including the fact you only program the PC version and it spits out the 2 console versions?

The new engine in crysis isnt designed to be the biggest leap, its designed to be scalable, across the PC and to the consoles.

My 1 year old £600 pc can make most 360 and PS3 games look like dogs, maintain a higher frame rate at HD rez, in 3D. And while Crysis didnt scale well it wasn't what they wanted to do with it, it is still virtually unsurpassed. Also PC optimisation is difficult becasue they vary much more even within a small performance bracket. Many PC gamers will have stories of hitting that magic compomnets combination, that punches well above its weight.

Gameplay wise, it offered you many options, but rarely forced them on you, that meant that many only played it as a straight shooter, which it wasnt the best at.

Add a stoty and more casue to use your suit for more than off mission cocking about to Crysis culd make a great game.

 

[The DSM]

Keeping in mind the last hype I heard from them was the most unoriginal plot in the history of recorded existence, id say thats unlikely and just the hype machine, at least Halo tryed to have a somewhat creative, Crysis just copied a typical Sci-Fi film....

Also considering after Reach from what I understand the series is going on hiatus for a few years, they dont have to worry about Halo...