Crysis 2 (doesn't seem to look bad as initial reviews claimed)

[Gordon Freemen]

So you haven't actually played Crysis 2 yourself then?

'More linear' is not the same as 'corridor', and neither is it a sign of a game's quality.

Crysis 2 may not have been a "corridor shooter" but it was on rails.

 

[mwmorph]

So you haven't actually played Crysis 2 yourself then?

'More linear' is not the same as 'corridor', and neither is it a sign of a game's quality.

It is not, but quality does not account for taste. The game itself had AAA production values. Under another name, say Halo ODST:NYC or Battlefield 2141, it would probably have worked alright, but it is a game in the Crysis franchise.

The issue with that is Crysis was new and fresh. It's hard to name another game with a truly open world in a FPS. I personally don't remember any others besides the original Ghost Recon. Crysis didn't hold you by the hand, it told you that over at X,Y, there's an objective to be completed like infiltration of a research facility or destruction of a radio jammer, but for the most part, you were allowed to be yourself and play however you wanted. I remember throwing chickens at shacks for a good 10 or 15 minutes first time I played for the hell of it. I remember having my cover blown by a hind and spending 15 minutes hiding from the alerted helicopter/infantry patrols in deep brush and water fairly early on in the game. I remember moving from objective to objective, always wondering where the N. Korean patrols were and if I was taking the safest tactical route.

Crysis 2 on the other hand was vastly changed. From the start of the game when it instructed you to open a damn door, I knew it was trouble. When your objective markers are literally IIRC Open door 15m away-> move 20m to ledge-> look at stuff down there with your tactical visor, there's too much handholding.

The levels were also obviously designed for a few very specific approaches, there's a lot you can't do. Imagine Crysis 2 with the same level of freedom as Crysis 1. You'd go inside a building, scamper up to the top and snipe a couple soldiers. As the others spot you, they would move in and try to enter. Just then, you would use that ground pound ability you saw in the trailer (and used only once in the game IIRC), land in the middle of the group stacked up near the building's door and knock out/kill all the remaining enemies in close combat.

There was none of that. It came down to move from hallway/tunnel/road to open box area, scan with tactical visor and move horizontally across a relatively smallish box with 1 or 2 vertical levels of movement. It may have looked open, but the game was truly linear and closed in, as soon as you try to exploit some tactically advantageous, you'd realize the game didn't want you to go there.

How is that any different that say Battlefield 3's campaign or Modern Warfare 3? The scale of the box you got to was somewhat larger, but it was still the same game concept. The only freedom was perceived, it came down to here's your box, you can either go along the ground or sometimes, along a elevated walkway. COD :Black Ops multiplayer maps have more freedom than that.

To put it another way, imagine if Homeworld 2 went from being a RTS in space with 3D movement to being a well done Command and Conquer clone on land with a 2D map. It wouldn't be a bad game, but it should never be released as a Homeworld game.

 

[Stringjam]

Crysis 2 on the other hand was vastly changed. From the start of the game when it instructed you to open a damn door, I knew it was trouble. When your objective markers are literally IIRC Open door 15m away-> move 20m to ledge-> look at stuff down there with your tactical visor, there's too much handholding.

The levels were also obviously designed for a few very specific approaches, there's a lot you can't do. Imagine Crysis 2 with the same level of freedom as Crysis 1. You'd go inside a building, scamper up to the top and snipe a couple soldiers. As the others spot you, they would move in and try to enter. Just then, you would use that ground pound ability you saw in the trailer (and used only once in the game IIRC), land in the middle of the group stacked up near the building's door and knock out/kill all the remaining enemies in close combat.

There was none of that. It came down to move from hallway/tunnel/road to open box area, scan with tactical visor and move horizontally across a relatively smallish box with 1 or 2 vertical levels of movement. It may have looked open, but the game was truly linear and closed in, as soon as you try to exploit some tactically advantageous, you'd realize the game didn't want you to go there.

This is exactly why Crysis is one of my favorite games in life, and Crysis 2 left me massively disappointed.

I was hoping Crysis would take a step further in the direction it was started with; A game where you could set your own pace and approach to combat. Crysis had boundaries, but they were extremely generous compared to Crysis2. You had options, and the game didn't grab you by the hand like a little child to lead you from one point to another (one of the things I hated most about Crysis2).

 

[Fire&Blood]

It is not, but quality does not account for taste. The game itself had AAA production values. Under another name, say Halo ODST:NYC or Battlefield 2141, it would probably have worked alright, but it is a game in the Crysis franchise.

The issue with that is Crysis was new and fresh. It's hard to name another game with a truly open world in a FPS. I personally don't remember any others besides the original Ghost Recon. Crysis didn't hold you by the hand, it told you that over at X,Y, there's an objective to be completed like infiltration of a research facility or destruction of a radio jammer, but for the most part, you were allowed to be yourself and play however you wanted. I remember throwing chickens at shacks for a good 10 or 15 minutes first time I played for the hell of it. I remember having my cover blown by a hind and spending 15 minutes hiding from the alerted helicopter/infantry patrols in deep brush and water fairly early on in the game. I remember moving from objective to objective, always wondering where the N. Korean patrols were and if I was taking the safest tactical route.

Crysis 2 on the other hand was vastly changed. From the start of the game when it instructed you to open a damn door, I knew it was trouble. When your objective markers are literally IIRC Open door 15m away-> move 20m to ledge-> look at stuff down there with your tactical visor, there's too much handholding.

The levels were also obviously designed for a few very specific approaches, there's a lot you can't do. Imagine Crysis 2 with the same level of freedom as Crysis 1. You'd go inside a building, scamper up to the top and snipe a couple soldiers. As the others spot you, they would move in and try to enter. Just then, you would use that ground pound ability you saw in the trailer (and used only once in the game IIRC), land in the middle of the group stacked up near the building's door and knock out/kill all the remaining enemies in close combat.

There was none of that. It came down to move from hallway/tunnel/road to open box area, scan with tactical visor and move horizontally across a relatively smallish box with 1 or 2 vertical levels of movement. It may have looked open, but the game was truly linear and closed in, as soon as you try to exploit some tactically advantageous, you'd realize the game didn't want you to go there.

How is that any different that say Battlefield 3's campaign or Modern Warfare 3? The scale of the box you got to was somewhat larger, but it was still the same game concept. The only freedom was perceived, it came down to here's your box, you can either go along the ground or sometimes, along a elevated walkway. COD :Black Ops multiplayer maps have more freedom than that.

This and that's why, IMO, Crysis>Far Cry>Crysis 2.

 

[Veliko]

There was none of that. It came down to move from hallway/tunnel/road to open box area, scan with tactical visor and move horizontally across a relatively smallish box with 1 or 2 vertical levels of movement. It may have looked open, but the game was truly linear and closed in, as soon as you try to exploit some tactically advantageous, you'd realize the game didn't want you to go there.

How is that any different that say Battlefield 3's campaign or Modern Warfare 3? The scale of the box you got to was somewhat larger, but it was still the same game concept. The only freedom was perceived, it came down to here's your box, you can either go along the ground or sometimes, along a elevated walkway. COD :Black Ops multiplayer maps have more freedom than that

The concept for all of these games is more or less the same, whether you are talking about the BF3 campaign, Crysis or Crysis 2.

Seriously, the way some people talk about Crysis being so different to everything else is ridiculous. The difference between, say, Diablo and Baldurs Gate 2 is big, but the difference between Crysis and Crysis 2 is quite small.