Crysis 2 Review

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

008Zulu:
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?

should I get it for the X-box?

Raiyan 1.0:
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.

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

Steve Butts:
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.

Hardcore_gamer:

Raiyan 1.0:
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.

Steve Butts:
snip

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

Steve Butts:
Breach and Blacklight

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

Steve Butts:
Arma and OpFlash

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

Steve Butts:
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.

ZeroMachine:

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.

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.

HerbertTheHamster:

D_987:

HerbertTheHamster:
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.

How unfortunate that these amazing graphics would go completely unappreciated on me lol.

I like how the review is full of gushing praise and saying that the flaws don't mean much, but still only gives it four stars. Some games get given 5 stars (usually deservedly), but talk about how meaningful the flaws are. Odd.

JourneyThroughHell:
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.

It seems like you're disagreeing with me while also basically saying exactly what I said. There are a ton of brown-toned military themed games and the differences between them are negligible.

Steve Butts:

It seems like you're disagreeing with me while also basically saying exactly what I said. There are a ton of brown-toned military themed games and the differences between them are negligible.

I didn't say anything about the differences being negligible.

If you're going to state that the differences between Arma and CoD are negligible because they're both about shooting modern guns at insurgents, that's going to be a wrong statement.

tehroc:
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?

Didnt buy Black Ops. PC gamer. Hate multiplayer in general.

Does it have local Co-Op?

JourneyThroughHell:
--

Any FPS game is a Doom clone!! rawr! But seriously, as similar as a lot of shooters are to following the CoD model, some of them are actually quite good. If it weren't for the massive amount of hackers on Homefront I would still be playing that.

ah man, as much as I wanna get through Homefront for the story not the gameplay, I now really wanna play Crysis 2 for the gameplay
of course graphics, even on the consoles (seriously!), but still... guess it's not a problem considering DNF is now delayed (who didn't see THAT coming >:p bahaha)

tehroc:

008Zulu:
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?

dude when I heard Crysis 2's campaign was 10-11 hours long I was lke "whoa this might be worth more than a rental"

=.= man...these short FPS campaigns really have become a staple of the genre. sighhh

New York is not overdone?
Ok then :P

Great review Steve! Yeah I would also have a problem at the stomach area :)

I might grab this after I finish Portal 2, this is really the year of the squeal games.

Could we get a control option where the grenades are mapped to the face buttons . This game is awesome ,but throwing a grenade is a bit of a chore especially in a frantic round of MP . the rocket launcher is mapped to the d-pad how about a d-pad option for grenades ?

HerbertTheHamster:

D_987:

HerbertTheHamster:
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.

meh, we all know how it works so it doesn't really matter.

10/10 = They paid me

9/10 = Fantastic game

8/10 = Great game

7/10 = Good but with some shortcomings

6/10 = Game breaking flaws or incredibly bland

anything less = I will spoon my eyes out rather than play this.

Seneschal:

ZeroMachine:

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.

you dont think bioshocks story is any good?

Well this would be some pc version action

Edit: 1080p if ya watch on youtube.

HerbertTheHamster:
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.

Yeah, the FOV is weird, although like the other guy said, different people have different opinions to you. The most you can hope for is that the more people like it, the more chance you have of liking it.

HerbertTheHamster:

D_987:

HerbertTheHamster:
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.

Depends on the reviewers. I watch Reviews on the Run, streaming online and for them an average game is 5/10 not 7.

I've got a question, just cause I'm curious. Why do you guys (usually) review the console version of a game and not the PC one? It's not criticism, I just really want to know :)

Thank you, Crytek. In a market saturated with gritty, brown, one-dimensional shooters, Crysis 2 is a refreshing alternative.

What? What grittier and browner games than Crysis 2 are saturating the market, exactly?

I'm sorry, but this strawman of the Horrible Brown Video Game is really starting to get under my skin. Crysis 2 is a first-person shooter about a man in a robot suit who fights aliens and PMCs to protect America. In what way is that not the blandest, most overdone thing possible? Why is it forgiven for being the illegitimate child of Halo and Modern Warfare because it includes the color green?

Crysis 2 is a decent game.....but it is NOWHERE as good as the first game IMHO

This game just f**king sucks.
The AI is bad enough to be game breaking. There is almost zero point in approaching a goal with the idea of using stealth because they can see through terrain and will look at you regardless of their alert level to your presence.
The graphics are good...For DX9.
Overall the graphics suck. It's a smart system that gives the impression of DX10 features by using pseudo-depth of field by blurring the edges of the screen, but why the hell is it DX9 only? The first Crysis was DX10!
The story line is a nonsensical mess, the enemies repetitive enough to be tamed through run & gun gameplay and the setting is extremely forgettable.

And then there are the PC only issues. Firstly auto-aim on the PC is ridiculous. Secondly the 3 graphic options take the piss. Secondly the claim of PC first. Don't lie Crytek, especially when your lies are so obvious. Thirdly the controls are just sh*t, utter, utter sh*t.
Press 1 for your gun
Press it again to cycle to your next gun.
Press 1 twice in succession for your grenades.
Press 2 to change weapon mode.
Press 3 for Rocket Laucher.
So to go from shotgun - > rocket launcher -> assault rifle is impossible.

Here's a radical idea. 1 for first weapons, 2 for second weapon, 3 for launcher, 4 for grenade, x for rate of fire. Not like that hasn't been done in almost every other game on the market...

All this game has done is make me appreciate Bullet Storm more.

For someone who is new to shooters, 8/10. To any veteran 4/10. Functional, just, and nothing that hasn't been done before, and done better.

Fieldy409:
you dont think bioshocks story is any good?

The plot itself, not really. What exactly is the meaning and value behind spending a few hours saving the trees in Arcadia or assembling a Big Daddy suit? There isn't any, it's just entertainment. Filler, if you're feeling bitter. Toying with the issue of player agency is the only thing for which Bioshock needs an interactive medium, otherwise the plot would just as well fit a book. And that book would probably be labelled "young-adult pulp-adventure" like thousands of other books.

But pretty much all games are like this. Classical narrative theory falls apart disastrously when forced into an interactive environment. JRPGs are a good example - their stories are often long and complex (actual depth... varies wildly), but they usually have zero interactivity. Playing through them is an entirely separated addition, like a novel with an exploration and stat micromanagement meta-game. And then you compare them to HL2, which is similarly linear but less abstract and with a few more freedoms (seamless transition, no interruptions, no cutscenes, first-person only), and a complex dramatic story becomes completely impossible through conventional exposition. Players gain palpable interactivity, and won't be held down before walls of exposition - they jump around the room and click on stuff while NPCs chat in the background and give the bare-minimum of story, most of which ends up being told through optional interactions with the environment.

Shooters will always have these problems when trying to force the player to care for their story, whether it's a typical juvenile power-fantasy or a masterpiece of literature. Traditional storytelling largely doesn't work, cannot support the drama, and isn't at the centre of attention. Games have other ways of shining.

Why do you guys put the same video twice in your reviews? Im always like....oooh yay 2 video review EPIC...and then it turns out its the same O.o

I love how you say "Most enjoyable fps I've played in Months."

Serving UpSmiles:

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.... :/

Well one of the weak point is the graphics... So yeah....

Note this is comparison to Crysis 1

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here