Graphically speaking, Crysis and FC2 don't try for the same "look". If you compare a long-distance view of FC2's African landscape with Crysis's island paradise look, Crysis seems to scale out better. FC2 looks a bit lego-blocky to me at times in its distance views. The water of Crysis is more striking and brilliantly reflective, but FC2's does an excellent shadows-of-trees-on-a-calm-surface effect, with a much more muddy, earthy feel. The two looks complement their respective environment well, and both look good.
Crysis contains more eye candy in general - motion blur, water dripping down the goggles, ice refraction, accurate artificial lighting, more variety of surface textures / refractions, etc. The physics in Crysis seem to scale better from small to large objects - a mug falling and a truck falling are much different, whereas FC2 does not differentiate as much. Plant physics are similar, but Crysis' palm tree ferns have an awesome collision detection that FC2 cannot really match with anything.
On the other hand, FC2's fire system, wind variation and weather patterns deserve special mention. Grenades cause hundreds of small leaflets to be blown off of trees and sent flying, absent from Crysis.
Also, the "feel" of Crysis (like sniper zoom shake, jumping, starting / stopping moving) is perhaps paid a bit more attention to. But this stuff is more subjective.
These are the obvious comparisons - the gameplay is quite different. Crysis' more scripted nature allows for more dramatic elements guaranteed for the player to experience, and is more exciting in this sense. FC2's excitement comes from the absolute freedom allowed. Both are excellent games!
Log in to comment