I enjoyed Crysis 2's campaign more than Crysis. It's more focused, sometimes a bit too much, but I think the game actually plays better because of it. I enjoyed the nanosuit more in the second game as well.
It's an excellent game. It isn't mediocre, the statement that is, is a tear of a shred of credibility. It's a game that is certainly polarising at times in terms of likes and dislikes, but in no means is it 'mediocre'. Far to well made, and intelligently created and executed to be called that.
After playing the Crysis 2 beta i have concluded that this series is mediocre indeed and people only hyped it for teh pretty graphics, beta again was garbage. i will be getting crysis 2 but only when its $20 or below :)
Crysis is probably one of the few FPS to impresed me because I was expecting another Farcry. Although I like Farcry and thought it was a good game; I wasn't a huge fan of it. When I played Crysis I was in awe not only because of the graphics; but the fun things you could do with the gameplay, the physics, the open levels, etc.
The problem is that most gamers now a days think that if it doesn't have 10,000 scripted cutscenes, and 10,000 explosions going all around you and it's not a completley linear, corridor experience, then it's "mediocre".
It's just a completley different tyle of shooter than they are used to. It's a sandbox shooter,a nd it's as fun as you want to make it. You have an island to explore and an objective to complete. No one holds your hand, no one tells you were to go. You chose your own path, you engage the nemy as you see fit.
It's the best kind of gameplay, IMHO.
Kinthalis
agree with all that. the more open, less linear playing style may not suit some people's taste but regardless of that crysis certainly can not be described as mediocre
The problem is that most gamers now a days think that if it doesn't have 10,000 scripted cutscenes, and 10,000 explosions going all around you and it's not a completley linear, corridor experience, then it's "mediocre".
It's just a completley different tyle of shooter than they are used to. It's a sandbox shooter,a nd it's as fun as you want to make it. You have an island to explore and an objective to complete. No one holds your hand, no one tells you were to go. You chose your own path, you engage the nemy as you see fit.
It's the best kind of gameplay, IMHO.
Kinthalis
You are told where to go.There are objectives to complete and you are given commands by Prophet and there is a map with markers. You can go about these in any way that you wish but if no one told you where to go, you'd just be wandering around the island, not knowing what the hell to do.
Both Crysis and UC2 were both mediocre games that extremely inflated reviews because of their GFX. UC2 is worse in this case because cows parade it like the best game ever, its characters were boring and bland and the script was horrible. Enemies were braindead and the devs tried to make the game challenging by swarming you with them and making them take 1000 bullets to kill. The story was meh as well. The platforming was terrible as well and it makes me wonder why people would want this kind of platforming thrown into games, its not even rewarding or moderately fun.
I honestly wasn't that amazed with Crysis. I put a signficant amount of blame on the PC community for spouting incessantly how it was the greatest FPS ever made and was the crown-jewel of PC gaming. WIth such lofty expectations, I was naturally let down. The environmental destruction was toned down from what were were initially shown (the only buildings that can be destroyed are sheet metal shacks that turn into a pile of neat squares, and trees break in five places), the weapons were unremarkable, the characters (save for the awesome Psycho) were cookie-cutter, and Crytek pulls the same stunt that they did with Far Cry by replacing enjoyable human adversaries that you could toy around with with mindless, bullet-sponge aliens/monsters. Don't even get me started on the zero-G mountain level or the lulzy multiplayer component. STALKER easily beat Crysis for me.
people who say crysis is mediocre probably didn't like the concept of the non-linearity crysis offered. in other words, they didn't seek the action. harassing KPA was really fun, and the AI is still top notch. but its not a hallway shooter, you'll find villages along the way and you have a multitude of choices of what to do or who to take out. you really just have to seek the action in the first 2/3 of crysis, and when you make contact with the aliens, its a lot different. if you're not a fan of nonlinear games like crysis or farcry, but dont like the simplistic action like crysis 2, crysis warhead is pretty much an in between game, but with a very short campaign. i honestly found crysis warhead to be one of the most intense games ive ever played. definitely worth a look.
Crysis wasn't particularly deep on characterisation (aside from Psycho...he's British, you muppet!), but it did an adequate job of telling a story of scientists and soldiers getting out of their depth and trying desperately to apply their existing know-how to a literal alien situation.
It nicely mixed up the play style - from patient hunter (although sometimes too patient) to action hero within a short space of time. Sometimes the game was a bit vague about objectives, buggy and a little too sandbox-y in places. If you're used to a standard FPS model then I guess it can be very frustrating. Play it for what it is and you have a good time, play it like CoD with invisibility and you're going to die a lot.
crysis 2 did a good job of making me realize how i should have played the first 1. there seemed to be more of an emphasis on stealth in the 2nd where in crysis 1 it was just an option that i constantly overlooked. i need to go through 1 again now :D
Both Crysis and UC2 were both mediocre games that extremely inflated reviews because of their GFX. UC2 is worse in this case because cows parade it like the best game ever, its characters were boring and bland and the script was horrible. Enemies were braindead and the devs tried to make the game challenging by swarming you with them and making them take 1000 bullets to kill. The story was meh as well. The platforming was terrible as well and it makes me wonder why people would want this kind of platforming thrown into games, its not even rewarding or moderately fun.
NanoMan88
I enjoyed U2 when it came out but I didnt feel compelled to play it again.
[QUOTE="Arach666"]If the game that won best FPS of 2007 against Halo 3,Bioshock and CoD4 can be called mediocre,then I wonder what the others are...Zensword
Well, people have different opinions.
Of course,I never said otherwise,but Crysis is anything but mediocre(just like the others I mentioned),so it´s just weird to see someone call a game like that mediocre. ;)
and Crytek pulls the same stunt that they did with Far Cry by replacing enjoyable human adversaries that you could toy around with with mindless, bullet-sponge aliens/monsters.Verge_6
Exactly.
I personally prefer Far Cry for whatever reason (better weapons, for one thing), but the first 2/3rds of Crysis are pretty great. And much as the last boss(es) were terrible in Crysis, at least there was nothing as bad as the last room of Far Cry.
You know, speaking of Uncharted 2...(spoilers)
[spoiler] The blue guys were almost as bad as the aliens/monkeys. And even Uncharted 1 had those zombies near the end. What is with developers putting in supernatural bullet sponge enemies late in the game and screwing everything up? [/spoiler]
Crysis was a very boring game with pretty scenery and impressive physics. It was a benchmark and nothing more. Crysis 2 is more fun but feels very generic. I don't think Crytek is particulalrly good at making games.
I honestly wasn't that amazed with Crysis. I put a signficant amount of blame on the PC community for spouting incessantly how it was the greatest FPS ever made and was the crown-jewel of PC gaming. WIth such lofty expectations, I was naturally let down. The environmental destruction was toned down from what were were initially shown (the only buildings that can be destroyed are sheet metal shacks that turn into a pile of neat squares, and trees break in five places), the weapons were unremarkable, the characters (save for the awesome Psycho) were cookie-cutter, and Crytek pulls the same stunt that they did with Far Cry by replacing enjoyable human adversaries that you could toy around with with mindless, bullet-sponge aliens/monsters. Don't even get me started on the zero-G mountain level or the lulzy multiplayer component. STALKER easily beat Crysis for me.
Verge_6
Stalker definitely did more to progress the genre in my mind. Gotta say though, Crysis is still an AAA game - it's just it was never the second coming.
[QUOTE="Arach666"]If the game that won best FPS of 2007 against Halo 3,Bioshock and CoD4 can be called mediocre,then I wonder what the others are...Arach666
Well, people have different opinions.
Of course,I never said otherwise,but Crysis is anything but mediocre(just like the others I mentioned),so it´s just weird to see someone call a game like that mediocre. ;)
You seem to contradict yourself. You said of course but you still can't accept the fact other people have different opinion to yours since you think theirs is "weird".
Of course,I never said otherwise,but Crysis is anything but mediocre(just like the others I mentioned),so it´s just weird to see someone call a game like that mediocre. ;)
You seem to contradict yourself. You said of course but you still can't accept the fact other people have different opinion to yours since you think theirs is "weird".
No,it´s not a contradiction. People can and have their opinions and they may not like a game,but that doesn´t make the game mediocre,that´s what I meant.
Crysis was a very boring game with pretty scenery and impressive physics. It was a benchmark and nothing more. Crysis 2 is more fun but feels very generic. I don't think Crytek is particulalrly good at making games.
The gameplay got stale imo as the inenvironments were all pretty much the same. The game play and graphics is what the game has going for it. But the story is horrible anuninterested. The game has very few guns, and the enemy variety is severely lacking. The game is decent its just not the whole package.
Log in to comment