Was Crysis 2 really that bad?

Hello,

So my dear friends, 10 years ago, Crytek released Crysis which was masterpiece and ground breaking title. it was ahead of its time. and even after 10 years. game still looks great.

then few years later, Crytek released sequel Crysis 2 which disappoint many fans. and almost everyone was complaining about it including me. i was disappointed that it remove the openness, the freedom, change the suit power gameplay etc. it was dumbed down version. but then i still liked it. I think it was still a really good game if not better than original game. the gameplay in general was still great. the soundtracks were amazing and game was really fun.

fast forward they release crysis 3 which i always forgot it even exist at all. not only worst game but also the most forgattable game in franchise.

i even think Crysis 2 was better than the likes of Far cry 3 and 4. even thought it was incredibly dumbed down but imo it was not bad. when you compare it to terrible FPS games of last gen. it stand strong.

Do you think it was bad game? or its just bad compare to original?

Discuss

The levels were too linear and the SP was short. I blasted through it only using maximum armor.

crysis second half was also very linear.

linearity is not bad thing and i take linear games over todays boring open world games like far cry, GTA and AC any day.

Nope. It was more streamline thats it. The hate really stemmed from it being available on consoles so PC gamers as usual lost their minds and threw a tantrum.

Crysis 2 was good, but nothing like the masterpiece crysis 1 was.

Comparing to the first game they diminished alot features that made Crysis 1 great. The one main issue I had with the 2nd was the story and continuity issues.

@ghosts4ever: it's not good when you're trying to be call of duty linear.

Not really. It was fun, a solid 6/10 game.

@Pedro: there's a reason why people were upset.

Why else would the game have linear small levels and non impressive graphics compared to the first. The game released on weak last gen consoles.

I went into Crysis 2 expecting to like it at least as much as Crysis 1 and Warhead but I ended up being very disappointed by it. I didnt like the new suit mechanics, I didnt like the way the guns were in your face like a Halo game, I didnt like the story and like everyone else I didnt like the lack of openness to the levels. I loved the soundtrack though.

After about four hours playtime I found myself rushing through the rest of the game just to finish it so I could uninstall it and never play it again. I dont know why but that didnt stop me buying Crysis 3, perhaps I was hoping they would make it all better and although I thought Crysis 3 was better than Crysis 2, it still wasn't very good.

I enjoyed Crysis 2, and in some ways preferred it to the original game. The levels may have been more linear, but I felt the pacing was better and I enjoyed the story and characters more. I played through using a lot of stealth and took my time. For me, that made it a more enjoyable experience. I played it on PC and I believe I had to lower the settings to medium to get a decent frame-rate at the time. I didn't care, because graphics alone can't hold my interest to play a game; that takes solid gameplay, a decent story and some good voice acting to make characters interesting, all of which I found in Crysis 2. Other people's mileage may vary dependent on their personal expectations.

Well they were upset because the game was streamlined and its scale and scope made much smaller because of consoles. Supposedly. If it had maintained its grand open environments and system melting graphics, nobody would have complained but it didn't continue what Crysis did. It was just another shooter.

I thought it was better than Crysis +Warhead and 3.

Crysis had a stupid, but simple, and fun B-story. Warhead had an even goofier story, with a likable protagonist.

Crysis 2 (which boasted about it's story prior to release) had an incomprehensible story where people said a whole lot of nothing. Deadly earnest, but totally hollow. A vacuous cliche' under the impression it was a high concept thriller.

Crysis 1/Warhead actually did have an original setting, at least later in the game, when you have a winter-wonderland tropical Island, with a surreal sci-fi space-ship underground, inside a volcano.

Crysis 2 is an off-brand Halflife 2. Without the good. It follows the same pattern as Crysis with a morphing environment late game, with the only once of creativity a final level set in a floating sky fortress i.e. The Citadel

Crysis/Warhead gave the player options how to play, among highly interactive environments.

Crysis 2 literally spells out 2-3 options telling the player what to take. With obviose, trite setups, where the only real interaction is a scripted kick-car animation. Instead of sacrificing suit power, everything is streamlined and simplified to make stealth even more overpowered than it was in the first two, a "you win" button.

Crysis 2 does improve the alien enemies, while the human enemies are dumb, and boring, the alien AI, when it's not borking up is surprisingly good. They stealth, hunt for the player, take into account vertical positions, use utilities, stick together and generally are far more engaging than the aliens in either Crysis or Warhead. Probably the best thing in the game.

While Crysis 2 lacks the scale or interactivity of Crysis, it runs a hell of a lot better. The initial levels aren't impressive looking, (in fact they are quite ugly in places) later levels like New York at night look simply stunning, easily running 60fps on mid end hardware. But with limited graphic options that goes in direction opposition of the tweak minded fan-base it had cultivated.

Crysis And Warhead are also far better paced. They never really felt like they were dragging while at the same time giving the player cool down moments to express themselfs. Crysis 2 is a console game through and though, constantly barraging players with sensory overload until bombastic becomes routine, and routine become laborious.

Crysis left a mark, it become synonymous with pc gaming. The manly game for men. No scrubs allowed.

Is Crysis 2 terrible? Nope. Is it particularly good? Na. It's just totally forgettable. a corporate reinvention with aspirations of becoming Halo or Call Of Duty, failing spectacularly, a completely misguided attempt at drawing in a new audience while telling it's pre-existing (and passionate) existing fan-base to ****-off, you're not good enough, we deserve better.

And I guess they got what they deserved. ^-^

Crysis 1 is shit, Crysis 2 is shittier and Crysis 3 is still shit. The only thing I find interesting in Crysis is that it looks pretty.

I actually played crysis 2 first, and thought it was pretty decent. Nice visuals and atmosphere, a little boxed in and repetitive second half but still a fun game.

Then I played Crysis 1 and was amazed at how much was missing from the sequel. No drivable vehicles, linear narrow levels, dumber (human?) AI, and just less environmental interactivity in general. I did miss the ledge grab, car kick, and maybe the consolidated suit powers but overall 2 felt like a downgrade.

I really enjoyed Crysis 2 and thought that it was a pretty good game myself. The story was somewhat convoluted but the game looked and played very well.

Crysis...a masterpiece?

Ya that might be stretching it but you can't deny it's importance and place in pc gaming history. This company managed to take a tech demo for their engine and actually turn it into a pretty good game that stood out from the others at the time. That is even before you consider that the visuals were ground breaking at the time. A lot of people believe Crysis is what started a huge push towards visuals (for better or for worse) in gaming.

The best thing about it was the awesome Hans Zimmer theme

Crysis 1 had an identity. You were a mad man loose in Disneyland for half the game. It funneled down because it wanted to wrap a story up after taking the big fantastical leap against a new enemy and even PCs at the time struggled radically to play the game at passable framerates.

Crysis 2 was just a powered up CoD-like campaign mated to a passable at best MP. The series just hasn't had integrity since. I say that as someone who genuinely loves Crysis 1.

Crysis 2 was a mediocre shooter that came after a fantastic and innovative shooter, so of course it seems horrible after you play Crysis 1. I mean, Crysis 2 isn't really that bad, But it really isn't good either. It's just kind of middling, and there's no real reason to play it over other games. You press Q sometimes while walking down a corridor and killing random things, and every five minutes or so, get a convoluted message or cutscene about the disconnected story.

From what I've played of Crysis 3, it's not even as good as 2. Crytek managed to throw away the story (again) from the previous games, and nothing seems to make any sense. On top of that, the suit powers are still boring in comparison to Crysis 1, and somehow the AI in the game actually got worse. You can stand around forever and the aliens don't seem to be able to find you at all, and humans never lose track of you on higher difficulties.

I just don't understand how Crytek went from making a near-masterpiece Crysis 1 to a mediocre CoD clone Crysis 2? To a horrible CoD clone Crysis 3?

And before anyone tells me they did it to appeal Console gamers, I get that! Crytek got greedy due to Console popularity but that's no excuse to not learn what made Crysis 1 so special. I remember when crysis 2 first came out on PC, the main menu said "press start to continue". The game was literally a console port, not made from the ground up PC hardware.

All the crysis games were boring so yes, yes it was.

I liked it. In fact, I was one of the few here to publicly admit the game was fine at the time. I thought it looked better than vanilla Crysis and Warhead, especially indoors.

It was a mediocre shooter that fell short of the first in every single way. The levels weren't dynamic at all. They were small, linear, and there wasn't much of a sandbox to even have fun in. Crysis 3 was a tiny bit better in that regard, but it still was a far cry from the first and Warhead. Those are amazing games. Still some of the best single player first person shooters to date, in my opinion.

I like Crysis 2, but it is not what I want out of a Crysis game. So, decent shooter, but disappointing sequel.

I liked it. ;)

I liked it.

I'm still waiting on an apology from Crytek for Crysis 3, meanwhile.

Meh thought all 3 games were mediocre at best, crysis 1 was a pretty impressive game for its time of course, but gameplay wise it wasn't that great, specially the terrible second half was awful...

I prefer crysis 2 of crysis 3 i want crysis 4 on my ps4 pro

If Crysis 2 was new IP rather than sequel to original Crysis. it would be amazing game. but as a sequel to Crysis 1 its bad.

Crytek did abondon PC gaming just like how CDPR did but people love witcher 3 and hate Crysis 2. when Crysis 2 is much better game than witcher 3 by far.

Crysis 2 is also better than craps like new order too.

honestly if Crysis 2 released in this generation. it would not be dumbed down because more and more developer today want open ended instead of bieng linear.

It's not the strongest in the series IMO.

Quite true. It's nowhere near as bad a reinvention as the New Order.

Awful game.

If it had released with DX11 already built in instead of waiting for the patch it would of got a much better reception.

Its also better than far cry 4.

But Far Cry 4's better than Metro.

It wasnt horrible, but it was so bland and lifeless it just wasn't fun or enjoyable to play.

The first Crysis felt like a follow up to Far Cry - beautiful island location with tons of destruction physics, large, complex environments and plenty of scope for improvisation. The second and third games felt much more boxed in, with very linear, static stages and no real physics to speak of. They still had the nanosuit, and they made for some great screenshots, but that was basically it. It's not that 2 and 3 are bad games, they just feel really scaled back to the point of being basically the same as every other FPS on the market at the time.

my friend, i respect your opinion but come on. a single metro game is better than entire far cry series.

beside next metro is open ended kinda like crysis 1 so it will own both crysis and far cry alone.

Far Cry 4 let's player play how they like. Allows incredible tactics like calling up AI to help or use a helicopter and shoot any weapon player likes from it. Send in a bear or tiger. Play stealth like Solid Snake. Customize weapons, learn cool skills like instant take down.

Metro walk in a line, listen to Russian man, watch cutscene, watch cutscene, watch cutscene, 2 minutes of shooting, listen to Russian man, listen to Russian man, cutscene, press X during cutscene, 2 minutes of shooting, cutscene, come to city hub, listen to Russian people, watch cutscene, watch cutscene, watch cutscene, 2 minutes of shooting, listen to Russian man, listen to Russian man, cutscene, press X during cutscene, 2 minutes of shooting, QTE ending.

6 hours later done.

It was dissapointing enough to make me not want to play it. They really had something with the first and just threw it all away. There were way better games back then deserving of my time than Crysis - The dumbed down console version. I just wish Crytek would close shop so that they don't have the rights to TimeSplitters anymore that they don't do anything with.

In metro, you explore the enviroment, find your ways, the atmosphere, increadible story, shooting plus stealth, gas mask system outside of metro tunnels. it was one of the most refreshing game of last generation.

now in this gen. what they are doing is evolve the franchise. they are opening up level design to make it feel like Stalker.

In Far cry 4, you just travel from point A to point B, watch a long and unskippable cutscene, complete a mission, repeat the cycle again.

Metro is a pretty good Call of Duty game.

@uninspiredcup:

http://www.gamesradar.com/metro-last-light-preview-6-reasons-its-antidote-to-call-duty-fatigue/

heres the article show why metro is very different than COD.

Imagine a sequel to one of your favorite games where they take out half of the gameplay elements that made it really enjoyable, change the direction of the story, kill off the main character from before in a prequel comic, and to top it off streamline gameplay plus level elements to accommodate the console audience.

Take all of that, lower your expectations by a lot, and somehow still end up disappointed. It's been a while so I'm exaggerating the amount of gameplay changes but it still turned out awful. Art direction in 2 sucked as well but at least 3 did it better. Hoping Hunt actually turns out as fun as it looks, despite it being heavily changed from the initial concept.

Yup, basically this is correct. The game was mostly hated because it was on consoles, point. PC gamers blamed consoles for it being more streamlined because "the console hardware couldnt handle Crysis "openess"... until Crysis 1 was made available on consoles without much sacrifice proving that the Crysis "openess" could have been done on consoles so the decision for Crysis 2 being more streamlined was up to the devs and not the consoles hardware. PC gamers were proven to be full of sh*t. Even when Crysis 1 was anounced for consoles they threw another tantrum... they tried to divert the fact Crysis 1 was on PS3/X360 by saying it "was not the same game" wich is a load of crap. Other than the graphics, performance and a slight user interface change (and I believe some level towards the end of the game that was streamlined sh*t anyway), they're exactly the same game. Crysis 1 "openess" was fully integrated on last gen consoles. I know, cause I actually played both:

and here

After Crysis it stunk, really, really, bad. The powers had been gimped and the the environments sucked ass. Crysis died with C2.

I actually enjoyed the game more than uncharted 3 and that was console version.