Why all the Crysis 2 hate?

[QUOTE="mitu123"]I got up to 70 on a GTX 460, I can't even get that high in Crysis 1.XD Maybe 2 460s would do it.AnnoyedDragon

There must be something wrong with my drivers or something, because I'm dipping below the 30s on hardcore at my native res. It stays above the 30s and hits 40s from time to time, but it doesn't stay above 30.

These cannot be the correct frame rates. Because while Crysis 1 had all sorts of frame rate stability problems, at least it did something with that performance. There is nothing about Crysis 2's visuals that suggests to me it should be stressing my PC.

I get 50-60 FPS constantly though.

[QUOTE="mitu123"][QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"] Runs worse? I'm getting average around 70-80fps... game runs smooth as butter for me. :oskrat_01

If you can see it, it's actually there. Not a fake LOD object impersonating the object; while offering no interactivity. This offered a great sense of scale in Crysis 1, with the island feeling alive; rather than revolving around you.

AnnoyedDragon

Doesn't crysis 1 use LOD? You can easily see it in the beach benchmark that uses the first level.

Is your 460 even OC'd? It also doesn't help that my cpu is a little better than yours, it's a Athlon II X4 645.=p I can't even get that high in Crysis 1 still.

I get 50-60 FPS constantly though.

mitu123

Overlocking of course improves performance, but your claimed figures (if at my settings) go against Nvidia's own, and of course they would want to promote their hardware.

Check out their bench results. So if you are running Hardcore at 1920x1200, you are claiming to be getting GTX 580 level performance from a OC'ed 460?

Doesn't crysis 1 use LOD? You can easily see it in the beach benchmark that uses the first level.

topgunmv

All games hoping to be reasonably optimized use LOD, but Crysis LOD objects are still interactive at very long ranges.

The difference between 30 and 70 is a tad too big to make that claim don't you think? I doubt mitu123 was using 1920x1200 at hardcore settings like I was, not with that frame rate. I think my frame rate is the more realistic one, given the benchmarks Nvidia ran.

Do you have any idea how many times I have had to explain this? Just to have someone shrug it off on a whim, because it is inconvenient for their argument? It begs to question the point of typing all of it up.

It's not my opinion that Crysis 1 offered far greater scale than Crysis 2, it's a fact, and anyone who says otherwise is wrong. Consoles simply don't have enough memory to support that sort of scale, something the head of Crytek himself has said. It is this, being a console specific limitation, which often has people rejecting it; because it shows consoles aren't just as capable as a PC.

AnnoyedDragon

No, I do not think that is too big at all. I have seen rigs in the past comparable to my own run games at stop-motion-like framerate when I ran it smooth as butter--and vice versa. Problems with software, and even the hardware can be the culprit. This tends to be an issue with PC gaming in the sense with the large array of customization comes the inevitable inability to prepare for every configuration possible. You can believe whateve you so please, of course.

You have your mind made up. I know it, you know it. You are set on your view, and your view represents ... wait for it ... wait for it ... wait for it ... "reality." My view and what I say is "factual" and there is no arguing against it. Note: I am not referring to me in that previous sentence when I say "I" and "my."

I'm glad you've played Crysis 2 from start to finish to make that declaration. Tell me, how was it?

All games hoping to be reasonably optimized use LOD, but Crysis LOD objects are still interactive at very long ranges.

AnnoyedDragon

I see, I wasn't sure what you were getting at.

My monitor only goes up to 1920x1080 though, and it does dip into the 30s in Pier 17, but Skyline is easy as crap to run.

I mainly play in 1680x1050, I should had said that, LOL.

[QUOTE="AnnoyedDragon"]The difference between 30 and 70 is a tad too big to make that claim don't you think? I doubt mitu123 was using 1920x1200 at hardcore settings like I was, not with that frame rate. I think my frame rate is the more realistic one, given the benchmarks Nvidia ran.

Do you have any idea how many times I have had to explain this? Just to have someone shrug it off on a whim, because it is inconvenient for their argument? It begs to question the point of typing all of it up.

It's not my opinion that Crysis 1 offered far greater scale than Crysis 2, it's a fact, and anyone who says otherwise is wrong. Consoles simply don't have enough memory to support that sort of scale, something the head of Crytek himself has said. It is this, being a console specific limitation, which often has people rejecting it; because it shows consoles aren't just as capable as a PC.

Stevo_the_gamer

No, I do not think that is too big at all. I have seen rigs in the past comparable to my own run games at stop-motion-like framerate when I ran it smooth as butter--and vice versa. Problems with software, and even the hardware can be the culprit. This tends to be an issue with PC gaming in the sense with the large array of customization comes the inevitable inability to prepare for every configuration possible. You can believe whateve you so please, of course.

You have your mind made up. I know it, you know it. You are set on your view, and your view represents ... wait for it ... wait for it ... wait for it ... "reality." My view and what I say is "factual" and there is no arguing against it. Note: I am not referring to me in that previous sentence when I say "I" and "my."

I'm glad you've played Crysis 2 from start to finish to make that declaration. Tell me, how was it?

So what you are saying is that you don't believe the creators of Crysis when they say that the current consoles can't handle the large scale worlds? :|

yellonet

How are people having trouble running this over the original? It's easy as crap in comparison. This better not be another Black Ops...

No, I do not think that is too big at all. I have seen rigs in the past comparable to my own run games at stop-motion-like framerate when I ran it smooth as butter--and vice versa. Problems with software, and even the hardware can be the culprit. This tends to be an issue with PC gaming in the sense with the large array of customization comes the inevitable inability to prepare for every configuration possible. You can believe whateve you so please, of course.

You have your mind made up. I know it, you know it. You are set on your view, and your view represents ... wait for it ... wait for it ... wait for it ... "reality." My view and what I say is "factual" and there is no arguing against it. Note: I am not referring to me in that previous sentence when I say "I" and "my."

I'm glad you've played Crysis 2 from start to finish to make that declaration. Tell me, how was it?

Stevo_the_gamer

Let's ignore that a 40fps difference in frame rate on the same GPU is normal to you, without one of the cards being highly defective. Let us also ignore that another poster, and Nvidia's own benchmark figures, take issue with their claimed figures. Both Nvidia and myself must just be really unlucky with our hardware.

Yes, my arguments are reality, they are factual. This is something you seemed to have difficulty grasping yesterday, when you argued a "wait and see" approach on something that is a technical impossibility. Believe it or not, some of us actually use facts from time to time, instead of flailing at each other with opinions all day.

I don't need a crystal ball, I don't need to play the game. Consoles aren't about to defy the rules of reality any time soon.

I do believe the statement is being blown out of proportion when it was made many years ago before even Crysis released; a lot has changed since then. And I also believe it's a petty, and downright silly thing to critique a game when they have yet to experience it. But hey... I guess bashing a game one hasn't played is the current mantra for SW spirit.

Stevo_the_gamer

Today's console hardware is the exact same spec as it was during 2007...

Let's ignore that a 40fps difference in frame rate on the same GPU is normal to you, without one of the cards being highly defective. Let us also ignore that another poster, and Nvidia's own benchmark figures, take issue with their claimed figures. Both Nvidia and myself must just be really unlucky with our hardware.

Yes, my arguments are reality, they are factual. This is something you seemed to have difficulty grasping yesterday, when you argued a "wait and see" approach on something that is a technical impossibility. Believe it or not, some of us actually use facts from time to time, instead of flailing at each other with opinions all day.

I don't need a crystal ball, I don't need to play the game. Consoles aren't about to defy the rules of reality any time soon.

AnnoyedDragon

You need not ignore anything, you are welcome to disagree or agree with whatever your mind tells you as so. I run the game with flying colors, I am not shocked to see others as well do the same. Mitu made a comment, and you lashed out at him for that comment--if anything, that was just unnecessary.

With yesterday--and today mind you--I think it's inherently silly to already make declarations (and then bash the game because of it) on a game you haven't played based quarely on a multiplayer demo for a singlepayer centric game. I also think it's rather silly to come into an argument making absolutes in a field in which you are most definitely not an expert in--unless, you are a game designer here?

Flailing about? I pevious statement continues to remain ever true--tis' not a one way street.

Of course you don't need one, you already have one silly. :)

Today's console hardware is the exact same spec as it was during 2007...

AnnoyedDragon

My monitor only goes up to 1920x1080 though, and it does dip into the 30s in Pier 17, but Skyline is easy as crap to run.

I mainly play in 1680x1050, I should had said that, LOL.

mitu123

I should had said that, LOL.

mitu123

Here's my 1920x1080 shot because I can't go any higher. I manage to OC more than that pic suggests as well. Normally over 30-45 at that res.FPS

It's normally 50-60 FPS in 1680x1050.

Stevo_the_gamer is just taking the mick at this point. I'm sure he's not as... uninformed as he would lead others to believe, he's just wasting time.

So can we just drop this, clearly you haven't shifted on the matter.

Here's my 1920x1080 shot because I can't go any higher. I manage to OC more than that pic suggests as well. Normally over 30-45 at that res.FPS

It's normally 50-60 FPS in 1680x1050.

mitu123

Your top sentence is believable, I just don't see how you are getting the 50-60fps you claim. With overclocking perhaps you could touch the 50s, but not the 60s at 1680x1050 at hardcore.

Man, so many threads like this... "Why all the (insert game/ system here) hate?" Because this is system Wars! What more do you need?!

[QUOTE="Xtasy26"]

[QUOTE="DreamCryotank"]

I mean the sections of the levels where you fight. Crysis 1 had alot of filler where you're just running through the same enviroments with no enemies. Crysis 2 still keeps the same ability to plan out your attacks. :roll: Look at the size of the Rescue mission (3rd mission in Crysis 1), it's no bigger then the first mission in Crysis 2. :|

DreamCryotank

Explain to me this...how is it possible to load the vast levels in Crysis 1 on consoles retarded 256MB of RAM? Are the PS3 or X360 made of magic?

Because, from what I've played of C2s SP, I'm not seeing what's so different to C1. Sure there may be a long *** beach with nothing but a guy in a jeep in C1, but the compact areas of C1s levels (beginning of Rescue for example) are no bigger than C2s areas. :roll: Jungle enviroment =/= City enviroment.

But original argument that Crysis 2 levels are just as long as Crysis 1 is incorrect. If that was the case I would be able to run Crysis 1 on 256MB of RAM. Have you tried running Crysis 1 on a 256MB of computer?

But original argument that Crysis 2 levels are just as long as Crysis 1 is incorrect.Xtasy26

[QUOTE="DreamCryotank"]

[QUOTE="Xtasy26"]

Explain to me this...how is it possible to load the vast levels in Crysis 1 on consoles retarded 256MB of RAM? Are the PS3 or X360 made of magic?

Xtasy26

Because, from what I've played of C2s SP, I'm not seeing what's so different to C1. Sure there may be a long *** beach with nothing but a guy in a jeep in C1, but the compact areas of C1s levels (beginning of Rescue for example) are no bigger than C2s areas. :roll: Jungle enviroment =/= City enviroment.

But original argument that Crysis 2 levels are just as long as Crysis 1 is incorrect. If that was the case I would be able to run Crysis 1 on 256MB of RAM. Have you tried running Crysis 1 on a 256MB of computer?

I'm not saying the levels are as big, what I'm saying is the parts of the levels where most of the fighting takes place doesn't seem any smaller than in Crysis 1. Crysis 1 just has LOTS of filler where you're running for a good 2 minutes with nothing happening. You can still find vantage points in Crysis 2. You can still take alternative routes, you can still swim. Saying it's a COD clone is WRONG. It still plays like Crysis 1, it's just in a city instead of a jungle.

-edit- Spelling fail lol.

[QUOTE="Xtasy26"]

[QUOTE="DreamCryotank"]

Because, from what I've played of C2s SP, I'm not seeing what's so different to C1. Sure there may be a long *** beach with nothing but a guy in a jeep in C1, but the compact areas of C1s levels (beginning of Rescue for example) are no bigger than C2s areas. :roll: Jungle enviroment =/= City enviroment.

DreamCryotank

But original argument that Crysis 2 levels are just as long as Crysis 1 is incorrect. If that was the case I would be able to run Crysis 1 on 256MB of RAM. Have you tried running Crysis 1 on a 256MB of computer?

I'm not saying the levels are as big, what I'm saying is the parts of the levels where most of the fighting takes place doesn't seem any smaller than in Crysis 1. Crysis 1 just has LOTS of filler where you're running for a good 2 minutes with nothing happening. You can still find vantage points in Crysis 2. You can still take alternative routes, you can still swim. Saying it's a COD clone is WRONG. It still plays like Crysis 1, it's just in a city instead of a jungle.

-edit- Spelling fail lol.

The fact that Crysis 1 as you believe had a LOT of filler where nothing is happening is irrelevant to what I am debating with you. You mentioned earlier that Crysis 2 levels is just as big as Crysis 1 which is completely incorrect. There is no way in hell that you would get Crysis 1 level size on consoles lame 256MB memory.

[QUOTE="DreamCryotank"]

[QUOTE="Xtasy26"]

But original argument that Crysis 2 levels are just as long as Crysis 1 is incorrect. If that was the case I would be able to run Crysis 1 on 256MB of RAM. Have you tried running Crysis 1 on a 256MB of computer?

Xtasy26

I'm not saying the levels are as big, what I'm saying is the parts of the levels where most of the fighting takes place doesn't seem any smaller than in Crysis 1. Crysis 1 just has LOTS of filler where you're running for a good 2 minutes with nothing happening. You can still find vantage points in Crysis 2. You can still take alternative routes, you can still swim. Saying it's a COD clone is WRONG. It still plays like Crysis 1, it's just in a city instead of a jungle.

-edit- Spelling fail lol.

The fact that Crysis 1 as you believe had a LOT of filler where nothing is happening is irrelevant to what I am debating with you. You mentioned earlier that Crysis 2 levels is just as big as Crysis 1 which is completely incorrect. There is no way in hell that you would get Crysis 1 level size on consoles lame 256MB memory.

[QUOTE="dado500"]In Crysis 1 you could get to the far islands in the back, try getting to that building in background in Crysis 2. You can't. http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/9110/crysis22011030219315729.jpg http://i557.photobucket.com/albums/ss20/elbatcho/stockcry.jpgi5750at4Ghz

That's from a console gamers perspective. If there is nothing to kill or blow up standing there waiting for you then there is no point in having such a location. A linear shooting fest is what you're looking for. Giving the player freedom to go and do whatever he/she feels like adds to the immersion and makes the world come alive.

Console games are movies, PC games are YOU going there.

[QUOTE="i5750at4Ghz"][QUOTE="dado500"]In Crysis 1 you could get to the far islands in the back, try getting to that building in background in Crysis 2. You can't. http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/9110/crysis22011030219315729.jpg http://i557.photobucket.com/albums/ss20/elbatcho/stockcry.jpgfireballonfire

That's from a console gamers perspective. If there is nothing to kill or blow up standing there waiting for you then there is no point in having such a location. A linear shooting fest is what you're looking for. Giving the player freedom to go and do whatever he/she feels like adds to the immersion and makes the world come alive.

Console games are movies, PC games are YOU going there.

Crysis = Nice game with very good world size and interactivity.

Crysis 2 = Consolized casual trash.

[QUOTE="GeneralShowzer"][QUOTE="DreamCryotank"]

I don't know why everyones complaining about the size of the levels. From what I played in Crysis 2, the levels are still large, they just don't feature tons of filler (running along a beach for 2 minutes staring at nothing but the same trees copy and pasted everywhere).

DreamCryotank

You can still do that in Crysis 2. There's tons of alternative routes, like the sewers, subways, hell, you can even swim half way around the level in the sea beneath Brooklyn Bridge (I think it's that). Seeing a skyscraper collapsed on fire >>>> seeing the same trees OVER AND OVER AGAIN. IMO.

I wouldn't worry too much about Crysis 2 being "dumbed down". Crytek is providing the mod community with the Cryengine 3 and that's what important. I mean think of the possibilities. I am 100% sure that someone will bring back the jungles in no time.

Judging from the Demo, the graphic is dissapointing, Thanks to EA for not making it into PC Exclusive

[QUOTE="AnnoyedDragon"]

Let's ignore that a 40fps difference in frame rate on the same GPU is normal to you, without one of the cards being highly defective. Let us also ignore that another poster, and Nvidia's own benchmark figures, take issue with their claimed figures. Both Nvidia and myself must just be really unlucky with our hardware.

Yes, my arguments are reality, they are factual. This is something you seemed to have difficulty grasping yesterday, when you argued a "wait and see" approach on something that is a technical impossibility. Believe it or not, some of us actually use facts from time to time, instead of flailing at each other with opinions all day.

I don't need a crystal ball, I don't need to play the game. Consoles aren't about to defy the rules of reality any time soon.

Stevo_the_gamer

You need not ignore anything, you are welcome to disagree or agree with whatever your mind tells you as so. I run the game with flying colors, I am not shocked to see others as well do the same. Mitu made a comment, and you lashed out at him for that comment--if anything, that was just unnecessary.

With yesterday--and today mind you--I think it's inherently silly to already make declarations (and then bash the game because of it) on a game you haven't played based quarely on a multiplayer demo for a singlepayer centric game. I also think it's rather silly to come into an argument making absolutes in a field in which you are most definitely not an expert in--unless, you are a game designer here?

Flailing about? I pevious statement continues to remain ever true--tis' not a one way street.

Of course you don't need one, you already have one silly. :)

What you don't seem to understand is why crysis was and still is impossible on consoles. Crysis Loaded the ENTIRE level onto the ram at once, thus requiring vast amounts of ram which the consoles simply do not have. This allowed for Interactivity on an unprecedented scale. For example in the first level you could easily blow up a barrell on the other side of the bay and make those enemy units send flairs up giving you plenty of gameplay options. Crysis 2 uses cell streaming which is perfect for consoles as it is suited to small amounts of fast ram. This however deminishes long range interactivity due to the fact that if you see something which is located beyond the loaded cells it is impossible to interact with. This is why Crysis is absolutely impossible on consoles and why most PC gamers are annoyed.

Because it turns out the most PC gamers use crysis as a benchmark more than a game.i5750at4Ghz

What you don't seem to understand is why crysis was and still is impossible on consoles. Crysis Loaded the ENTIRE level onto the ram at once, thus requiring vast amounts of ram which the consoles simply do not have. This allowed for Interactivity on an unprecedented scale. For example in the first level you could easily blow up a barrell on the other side of the bay and make those enemy units send flairs up giving you plenty of gameplay options. Crysis 2 uses cell streaming which is perfect for consoles as it is suited to small amounts of fast ram. This however deminishes long range interactivity due to the fact that if you see something which is located beyond the loaded cells it is impossible to interact with. This is why Crysis is absolutely impossible on consoles and why most PC gamers are annoyed.

hooeyberg

Here's a simplified break down of the difference between cell streaming and level loading, hopefully it will give a better idea. Green represents areas loaded into memory, and hence interactive range.

[QUOTE="Xtasy26"]

[QUOTE="DreamCryotank"]

I'm not saying the levels are as big, what I'm saying is the parts of the levels where most of the fighting takes place doesn't seem any smaller than in Crysis 1. Crysis 1 just has LOTS of filler where you're running for a good 2 minutes with nothing happening. You can still find vantage points in Crysis 2. You can still take alternative routes, you can still swim. Saying it's a COD clone is WRONG. It still plays like Crysis 1, it's just in a city instead of a jungle.

-edit- Spelling fail lol.

ocstew

The fact that Crysis 1 as you believe had a LOT of filler where nothing is happening is irrelevant to what I am debating with you. You mentioned earlier that Crysis 2 levels is just as big as Crysis 1 which is completely incorrect. There is no way in hell that you would get Crysis 1 level size on consoles lame 256MB memory.

Not fighting..just pointing out what are the realities and facts.

[QUOTE="hooeyberg"]

What you don't seem to understand is why crysis was and still is impossible on consoles. Crysis Loaded the ENTIRE level onto the ram at once, thus requiring vast amounts of ram which the consoles simply do not have. This allowed for Interactivity on an unprecedented scale. For example in the first level you could easily blow up a barrell on the other side of the bay and make those enemy units send flairs up giving you plenty of gameplay options. Crysis 2 uses cell streaming which is perfect for consoles as it is suited to small amounts of fast ram. This however deminishes long range interactivity due to the fact that if you see something which is located beyond the loaded cells it is impossible to interact with. This is why Crysis is absolutely impossible on consoles and why most PC gamers are annoyed.

AnnoyedDragon

Here's a simplified break down of the difference between cell streaming and level loading, hopefully it will give a better idea. Green represents areas loaded into memory, and hence interactive range.

Also add in a linear fps thats stream loaded you can not roam around or plant explosives on one end of the level and set them off on the other side of the level or snipe a guy nearly a mile away. Once your in a cell that is the only area you can see and do anything in. As soon as you leave the cell it dissappears. Anyone remeber Farcry2 ? and the road checkpoints always respawning after you left the area because in a more open ended stream losded game once you leave the cell it resets.

I really dont understand all this denial or hoping this game is going to be as good or better then the 1st clearly it is not from all the proof. Now say on the PS3 had an exclusive game was designed and pushed the graphics and gameplay to the limit. And that Company decided to be able to make more money they set the Wii as the base line for the sqeual which lowered all the standards made from the first in nearly everyway and the PS3 is stuck with only slightly better graphics then the Wii can do and hide the PS3 version and promote the Wii version instead. and the gameplay and level design was altered to suit the Wii. Now wont those fans from the first be angry? because the game is totally inferior then to the 1st. But then the casual gamers from both the PS3 and Wii would defend it .

That's from a console gamers perspective.fireballonfire

Because it turns out the most PC gamers use crysis as a benchmark more than a game.i5750at4Ghz

Yeah I would have to agree on this.. After all the defense of Crysis being a great game and not just be for the graphics.. You than see a complete contradiction in this one where people are whining about the graphics.. The graphics look great by today's standards, but people are up in arms about graphics not matching Crysis 1's.. This to me is facepalm worthy, because many of these same people were defending Crysis 1.

[QUOTE="i5750at4Ghz"][QUOTE="dado500"]In Crysis 1 you could get to the far islands in the back, try getting to that building in background in Crysis 2. You can't. http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/9110/crysis22011030219315729.jpg http://i557.photobucket.com/albums/ss20/elbatcho/stockcry.jpgfireballonfire

That's from a console gamers perspective. If there is nothing to kill or blow up standing there waiting for you then there is no point in having such a location. A linear shooting fest is what you're looking for. Giving the player freedom to go and do whatever he/she feels like adds to the immersion and makes the world come alive.

Console games are movies, PC games are YOU going there.

Yeah I would have to agree on this.. After all the defense of Crysis being a great game and not just be for the graphics.. You than see a complete contradiction in this one where people are whining about the graphics.. The graphics look great by today's standards, but people are up in arms about graphics not matching Crysis 1's.. This to me is facepalm worthy, because many of these same people were defending Crysis 1.

sSubZerOo

The depth is still there. You can still power hit, power throw, power jump. You can still turn invisible. You can still tank in armor mode. You can still mod your weapons on the fly. You can now mod your Nanosuit. You still have binoculars, night vision, the ability to tag enemies and ammo crates.

You can still pick up everything in the environment and use it as a weapon. You can still break down trees. You can break apart barriers. Barrels and shipping crates deform from explosions. Concrete chips off pillars. Shelving in stores get blown apart by explosions.

You still have branching paths and level design that accommodates sandbox gameplay, stealth or action packed gameplay, something inbetween. There are sewers you can use to quietly make your way to the other side of the level, there is scafolding, rooftops and interoirs you can move through.

The AI still reacts to you the same as they did in Crysis 1, accomadating the same gameplay you found in the action bubbles in Crysis 1.

The 'dumbing down' of Crysis 1 to Crysis 2 is the equivalent of Battlefield 3 not having 7 c!asses, not having a commander, and not having lean (oh by the way, has same FOV as Crysis 2 as well).

AAllxxjjnn

Alot of you guys like to throw out a bunch of techincal mumbo jumbo, but if it has no effect on the gameplay experience whats the point?

[QUOTE="DreamCryotank"]

[QUOTE="GeneralShowzer"] In Crysis you are thrown into this realistic massive fully interactive environment filled with enemies. I loved sneaking around, cruising with boats, taking different approaches. It wasn't just, shoot from chest high walls and wait for the next cinematic (like Crysis 2 looks like from video's I've seen)dado500

You can still do that in Crysis 2. There's tons of alternative routes, like the sewers, subways, hell, you can even swim half way around the level in the sea beneath Brooklyn Bridge (I think it's that). Seeing a skyscraper collapsed on fire >>>> seeing the same trees OVER AND OVER AGAIN. IMO.

Obviously you never explored the areas in Crysis 2. There's subway tunnels (here in England, a subway is an underpass for pedestrians to use instead of walking across the road, so there may be some confusion), and there's sewege pipes you can take. In Crysis 1 you can run along the side of a mountain through the bushes. :roll: People act as if you can scale the mountains in Crysis 1.